Well well....
George Orwell was so insightful. The mighty nation of England will become a herd of sheep.

Any government stupid enough to try and bring in these idiotic ideas would soon find themselves unelectable.

Just imagine, nobody in this country able to afford to fly, run a car, eat meat or afford heating in winter; and that would be just for starters. Meanwhile, countries like America, China and India carry on regardless, as will no doubt be the case in most European countries.

Any politician that tries this nonsense will soon be out of a job, as people have no intention of being forced back into the middle ages. Someone should tell these junk scientists to get real.

solution is less people

#2 - Gugga II - Greetings from Chesterhill. I think your post, above, sounds a bit like 'whistling past the graveyard'.

You know that the future described in the article is what WILL come to pass - its just a matter of time.

Think about it this way; don't look upon it as something lost, look upon it as something gained.

In the future - once we are living elsewhere in space - this is precisely how we will live; there will be no meat, no cars, no cheap flights, all carbon, hydrogen and oxygen (and 100% of everything else) will be recycled. There will be no waste.

It really will be a brave new world.

#3 - Navvy - you volunteering?

All this mkght apply but only if one believes the unproven claim that carbon dioxide has caused recent warming (if indeed there is warming and it's not simply temperature measurements corrupted by the urban heat island). What's problem? The theoretical warming caused by carbon dioxide diminishes as the concentration increases, so the next 100ppm will cause less than the last 100ppm. Further we don't if the other climate forces will act to reinforce this warming or defeat it, although the greatest force continues to be the sun and it's not going to do either.

The number of people (or scientists) that believe the hypothesis of man-made warming is totally irrelevant. You're dealing with a pseudoscience here, one that has never been proven.

This report is just so much sensationalist guff!!!!

Of course there are things we can do to reduce carbon emissions but picking out tumble dryers and eating less meat is just crass and trivialises the issue.

Reminds me of the Y2K doom and gloom brigade that said we would go back to living in caves because our computers could not get the date right!!!

Pshaw!!!!!!!

Getting a wee bittie fed-up with all the nonsense these "daily reports" on Global Warming spout up!

All you need to do is use a wee bit common sense. You don't have to give up the necessary stuff ... and if it was just us in Scotland and the rest of the British Isles ... it's a miniscule amount. The whole world needs to convert to these ideas en masse and at the same time for the effects to start ... and that takes time as well. And I can't see that hapening. So it's all a waste of time really. We can't save the planet like this. Music or not!

This article is actually quite refreshing. It clearly emphasises how outrageously absurd this whole Global Warming issue is becoming and the presumption that emission of carbon dioxide has anything to do with it.

Now we are talking about decimating our whole way of life over the way someone set up a computor model.

Look on the bright side - I'm sure the rest of the world is pretty much uninterrested in what less than 1% of the worlds population do on their quaint little island in the north Atlantic.

We've had the cold war, mad cow disease, and Y2K - when can we move onto the next impending earth shattering disaster? How about an Asteroid - we haven't heard much about them recently

"Cherchez la monnaie" - find out who's raking in the cash on the back of this industry.
It wouldn't be Al Gore, by any chance?

It seems from the above comments that the more that the possible negative consequences of global warming are discussed, the more some people are driven to denial.
The reaction is, "What you are saying is dreadful: therefore I will not listen to or consider the evidence; I will ridicule and deny the science; I will erect impenetrable barriers to understanding in my mind to ensure that my cherished world view, of ever expanding material comfort in which I am embedded, cannot be challenged; I will not, will NOT, believe that my cherished world is threatened."

John M from Melbourne #5, continually asks for "proof" that CO2 has caused recent warming, whereas any reputable scientist in any discipline would explain that proof in such matters is impossible. Climate science is not geometry.
He pours doubt on temperature measurements, although such questions have been raised and answered countless times before: there is no reasonable cause to doubt that the Earth has been warming in recent decades.
He mentions that "warming caused by carbon dioxide diminishes as the concentration increases" as if that is something which is not taken fully into account by climatologists: it is.
He says we don't know if the "other climate" forcings will reinforce or negate CO2 warming. We do, with considerable (of course, not absolute) certainty, know that feedbacks are likely to be overwhelmingly positive, at least for several more degrees Celsius of warming.
John M's technique is to sow doubt and uncertainty. That, combined with the above psychological barriers to accepting reality, is unfortunately more than enough to keep you guys in deep denial.

