The film 'An Inconvenient Truth' to be sent to all secondary schools.

[worldgonewild]

Announced here on David Miliband's blog . Good idea or not, you can let him know direct!

Donosaur - the point was that he had to go away and research about global warming. Ad since he has already studied climatology at Uni, he was particualry interested and could make a more knowledgeable assessment than I owuld be able to. He also did more research on it that he should have done, 'cos he was interested.

As it was, in the essay itself, he resisted the temptation to go into the debate and just left it to a bland statement along the lines of "while there is much debate about whether or not global warming is happening, here is what the impact would be if it were....."

Even the IPCC is not saying that the evidence is strong enough to be "proof positive". I mean, is there ever such a thing in science?

But what they are saying is that global warming is occurring, and that whilst the probability of that being as a result of natural climactic processes is less than 5%, the probability of it being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%.

Well, sorry if you think I'm being rude about your DH, but if the President of the Royal Society regards the IPCC as the world's leading authority on climate change, then is he really (degree notwithstanding) in a position to argue?

Quite, Dinosaur

... I'm not saying I don't think it might be happening!!!! (I feel like using capitals!!!!)

I'm saying that there is debate that is not being heard.

To use a controversial example: just about every scientists and their granny, with one well known exception, have said that there is not a link between the MMR and Autism. That is not to say that there are many people who beleive passionately that there is a link and that they just haven't done the "right" research, eg as Jimjams argues, focussing on that very tiny proportion of the popultation who have a particlar vulnerability.

Or again, in the Middle Ages, the scientific community thought that the earth was flat. They were wrong!

The IPCC has its own political agenda. it is a UN orgnasiation that is committed to getting governments to make policy changes. They may be making their assumptions based a wrong premise (the hockey stck principle" which is being used as proof of climate change).

Anyway, I really do need to get on with the my work! I've stil not even been for lunch!

And FWIW - this debate has just made me more doubtful. I had started by always disagreeing with my dh about global warming, but the more I read, the more I see his argument (not that global warming isn't happening, but that we still know so little abut the Earth's mechanisms and how they interact).

It hasn't stopped me trying to do my bit for the planet!

Um, just feel to compelled that it is not true that people in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat.

and there wasn't really a 'scientific community' either. Just theologians of varying degrees of intelligence!

i don't agree with your MMR analogy prettybird. When parents have a personal and very visceral experience of a child changing overnight after an MMR jab they have a very real reason to dispute the scientists, and despite the scientists, have personal experience. Some might call it a gut feeling, based on personal evidence. Does your dh have a gut feeling based on personal experience climate change is not caused by man? Because that is not enough for me I'm afraid. Or does he geography degree make hom more enlightened than the IPCC?

I saw an interview with David Bellamy who as far as I know is still touting the line that global warming is a natural phenomena. His oppostion quickly reduced his arguments to a blabber. Please, i would genuinely like to see a website where all these eminent unbiased scientists are glad to state that global warming is not man made. They must be some where. Anyone know?

Um, I'm not sure that David Bellamy blabbering proves anything much at all really.

Aloha, admit it, you watch QI, dontcha?

but the science says mmr isn't linked to autism doesn't it?

that's what we're talking about isn't it? what the science says?

I thought it a good analogy (and I believe in single vaccines!)

but parents have a real personal experience to go on, that's all.
Yeah i know David Bellamy blabbers anyway
But would still like to see this large number of eminent scientists who don't agree global warming is not man made...

Yes, bring 'em on!

The American Enterprise Institute , who run Bush's government policy for him (sorry voters, it ain't you) has desperately being trying to find some scientists to back their 'climate denial' report. According to this report.

Another source of scientists who argue CC isn't man made;

David Bellamy is reported to have joined the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition , a group of scientists trying to refute what they believe are unfounded claims about man-made global warming.

"Science" is the uncertainty, not the facts.
It is a process where you deal with data that has noise in it, and try to make some sort of model of what's going on.
It is often hard with subtle and slow effects to directly associate cause and effect.

