I think we're already past the tipping point at which global warming can be stopped, and that far, far more efforts should be being made to anticipate what future problems we're likely to face, and that resources should be directed more at those than at trying to shut the stable door after the horse has already bolted! Not that we shouldn't keep trying to reduce greenhouse gases, I don't mean that, but that far more emphasis should be placed on anticipation and problem-solving.

There was a National Geographic documentary last year which showed the effects of CH4 release from the Arctic Tundra quite dramatically, when quite large areas of ground could be ignited by simply dropping a lighted match on the thawing surface. The CH4 from long ago decayed vegetation, formerly locked up in the permafrost, is now being released into the atmosphere and accelerating warming.

The accelerating rate of shrinkage of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets is now causing many scientists to rethink the 2000 figure of a 1 metre sea level rise by the end of the century; the latest thinking on this is that it could be as much as 7 metres, which will be catastrophic for many countries, including large parts of the UK. Yet most governments are still working on pre-2000 estimates, and even then it seems they're only taking the minimum amount of precautionary measures. By the time that reality hits, it'll be far too late for probably hundreds of millions of people around the world.

There is evidence that Mars is undergoing Global warming. There is also evidence other planets in our solar system are undergoing climate change.

Yes, maybe we are not helping but I do believe there is also an element of natural warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1720024.ece

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

SPACE.com -- Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

There is evidence that Mars is undergoing Global warming. There is also evidence other planets in our solar system are undergoing climate change.

Yes, maybe we are not helping but I do believe there is also an element of natural warming.

I don't disagree, there are several causes of natural global warming, the intensity of the sun and the distance from it being just two (Milankovitch Cycles?), plus in the case of Mars, the effect of winds caused by temperature differentials carrying very slightly warmer atmosphere towards the poles.

However back here on Earth there's just too much evidence that the vast majority of global warming is man-made. Irrespective of that though, the latest forecasts are worrying indeed, if not for us certainly for our children and grandchildren. It's into that where I personally feel that far more research and resources should be allocated.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...%20climate.gif

I personally dont believe in the idea of dangerous man made global warming. The earths temperature fluctuates all the time, and i think that humans have only increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by about 1%.
I don't believe the atmosphere is as fragile as some think, and a lot of alarmism and bad science and poor computer models go in to promoting the theory.

Mr. Smith, go to the top of the class, I actually agree with you for once.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

Mr. Smith, go to the top of the class, I actually agree with you for once.

Wahaaaayy!!!
Now we're cookin!

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I didn't think I needed to explain this any further, apparently I do.

We see across the media that humans are causing all this climate change, polar bears are dying, ice caps are melting... Its all the fault of humans.

It's not true. The current increase in temperature is completely normal. Polar Bears are not dying due to the warmth, ice caps are melting but will replenish in due time (it follows a cycle).

All of this climate change is caused by humans is rubbish.

Sources? Because I can provide you with several very reputable ones that will prove you 100% wrong.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Sources? Because I can provide you with several very reputable ones that will prove you 100% wrong.

Aah subjective truth, its LA's cryptonite!

Seriously though, yes, I'd like to see these sources too, as I'm firmly in the 'we are accelerating climate change' camp.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

Aah subjective truth, its LA's cryptonite!

Seriously though, yes, I'd like to see these sources too, as I'm firmly in the 'we are accelerating climate change' camp.

You're correct to an extent. LA said that he thought humans literally had nothing to do with climate change. I can prove that wrong. Whether you believe it has been accelerated and worsened by us, or whether you think that we caused it 100% is the subjective part It is, however, undoubtable that humans are involved.

Basic:

European commission - Environment - Climate change - What is climate change?

Less Basic:

http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

Not hugely complex:

Met Office: Key climate change facts

More complicated, but accessible:

Climate change - in my view

This is a fairly balanced opinion written by my father for the BBC:

"The climate of the Earth is always changing. In the past it has altered as a result of natural causes. Nowadays, however, the term climate change is generally used when referring to changes in our climate which have been identified since the early part of the 1900's. The changes we've seen over recent years and those which are predicted over the next 80 years are thought to be mainly as a result of human behaviour rather than due to natural changes in the atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is very important when we talk about climate change as it relates to the gases which keep the Earth warm. It is the extra greenhouse gases which humans have released which are thought to pose the strongest threat."