Co2 emmissions and the whole carbon footprint thing is just a phallacy put about because it serves certain agendas.

Global warming is directly linked to solar activity - that giant fusion reactor in the sky.

Jupiter and Mars are also heating up - when's the last time someone drove a 4x4 over them?

Global warming is a natural process - about 130,000 years ago it was 5 degrees warmer than it is now.

#10 "It seems from the above comments that the more that the possible negative consequences of global warming are discussed, the more some people are driven to denial."

What is clearly negative is that the proposed 'solution' to the 'problem' of global warming is to implement Robert Mugabe's economic policy.

As usual, Slioch is the only one talking sense. The same old denial statements keep appearing, almost word for word as the fossil fuel industrialists penned them to protect their polluting activities.
But it's more serious than you think; read this and ponder your future:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/07/03/a-sudden-chang...

#11 Your in denial Nick.

Recent warming has not been caused by changes in solar radiation: whilst changes in solar radiation have caused climate changes in the past, that is not what is happening now. For example, this from the Guardian, 5th July 2007, but there are plenty more authoritative sources:

"the new analysis, to be published in a Royal Society journal on Tuesday, shows that global warming since 1985 cannot have been caused by an increase in solar radiation or by a decrease in cosmic rays.

Mike Lockwood, a physicist at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK, said: "It is absolutely clear that the sun is nothing to do with the recent warming.

"This doesn't rely on models, it uses real data and it shows that all the solar trends have been going in the opposite direction for the last 20 years."

Your other two points are factually incorrect.

Sorry: "You're" not "your", first line.

#2/7/8
I agree,it's all a con.Nearer to the truth would be that it is a natural phenomenon which has very little to do with the human race,at least that's my take on it.

scotland with all its massive output is going to be carbon neutral, thats good all the more for poor usa ,china ,indaia and so on to share. there has to be a worldwide agreement ptherwise small insignificant countries like scotland can sacrifice all that they want to no effect

there are some sick individuals out there and some of the sickest produced this bull***it.
One major point is that human beings were never designed to be vegetarian, so theres no way i will ever give up meat.

#10, #14 Siloch

You'd make a better case if you didn't use the word "denial" in your arguments. It suggests you're pushing a political agenda and not a scientific one. Conan at #4 makes a much better case.

The "doubters" fall into a number of categories. These are some of them:

-- Those who aren't convinced that global warming is due to CO2 emissions.
-- Those that wonder whether it is a reversible process, and whether reducing carbon emissions will have the desired effect.
-- Those that wonder whether creating a "carbon economy" is the right way to deal with the problem, and how it will serve if/when we have to deal with other environmental crises in future.

Actually in Glasgow - the Nile's in Egypt.

Thirty years ago scientists were clamouring about global cooling, now it's global warming.

But lets look at the science (I was tempted to use the loreal tagline -Here comes hte science)

96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%.

Co2 itself about 10% of the greenhouse gases - most of it is water vapour.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.

Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

And finally there are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.

Believe the hippies if you like, I ain't cutting down on meat and flying to suit Greenpeace.

The world has gone mad. Is it true ? I dont know.

Green Facist Politics as described above dont fit with our Global Markets approach to existence.

Things will have to get PRETTY BAD before we take action.

I live in Holland , at around 4 metres below sea level. I hope its not for real or all the canals and dunes in the world wont stop that water from creeping over the rim.

We cant stop china , who are reportedly building around 4 airports a month and god know how many power stations.

Simple fact is that there are too many people on the planet. If the weather becomes ridiculous and people actually die in their droves and crops fail, maybe we will have a green war on chinas population sometime in 22nd century.

We wont change as individuals, the markets wont change us, so who will ?

Post # 3 by Navvy - Totally agree with you, it's time we trimmed the herd

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.

An insignificant remark made in a NASA report on the Mars Global Surveyor.

mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html

No one denies global warming is happening, it is the reasons given that people are sceptical of.
The organisations that advocates humans are responsible have predetermined the outcome of any research they do and either do not research other options or discard any results that will go against the intended findings of their research.

Do not think it is actually that difficult to have large cuts in carbon dioxide emmissions. Unfortunatley reports like this go way over the score to the extend that they alienate everyone.