However Al Gore is intellectually dishonest to his very core. His famous quote that "facts are a kind of pollution" betray is his arts graduate background. He (and the BBC) don't like the fact that the evidence occasionally points in the direction he does not like.
This is pretty inevitable since the trend is smaller than the natural variation over a year.
Another thing you won't see on the coverage of Al Gore by the BBC is that he claimed not only to have invented the Internet, but also that the film and book "Love Story" was based on his life.
To Al Gore all truth seems a bit inconvenient...

Little coverage is given to the fact that the Earth is largely homeostatic, ie as you warm it up natural effects tend to cool it down again. Without these the variation in temperature would be a hundred degrees or so, not 10.

To a large extent, it doesn't matter if climate change is real or not.
The steps we should be taking are equally well driven by the fact that we are running out of carbon based fuels very quickly.

I found a list of scientists opposing global warming consensus here . There are other links that I found, but I really should be doing some work!

The irony of this debate is that I actually happen to think that global warming probably is happening, and that it is probably anthropogenic (ie caused by Man) - I just have a fear that if this hypothesis is not properly peer reviewed, if it is just assumed to be correct, and then something else comes up which appears to contradict it, then it would give all the vested interests in the oil etc based industries the excuse to say "I told you so" and then it would be even more difficult to make change happen.

As I have already said, global warming or not, it is the profligacy of modern society we should be addressing - the way we are consuming the Earth's precious and limited resources wastefully.

And as DC says, to a large extent, it doesn't matter if climate change is real or not - the steps we should be taking are equally well driven by the fact that we are running out of carbon based fuels very quickly.

Nice post, DC. Bet you never thought I'd say that.

Although, I do disagree that we are running out of carbon based fuel "very quickly". Our supplies are decreasing, but slowly. And that of course doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything about it. I just don't subscribe to peak oil hysteria -- and I'm not suggesting that you do.

Oh, and I had forgotten about "Love Story". Thanks for reminding me.

Also perhaps of interest to those on this thread is this news story, today on the BBC: Car firms facing pollution curbs

I do question whether costly technology (which will of course be passed to the consumer) is the best approach. The article makes in an interesting point about how traffic congestion contributes to the emissions problems.

Also, if they are reducing the emission through the use of electric motors, then of course the pollution is being released into the environment at the power plant rather than out the back of the car. (although some hybrid cars recharge themselves so they might be better)

We certainly don't want to be showing American programmes we haven't checked or researched and I'm not sure children are the leaders and decision makers who need to know about the situation. But by all means educate children about the enviornment. Mankind on this planet is a tiny blink of an eye in terms of time scale anyway whatever we do about any of this.

The headmaster of my son's prep school insisted no boy left the school without watching Schindler's List at school, something children have immediate ability to control, their bullying, racism etc.

Good post DC.

uwila

The Prius has very low emissions and regenerative braking (so the battery for urban zero emission driving is recharged insitu);

This quote is from the Toyota Prius FAQ page ;

'Prius is certified as an Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV), [6] a standard created by the California Air Resources Board and adopted by other states. [6] AT-PZEV certification means Prius has near-zero tailpipe emissions, zero evaporative emissions and a special extended warranty on emission control components. [6], [7] It is one step cleaner than the previous generation's Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) certification'

YEs, Worldgonewild, the Prius is a hybrid which is what I was referring to when I said "(although some hybrid cars recharge themselves so they might be better) "

If you have a purely electric car which requires plugging in to recharge then you have a case where the emissions are back at the power plant rather than coming out of the tailpipe.

Also, whilst these cars do have lower emission I personally wouldn't buy one for reasons of performance and safety. Smart cars, for example, are little death traps in my opinion.

I am however willing to get out of my car altogether and get on public transport when public transport is accessible, dependable, and affordable. I really to think we need to reconsider the wy we view the car. It has become a way of life. But, Im not sure we as a planet can afford to think that way.

NotQuiteCockney - thanks for the link to snopes, in particular the differentiation between 'invent' and 'create' and its misuse/misinterpretation. As a student of GS, i found that enlightening...

On the topic in hand, just because something is being offered doesnt mean people HAVE to take it or watch it or believe it. My children try to hand me snotty tissues quite a lot. I dont take them. Its called choice.

Agree that Smart cars aren't smart at all & that of course for electric cars the pollution is currently at the power station. I think that so far Toyota have the answer with the Prius technology & they have btw brought out two other models with the same AT-PZEV system. All very safe.