I avoided more complex scientific sources e.g. universities because LA won't understand them. That he doesn't understand the simple(ish) science behind proving that climate change has been affected by humans is worrying enough, let alone trying to give him more difficult things.

I think when it comes to scientific discourse about climate change, if you are not an expert, you can be persuaded by sources on either side as this is not lab (hard) science but messy real world science with a billion odd variables.

The way I approach it is just logically yet subjectively.

People say cars etc cannot produce enough co2 to have an effect on climate especially compared to a volcano, for example. I take this point. However if you take this point then you must equally take the point that large scale deforestation must have a pretty large effect on the planet's ability to re-absorb carbon. So on balance it just makes sense that by destroying rain forests and pumping out CO2 we are obviously having some sort of impact. Now empirical data shows rising temps, personally I would assume that humans are a large cause until proved otherwise.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

I think when it comes to scientific discourse about climate change, if you are not an expert, you can be persuaded by sources on either side as this is not lab (hard) science but messy real world science with a billion odd variables.

The way I approach it is just logically yet subjectively.

People say cars etc cannot produce enough co2 to have an effect on climate especially compared to a volcano, for example. I take this point. However if you take this point then you must equally take the point that large scale deforestation must have a pretty large effect on the planet's ability to re-absorb carbon. So on balance it just makes sense that by destroying rain forests and pumping out CO2 we are obviously having some sort of impact. Now empirical data shows rising temps, personally I would assume that humans are a large cause until proved otherwise.

Indeed, and what harm does it do to assume that we are in the very least turning a natural occurance into a catastrophe? We are afterall talking about the eventual deaths of millions as a result, don't we have the moral duty to do everything practical to prepare for, if not stop, that likelihood?

Originally Posted by Opinionated74

Indeed, and what harm does it do to assume that we are in the very least turning a natural occurance into a catastrophe? We are afterall talking about the eventual deaths of millions as a result, don't we have the moral duty to do everything practical to prepare for, if not stop, that likelihood?

Yes, again it seems strange to me that generally it is conservatives who have a problem with man-influenced climate change, the same group that advocate pre-emptive wars in order to preserve our safety. But on an issue like this, where our very survival is at stake, they refuse to adopt the same logic. Bizarre.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

Yes, again it seems strange to me that generally it is conservatives who have a problem with man-influenced climate change, the same group that advocate pre-emptive wars in order to preserve our safety. But on an issue like this, where our very survival is at stake, they refuse to adopt the same logic. Bizarre.

It supposedly gets in the way of 'freedom', that non-existent entity that millions of souls are sacrificed to daily in America.

Ah, the Global Warming debate rumbles on, a question to both Dougie and DtE; would any evidence reputable or otherwise alter your opinions of the causes and effects of Global Warming? If conclusive evidence was produced showing Global Warming to be a completely natural occurance but another report rebutted this claim I feel you would side with the report that fit in with your preconceived viewpoint, however valid that viewpoint actually is.

Where do I stand on this issue? I think there is probably some validity to the arguments both for and against, and I am not scientifically educated enough to form judgement one way or the other. When reading the evidence for I am sure 'Man' is at least accelerating the effects, yet the opposing arguments make sense also and I do feel it is all rather convenient in forming policy, particularly in term of increased taxation by way of so called 'Green Taxes'. It's clear that Governments historically have relied on creation of fear to coerce society into following certain necessary policy directions (see War on Terror for evidence) and so I do distrust any person, body of persons or organisations that predict certain death and/or destruction if an alternate path is taken, from the one they propose; it's basically the principal behind religion and we all know my feelings on that subject.

So I come down in the 3rd camp - I don't really care. Okay so it probably isn't a good idea to deforest an area the size of Wales on a daily basis, we should all probably switch off our lights and not leave the TV on standby (for the savings in electric bills if no other reason). Can we alter the fact that the planet is getting warmer, probably not therefore we should take steps for better attitudes to waste etc but not allow fear to determine our decisions. Will my not printing a receipt when withdrawing cash save the world? Will going to paperless billing help - how does my PC recharge - oh yeah electricity, produced in fossil fuel burning power stations - the efforts therefore seem negligible. I reject the need for increased taxation to counter Global Warming and think we should just concentrate on the day to day issues, education, employment, entertainment and convenience - 3500 year of human development should not be rolled back because a few hundred (even thousand) scientists say the world will end in 50, 70, 100 or even 1000 years. Just live life in a manner that is not wasteful and enjoy the time we have.