Personally i would concentrate on motor vehicles and electricity production. There is not reason for cars not to improve their efficiency dramatically and move away from petrol/diesel. (22% of uk emmissions). not exactly effecting people lifestyle if we can still drive. the next toyota prius due in 2009 is reported to acheive 113mpg. Even if it just gets 100mpg given that the average is about 30/35 at the moment that would mean something like a 2/3 drop in car emmisions. Also encourage bio-fuel which the government could do by not adding prohibitive levels of exise duty making it significantly cheaper than petrol. With electric car technologies like the one produced by tesla in the us coming being made commercially there is scope for really moving away from the pertol/diesel option. Sainsburys is apparently introducing electric vehicles for its fleet. Get all the large companies to do the same.

With electricity we have 3 options or combinations. renewables, nuclear and coal with carbon capture. (gas should be left for boilers/cookers etc not electricity). Coal should simply not be used without utilising the carbon capture technologies avail. Remove the vat on fuel to help absorb any additional costs. Beyond that 1) all new houses should be made to a decent environmental level 2)ensure the domestic consumer goods low energy users ie light bulbs, sort out stand by etc.

20. Ah, the 'Oregon Petition' - as phony as hell, more propaganda from the apologists for the earth-polluting oil industry. These people are in the pay of the likes of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris - you know the folks that reassured us that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

Irrespective of the arguments either way, pollution is without a doubt not a good thing and can be demonstrated to the point where even the most ardent of opinions can accept this.

Time is fleeting and what will come to pass is probably more to do with epoch’s rather than millennia, again, neither really here nor there in the miniscule window on time that man affords himself in his appraisal of facts to suit his desires. There is a lot on money and power to be realised in milking this cow. Reaction though, is not preferred over action.

If the "world” is genuinely serious about this then these sanctimonious parasites that regale the world with doom and gloom stories and request more self sacrifice on the part of the hoi polloi and yet all the while continue to live their decadent, bourgeois life- styles should be first in the firing line.

Lets end the gross self-indulgent world first. Lets end huge gas guzzling vehicles, lets end privately owned jets and aircraft, huge yachts, gin palaces lit up like Blackpool. Lets end flights with three folks on board; lets end all the ostentatious and gratuitous behaviour of the crass. That is our first port of call on the pollution front, lead by example as it were.

Where is mans "technology in harmony" with the environment. Internet conferencing was the way to go. No need to travel the world, bring the world to you. Then you realise the travel was nothing to do with efficiency of effectiveness, its the junket of a mindset that it satisfies...

Don’t be too keen to throw your tumble drier out quite yet. Sure there are problems and the climate is changing. Why? Well it could be many things, but one thing is for sure, the powers that be want you to bear the brunt of it, reactionary or not.

No man is an island? Geographical terms aside, the UK is not an island either, the fate of the planet is determined by us, our species and the sooner we open our eyes to the perfidious n

#25 If those scientist "are in the pay of the likes of ExxonMobil and Philip Morris" do you not think they wild be substantially wealthier - most scientists are comparatively poorly paid.

But it's very easy for the green brigade to make the "paid off" accusation to anyone to opposes their views. Heaven forefend you read their research and make an informed opinion.

Afterall, Greenpeace don't buy scientists.

Sr:
Colin Powel comes out clean. There is no Global Warmng. He states Tony Blaire should not have gone to War. Al Gore says the warming is there but the English politicians oh boy here it goes again.Mr. Tony Blaire had it coming. Now it is out. He did not want to go to war. He was taken for a ride. This is on 7th July 2007. Talk of responsible Era if the big powerful nations use the false doctrine of diplomacy or call this hyporacy then sir, where is the responsible Era? Reminds me of Mr. Robin Cook. He had said “no war”. Mr. Brown was quite, now he is the Prime Minster, Sara Clare had the same view of Iraq war and Putin had categorically told Mr. Bush that Afghanistan is no piece of cake that Mr. Bush thought. Vietnam did not teach Mr. Bush. Sir Where is the Responsibility Era?
Geopolitics is now the autocracy. We call this sociology, monarchy, Maoism, democracy all names but the idea is the one man who has the eyes amongst the blind is the king. I stand by this and what we say hear is valid as was during the yesteryears when Ford said, “I need one model only”. What happened? Failed. Toyotas etc beat the American market hollow. Why do I put the auto industry here?
Simple. We do not learn form the CV or DVD games, we do not learn from other countries economics, we know there is a huge hole somewhere but we like ostrich keep out neck hidden n the sand for the storm to go away.
This is nothing but short of the biggest farce and hypocrisies the America politicians’ use. Tony Blaire was pushed into the war. Did he want to go? “No”. Now we know. So what responsibility in whose hands? I have yet to ask one who is responsible. I do not see one at the moment. I find and I like the Japan entrepreneurships. When the CEO makes the mistake, he commits suicide rather then extend the falsehood to the length where the truth comes out so open that the future look bleak not to the rich but the other growing poor countries and the people like Fidel Castro who

20 Nick, you are wrong. Variance in insolation is not responsible for the the global warming we are seeing. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233 Furthermore all credible scientists are up to 95% certain that the changes are driven by anthropogenic emissions; there are no other scientifically accepted theories.
Climate change deniers like you have put the debate back at least 10 years with attendant costs for humanity and others.
It really is time to put ignorance and greed aside & get on with it.

Nick_Byrne: it's just as easy to say the Oregon Petition is correct and the IPCC is incorrect is it not? Scientific opinion is never exact; if you wait for the 'indisputable proof' on anything, nothing would ever get done. However, I would make the observation that the IPCC scientists have been chosen by their respective governments as the foremost in their field. To suggest that the current US adminstation (incidentally, the largest funder of the IPCC) has chosen to deliberately send scientists who will go along with the 'global warming conspiracy' seems a little disingenous to say the least.

Anyhow if, as most of the above seem to think, climate change is an extremely complex global conspiracy to make a few people some money then try this instead....

Pollution of any kind represents waste in the production process. Minimising waste is a logical, profit-maximising process any company worth its salt should try to do - if only for its shareholders. However, production methods have become very ingrained, because companies never have complete information, they need a bit of a push from government in the form of new pollution limits etc.

If polluting byproducts are reduced through recycling or more efficient re-use of non-renewable resources (which are undoubtedly running out very fast), this has to be a 'good thing' economically. There is the added bonus of helping to avert the worst effects of a phenomenon which, at least, a very large number of scientists agree is mostly down to human activity.

It is not just one it is many that has us digging our pockets deeper

Sir:
It is at times excellent idea to come out of the American and the Great 8 or EURO politics and economics and look the farce we have in the poor African continent.
The idea is simple. All read the USA, UK and French or Japanese Yen or Indian Rupees gong up and they are players of the power economics.
Here I give you different prospective subject not just news but the failure of the states as listed in the fp.com (Foreign Policy magazine from USA that lists the corrupted sates and the dwindling Economy).
I am with these and I have posted the comments appropriate to assure that is in fact true.
To reinforce this to you I re introduce you to the comical scene that is frothing like the ale and seats quite in the carton
The idea is to have ONE AFRICA or all the African countries unite to become like EURO one AU, pseudo African Union.
The reason I have to laugh being in this area is that since the break up of the East African Community due to the very wrong economics polices and the politics, one in sociology, one on democracy, one is autocracy, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda respectively.
There was a meeting in Murmur Gaddaffis arena for the African counties to sound the bugle of the unity.

Here I have noted one example of the remark on 9th July 2007 of the president of Tanzania begging the framers to grow at the have time the budget has been drawn so bad that there is no point in reading the budget. It is all wrong. Why? We have the disease called the graft that was is and will stay forever as this is hereditary.
No need to comment on East African Community that is , was to be united many times but fails now we are thinking of uniting African countries but leave Somalia and Sudan as this is the responsibility if the UN.
I put the URL for surety that you may refer this and see that... no 1 Mammur Gaddafi is not the person to l

cntd
Going further, the South Africa and the Botswana have little interest to join the poverty ridden to share the wealth. Rightly so.
We have Zanzibar that was the part of Sultanate of Oman seized by Mr. (Late) Julius Nyerere. The president of this Zanzibar Island, part of Tanzania, is different.
The inclusion of in Tanzania we have two parliaments two presidents and we look at the three Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika and one of compose Zanzibar part of Tanzania.
The Egypt n the North has no interest what so ever n the African culture as t is an Arab land and has all the Arabic of the Saudis and the Middle East.
What we are drawing is as a bigger boundary without any though for the own roof.
Kikwete pleads assistance for local producers

2007-07-09 09:45:48
By Angel Navuri
President Jakaya Kikwete has ordered the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing to support local investors to produce quality products and in big quantities.