And do I care what I leave for my children and my childrens children, not really they will have their own issues to face and they will do what generation after generation do - cope as best they can with the challenges that are before them!

Originally Posted by Tete123

Ah, the Global Warming debate rumbles on, a question to both Dougie and DtE; would any evidence reputable or otherwise alter your opinions of the causes and effects of Global Warming? If conclusive evidence was produced showing Global Warming to be a completely natural occurance but another report rebutted this claim I feel you would side with the report that fit in with your preconceived viewpoint, however valid that viewpoint actually is.

I have read evidence arguing both ways, and yes I'm not 100% convinced but as Marxist said, most people are not scientists (I certainly am not) so it boils down to which explanation you place your faith in. With my limited understanding of these things, I can't equate the deforestation, CO2 emmisions and melting ice-caps with anything other than man having 'some effect' on the planet. Its much like the Catholic who believes in God just to hedge his bets, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

I have read evidence arguing both ways, and yes I'm not 100% convinced but as Marxist said, most people are not scientists (I certainly am not) so it boils down to which explanation you place your faith in. With my limited understanding of these things, I can't equate the deforestation, CO2 emmisions and melting ice-caps with anything other than man having 'some effect' on the planet. Its much like the Catholic who believes in God just to hedge his bets, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

And shockingly I agree with you in large part. I do however draw the line at Governments etc creating a culture of fear to push through policy which has a detrimental effect on man through increased taxation and the rolling back of human ingenuity and devleopment. Whichever explanation you side with, the for or against lobby will have convincing arguments, it is the nature of scientific debate (all debate it could be argued) my point is and you agree with me I think, that no matter what contrary evidence exists you will continue to side with those who argue towards mans involvement in Global Warming, and I do not hold that against you. My feeling as I made clear is that, it doesn't bother me nearly enough to worry myself silly over it. Global Warming is probably irreversable and we should just concentrate on issues that effect us day to day, issues we do have an element of control over whilst attempting to cut down the waste we produce. This is sensible but I doubt will reverse the trends that are in motion.

Before I even respond, Dougie you just used the worst possible sources. You used the BBC and Politicians. They are the worst sources.

My sources are actual scientists.
I also have sources from the House of Lords, High Court (UK), Australian Houses of Parliament, and the American Senate.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

That is the issue here.
I would advocate moving onto [some] renewables, waste incineration and nuclear because it is better to be safe than sorry.
Additionally, we will have to use those sources soon anyway, due to the declining presence of fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Before I even respond, Dougie you just used the worst possible sources. You used the BBC and Politicians. They are the worst sources.

My sources are actual scientists.
I also have sources from the House of Lords, High Court (UK), Australian Houses of Parliament, and the American Senate.

With all due respect LA, your stance and argument here seems to represent a microcosm of what's going on in the real world. Instead of pumping decent resources into looking at, and trying to forestall what might well happen regardless of whose fault it is - nature's or man's - all everyone seems to be doing is arguing over whether A or B or C or D or...... is responsible. Then in a typical political way tinkering round the edges of the problem as it was several years ago, which is now probably far too late to be effective anyway.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Before I even respond, Dougie you just used the worst possible sources. You used the BBC and Politicians. They are the worst sources.

My sources are actual scientists.
I also have sources from the House of Lords, High Court (UK), Australian Houses of Parliament, and the American Senate.

The Royal Society is one of the most respected scientific institutions in the world, and my best sources came from them. I am willing to bet that you haven't read their document.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I was actually referring to the other sources

So you admit that you can't respond to the Royal Society source because you are wrong?

Nice to know

Originally Posted by DougieG

So you admit that you can't respond to the Royal Society source because you are wrong?

Nice to know

Actually I have a few comments.

Firstly, in relation to your first post about the sources my words consist of **** and you.

Secondly, the reason I am not responding is because I haven't read the document.

Additionally, being a respected institution doesn't make it right
As Dr The Evidence has said, we are still disputing our ideas of gravity...


There are many different views for climate change. You read things and you accept what one you want. I have read a few, and chose the one I accepted. That is extremely sceptical of humans involvement in climate change on such a scale.

Why? Because it is extremely suspicious when Al Gore's films and works are not to be used in English schools without the correct information accompanying it - as a high court judge ruled.
It is suspicious when they state climate change is killing polar bears when there proof is two dead polar bears after a storm

It is suspicious when they use such small amounts of time to prove there point, when you look at longer periods you notice not only are we getting colder, but this is a relatively cold warm period.