Kikwete made the remarks when he visited the Dar es Salaam International Trade Fair on Friday.

He said that most local investors have been producing quality products but in small quantities.

``Local investors have quality products but in small quantities such that if they get big orders they fail to supply,`` he said.
http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/07/09/94082.html

I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD

Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa.

It’s amazing if the Government turned round and said you were going to be taxed for no other reason than, we are the Government and we want to there would be an outcry! Just because they stick the Environment at the end of it, it’s acceptable and people say it should have been done years ago.

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD, during the European Medieval period, in fact Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today.

On the other end of the scale, the period know as the little ice age brought bitterly cold winters to many parts of the world, but is most thoroughly documented in Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice.

The first Thames freeze was in 1607; the last in 1814, although changes to the bridges and the addition of an embankment affected the river flow and depth, hence the possibility of freezes. Were there any tree huggers around blaming carbon emissions then? Did anyone put on a concert to raise awareness? No not at all, it was blamed on decreased solar activity and increased volcanic activity.

I won’t be cutting down on meat or travel, just to suit some bean eating hippie!

I am not claiming that pollution is a god thing and nothing should be done about it and I am not saying Global isn't happening either.

But I do believe human have little impact on what is happening and while it behoofs us to maintain the environment - what's being proposed is nonsensical as it's unsubstantiated.

And for those who claim waiting for evidence as hindering the efforts to save the plant - I would rather tacke an indentifiable problem rather than jump at shadows and take the civilised world back to the stoneage just to make a bunch of tree huggers happy.

And #28,31,32 what the hell? Do you expect people to actually read all that?

#27 Nick, if you or anyone doubt the underhand techniques used by tobacco, oil and coal companies to defend their markets against scientific evidence you should read the January 2007 report by the US Union of Concerned Scientists. It is document based (following legal action against tobacco companies) and irrefutable. It is not produced by "the green brigade", and nor is climate science, it's produced by scientists. Here it is:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exx...

Incidentally, it was the same discredited Frederick Seitz who features prominently in the above report who was largely responsible for the fraudulent Oregon petition that you mentioned. About which Guthrie wrote some time ago (saving me the bother):
Scientific American had a look at it a coupel of years ago? They found:
"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community." See:

http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&article...

Your other points in #20 are either irrelevant or incorrect:
It doesn't matter what fraction of yearly CO2 emissions are human caused. What matters is that for the last c. one million ye

The end of the world was predicted for the year 1000. After that came comets, earthquakes, the plague. The end of the world is coming! It didn't come in after 2000, or after 1999 for some. Today, we are more scientific. The end of the world is here again, but not because a ball of dirt in the sky, but because of global warming. Something which has happened before, by the way. We are rapidly approaching a green dictatorship. Welcome to the world of the green brother! Who would have thought that a kind of fascism would emerge again, but this time with a green shirt instead of a brown or black one!

What the hell have meat-free menus got to do with it?

This is all just communisat and nazi oppression lumped under a different name.

...And why are we not allowed to comment on any of the terrorist stories?

OK, I'll put my comments here...

"No armed police at Glasgow" --- Would it have made any difference if there were? Almost certainly not.

"Britain's open door to terror" --- If they enforced the laws properly that exist now then we wouldn't have to endure all the crap we have to endure. That is typical of this government. Restrict people's freedom under the guise of a "terrorist threat" whilst doing nothing whatsoever to enforce the laws that could actually make a difference.

38. Yep..

And its Europol , not Interpol as the story suggested.

This is rubbish again from the scotsman. youve probably noticed but I dont give them too many kudos, this is the kind of reporting you would expect from "Focus" magazine that pseudo science thing you might pick up at the airport.

Plus, the report is produced by some twally academic with little business acumen i would imagine.

#35 Your other points in #20 are either irrelevant or incorrect:

Really I would have though the fact that man only contributes 3% of the 10-20% of Greenhouse gases that are supposed to be causing the problem as quite relevant.

Because that kind of suggest we're not the cause or at the very least it is not CO2.

Oh well my mistake.

Since it doesn't suit your arguement I suppose it must seem irrelevant.

#5 and the other flat-earthers:
Are you a climatologist? Neither am I, but insisting you are right and the vast majority of the world's experts are wrong makes you look a little silly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climat...