So, in relation to your university comment I stick with **** you.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Actually I have a few comments.

Firstly, in relation to your first post about the sources my words consist of **** and you.

Secondly, the reason I am not responding is because I haven't read the document.

Additionally, being a respected institution doesn't make it right
As Dr The Evidence has said, we are still disputing our ideas of gravity...


There are many different views for climate change. You read things and you accept what one you want. I have read a few, and chose the one I accepted. That is extremely sceptical of humans involvement in climate change on such a scale.

Why? Because it is extremely suspicious when Al Gore's films and works are not to be used in English schools without the correct information accompanying it - as a high court judge ruled.
It is suspicious when they state climate change is killing polar bears when there proof is two dead polar bears after a storm

It is suspicious when they use such small amounts of time to prove there point, when you look at longer periods you notice not only are we getting colder, but this is a relatively cold warm period.

So, in relation to your university comment I stick with **** you.

Just suspicious now is it? What I find slightly suspicious is that earlier in this thread you said climate change was a myth and you had all the facts, now u are just suspicious?

I still believe it is a myth, and I believe the facts are the ones which better represent the situation. My belief grew from suspicion.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I still believe it is a myth, and I believe the facts are the ones which better represent the situation. My belief grew from suspicion.

Not very scientific after all then? Myths and Beliefs - voodoo conservatism?

Examine the entrails of your dead ideologies to see if you can glimpse the future?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

- voodoo conservatism?

Thats the most immense phrase i've heard in my whole life.

MN dont waste your vote on a tree!

Even if the earth does get warmer.... it'll most likely be beneficial, just like in the medieval optimum era (Medieval warm period.) Plus there is no decent evidence to suggest that people are making a significant change to atmospheric carbon levels.
On top of that, a lot of anti GW legislation is just crap.
Its a scare people! DOn't be fooled by al gore and his crooked graphs!

The whole solar system is hotting up. No cars on Mars.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

The whole solar system is hotting up. No cars on Mars.

http://blog.pharmalive.com/wp-conten...8/06/o_rly.jpg

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

The whole solar system is hotting up. No cars on Mars.

Could we have some evidence please, from a reputable scientific source?

Originally Posted by DougieG

Could we have some evidence please, from a reputable scientific source?

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Not that i fully trust this and the other science sites- they always seem to be changing their minds.

http://www.innovations-report.com/ht...ort-49939.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/mars-heating-up-$1074156.ht


But don't get me wron, im not 100% about these sites. I don't like it when they write:
"Scientists have found"
Because thats so unspecific, and makes it sound like everyone agrees and its been proved. Always used when it comes to GW.

Originally Posted by Citizen Smith

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Not that i fully trust this and the other science sites- they always seem to be changing their minds.

Sun’s direct role in global warming may be underestimated

SPACE.com -- Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/mars-heating-up-$1074156.ht


But don't get me wron, im not 100% about these sites. I don't like it when they write:
"Scientists have found"
Because thats so unspecific, and makes it sound like everyone agrees and its been proved. Always used when it comes to GW.

www.space.com is reliable. Its always seems to have good links with NASA.

Your comment about "scientists have found", if they actually gave the names would we actually care.?

There are a number of excellent organisations and websites that provide balanced material on the global warming scare. In particular:

The Australian Climate Science Coalition
http://www.auscsc.org.au/

The International Climate Science Coalition
<http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/>

CO2 Science
<http://www.co2science.org/>

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/>

IceCap
<http://icecap.us/index.php>


Climate4you
climate4you welcome

Watts Up With That
Watts Up With That?

Bob Carter's website
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

Mr Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, has had a great influence on the public debate. A High Court case in the UK, and other published critiques, establish that it contains many errors and serves a propaganda purpose. See:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm>
<http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html>
Balance and Context in the Global Warming Debate

<http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI>
or download from http://www.climatedvd.com/DownloadVideos.htm

They're not balanced! They're just in support of your view. That doesn't mean balanced, LA.

However, some of them are good. Taken into account with the number of scientists who support the idea of human influence (to piece together a balance), I would say that they show what I was saying earlier about how it isn't clear - cut and that there are a lot of uncertainties. Anyone who tells you that they know for a fact what is happening and will happen is lying, which is why there are so many interpretations of the same evidence.