The scientific debate is largely over, and unless you're a professional climate researcher you're unlikely to have anything worthwhile to contribute. Where we ordinary Joes do have a role is in determining what response, if any, we are prepared to make.

"Among the major effects would be that electric, battery-operated cars would quickly overtake use of the internal combustion engine."

Read the statement above. Then read it again. It should then be blindingly obvious that whoever wrote it understands absolutely nothing about basic physics.

All that happens with electric cars is that you move the source of energy generation from one place to another. All other things being equal, YOU SAVE NOTHING.

If however, you run your car on chip fat, you are using a 100% renewable engery source. BMW are developing a car that runs on hydrogen, which when fully optimised for hydrogen instead of a hydrogen/petrol dual fuel combination would produce something around 150bhp/litre. With ZERO emissions---unless you consider water vapour to be harmful.

This proves that we do not need to move back to the dark ages in order to be "green" as it were. It is still perfectly possible to have high performance vehicles and drive them on a regular basis.

#43:

Please stop posing propaganda. We have enough of it already so unless YOU have something to contribute, leave us out of it.

#13 "As usual, Slioch is the only one talking sense. The same old denial statements keep appearing, almost word for word as the fossil fuel industrialists penned them to protect their polluting activities."

More green drivel. Just recycled communism, that's all that environomentalism is.

Geoff Allen makes an interesting comparison between Y2K and global warming. In media terms, both were/are presented as very worrying issues. However, before Jan 1 2000, the vast majority of software engineers that thought Y2K was nothing other than an annoying problem and a great opportunity to make money. This time around the vast majority of climate scientists are distraught because the public has got its hands over its ears.

Geoff Allen says noone cares what we do on this small island. However China and India have made it clear that they expect the developed countries to lead on carbon reduction and they have every right to do so.

# 2 Right on! Turkeys will never vote for Xmas.

But Xmas comes along anyway, and if the present growth-based economy is not brought to an end by rational means - which won't be pleasant - then it will come to an end in a series of resource wars -one of which is already ongoing in Iraq.

This option will be even more painful as everyone will be in the front line of such wars, as recent events have demonstrated.

Petrol Head, would you also count the following assertions as propaganda:
"The Earth is an oblate spheroid"
"AIDS is caused by HIV"
"CH4 + 2 O2 ? CO2 + 2 H2O"
?
None of them have been (or can be) proved with absolute certainty, but there's good scientific consensus that they're true and most people are happy to make decisions based on their accuracy.

As I say, we, the public, would be better off putting our energies into what we want our governments to do about man-made global warming. A reasonable (if somewhat selfish) point of view is "sod it, I don't give a damn". I'm happy to debate policy, but there's not much point in arguing on the science.

the perfect money making Al- Gore -Rhythm
invest in research about global warming and
then write books with solutions , go on world tour with your notes excellent.. and make sure the world leaders keep to your beat...
While the whole damn Solar sytem is warming up !
blame our planet and US for making it worse.
Globel warming should be called Solar system warming..but lets guess our pollution is causing that too?

Just a thought.......?
All the electricity in the world is distributed by cables.
Cables by their nature have an electrical resistance.(same thing that heats your electric kettle).
So all the electricity going through these cables does its bit to heat the world.
This is called wasted power and is distributed over the network around the world.
I do not know the figure for average % efficiency for power transmission around the world ,but imagine a big electric heater of that wattage (power) heating the world up!
Cos' thats wot ye got!
So turn off all your electrical appliances , in fact turn off all electricity, forget it was ever invented!
NOTHING WOULD RUN.
No transport, no jobs, no food deliveries,no civilisation, back to before the stone age, because we would have to relearn all they knew.
Mind you, it would solve the population problem of the planet in one hit.

If it really is mankind causing global warming, and i'm not saying that is the case.

I think the environmental lobby is going to have a hard time changing the behaviour of 6 billion people such that they live a 'carbon neutral' existance. And if they could manage there is certainly no way it will happen in the time frames people are banding about of 20-50 years.

People as a whole are slow to change, in which case if the bleak outcomes are correct, we are all stuffed already.

What about putting some funding into fusion power?

Or, looking at improvements in batteries, and power delivery infrastructure so that electric cars/planes are feasible, instead of the province of the greenly righteous or the well off toy buyer as now?