It doesn't show that there is NO human involvement, it calls into question the extent to which humans are involved.

Still, what noone denies is that it is happening. It is irrelevant what caused it, because it is happening and we need to combat it. Switching energy sources is sensible even if fossil fuels were not a contributory factor. We are running out of metals and other resources, so it makes sense to recycle.

By the way, WHENEVER you see 'sunspots' given as a reason for climate change, it is pseudo-science:

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Forgive me if I discount about half of the sources you gave for this. The scientist who first espoused it as an idea (I forget his name) started putting money on his predictions based off sunspots. He's now bankrupt and trying to find a new home. These are the sorts of scientist who espouse some of this ridiculous 'science'.

An interesting report, "Climate Policy for Energy Ministers at their G8 Meeting in Rome, Italy (2009)" is available to download as a pdf file from here. This is a summary of the current position being taken on the whole issue of global warming, in particular in light of cut backs due to the recession, and was written by the International Energy Agency especially for government ministers attending the conference last month.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

his headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.


So Dougie

Like I said a while ago, it is getting colder

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

his headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.


So Dougie

Like I said a while ago, it is getting colder

So how do you explain the massive loss of sea ice around the globe Grant?

Post glacial warming is real.

Man made global warming is BS.

Originally Posted by flash

Post glacial warming is real.

Man made global warming is BS.

As you are not a climate scientist you do not have the knowledge to rule out Man made global warming Flash, none of us do.

No matter your opinion on Man made global warming, you must agree that the world has to wake up to the damage we are doing to this planet.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

So how do you explain the massive loss of sea ice around the globe Grant?

My own view on climate change is that whilst it's obvious enough that there are some very significant changes going on around the world, and that virtually all the indicators do show a trend towards increasing average temperatures, it's very patchy. Some places are experiencing significant warming whilst others are undergoing a cooler period; other parts of the world are wetter than usual whilst others are drier...... Even 'basic' climatic and weather patterns are only marginally understood; to try to analyse them during more chaotic conditions must be well nigh impossible.

Although I've no more of a scientific insight into this than the majority, what does seem to leap out is that whilst mankind's contribution to atmospheric pollution certainly hasn't helped maters at a time of an apparent natural climatic shift, both governments and a plethora of NGOs have blown it up way out of proportion. I have no problem in doing my bit to reduce unnecessary pollution and to clean up the environment, but the constant barrage of "reduce your CO2 because it's causing global warming", as if what miniscule fraction of a percent I contribute will make any difference, is getting to be counter-productive if anything. If we're going to make what could be significant changes to our way of life, at least let's make them for the right reasons!

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

As you are not a climate scientist you do not have the knowledge to rule out Man made global warming Flash, none of us do.

No matter your opinion on Man made global warming, you must agree that the world has to wake up to the damage we are doing to this planet.

As you are not a climate change scientist you cannot take a position at all.
Is that what you are saying?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very few people deny climate change. That would be quite ludicrous. However, many deny the impact of man made climate change.

Frankly, the article I posted from the BBC fortifies my view. The global temperatures have gotten colder, yet more CO2 has been emitted.

The United Kingdom could become a 100% energy renewable country with so few emissions I can fit them in my house. It would not made a sodding difference.
The emissions given off by China would over take our 2% within a couple of weeks.

The fact is, the only people that can reduce emissions with any real effect is that of America and China [and such countries].

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

As you are not a climate change scientist you cannot take a position at all.
Is that what you are saying?

Um no, What I said to Flash was that as none of us are climate scientists we rely on other peoples publications to form our opinions on this.

We can not take Flash's position which was that

Originally Posted by Flash

Man made global warming is BS.

He is completely out-ruling it, yet he dose not have the expertise in that field of science to do that.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Um no, What I said to Flash was that as none of us are climate scientists we rely on other peoples publications to form our opinions on this.

We can not take Flash's position which was that



He is completely out-ruling it, yet he dose not have the expertise in that field of science to do that.

True. But he does have the ability to read the publications of scientists and then make his mind up.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Pause in Arctic's melting trend

Another related article

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

True. But he does have the ability to read the publications of scientists and then make his mind up.

Yes, but even with all the articles. No-one can say with certainty weather climatic change has something to do with human activities or not.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Yes, but even with all the articles. No-one can say with certainty weather climatic change has something to do with human activities or not.

Precisely.

I have mentioned it many times, there are many things humans just do not understand...

Climate Change is one of those.