Or funding biomass research into producing the building blocks of common plastics economically, preferably from algae or the like so that valuable crop growing land isn't given over to it?

Or looking at waste reclamation (human waste I mean) instead of fertilising our crops with processed oil products? We all produce the stuff, might as well put it to some use....

Bit of a pipe dream at the moment, but it's all possible instead of the vision of 19th century agrarianism that many of the more extreme greens would like to foist on us.

I suspect the green lobby wouldn't approve of most of the above (nuclear power! Horrors!, Genetically engineeried algae! FrankenPlastic!, Recaiming human waste! Hmmm......)

#55

Ah yes, the watermelon theory of green politics, green on the outside, red on the inside.

There are sonme startling points of congruence aren't there?

Sounds unworkable and unenforceable to me.

I have a medical condition where my endocrinologist want me to have good quality beefsteak at least once a week. I LIKE prescriptions life that.

I also have been told to have two glasses of red wine per night. She is a WONDERFUL doctor to prescribe wine. BUt then wine has always been known as a curative and a stabiliser of healthy living.

Just look at the Mediterraneans and their diet which is replete with wine and olives and great cheeses. The cuisine of Provence is one of the most glorious I have ever had the privilege to partake of.

But I agree that George Orwell's "big Brother" is slowly seeping into British life and who knows where it will all end.

Spent a lot of time on the net over the last few years reading about 'Global Warming', both sides of the arguments as ,on and off, its been a lifetime fascination.
Too many times do you see things that purport " prove" that "global warming" is happening, when looked at in isolation; then in the wider context, find that it does no such thing.
CO2 is one such, yes it could have the effects claimed, but when you bring time into the equation, the proof is much less certain.
Solar activity, planetary orbits also have effects and there are many other variables involved.
Al Gore has created a new religion of global warming, as in all religions, you must BELIEVE THE MESSAGE,must not question it in any way "GORE has Spoken".
Junk science,a lot of it. A lot of taking the part that proves their point and ignore the bits that deny it.
And just for a moment, think of the energies and sizes involved in this, if the sun is varying in output, and the distance from earth to run varies, how do we do anything about that.
And who pockets the cash from the last extravaganza, Al Gore's company?
I will believe it a little when I see Al and pals walking and turning THEIR lights out, but I wont hold my breath.
How many of you remember the old story of "chicken Little", Does it sound familiar??

Why IS Firozali from Tanzania so long-winded?

His postings are getting ever-longer and I get weary of slogging through his tons of verbiage. He has many good points to make but do we have to trek through the quagmire of his endless rhetoric?

And why does he have to have his academic credentials in his netname? Is this to impress us and make his opinions more "valid". I find including his credentials to be pretentious and necessary.

Many of us have academic credentials equal or exceeding those of his but we are not so arrogant as to have them in our netname.

And could he PLEASE employ paragraphing more. Huge chunks of comment staring at you from the screen is not conducive to reading what he has to say because these chunks just go on and on and on and ...

#56 iainA

Be fair. I don't recall Marx or Uncle Joe ever proposing the force-feeding of couscous.

I like the point you mention in #54 about not giving over valuable crop growing land. This is one point I don't understand about the "goodness" of biofuels. In terms of CO2 emissions, they are little different from fossil fuels. But the argument is that they are carbon neutral because in their growing phase they absorb CO2. But that involves displacing land that could be used for other CO2 consuming activity. Call me a cynic, but I wonder who is going to benefit from having biofuels classified as carbon neutral.

#58 Note also that those who don't believe as it were are demonised as destroying the planet.

For example - #29 "Climate change deniers like you have put the debate back at least 10 years with attendant costs for humanity and others. "

I AM NICK BYRNE DESTROYER OF WORLDS!!!

#45 Petrolhead - Ah, the great imagined masses neatly step into line behind you with a little 'we' and 'us'.

Learn to speak for yourself. Try an occasional 'I'.

#48 "if the present growth-based economy is not brought to an end by rational means"

If we don't have growth, how are we going to leave the planet when the big disaster comes?

#60

Who benefits from having biofuels classed as carbon neutral? - That would be Monsanto I suspect.

#42 Nick, you said,

"#35 Your other points in #20 are either irrelevant or incorrect:

Really I would have though the fact that man only contributes 3% of the 10-20% of Greenhouse gases that are supposed to be causing the problem as quite relevant"

No it isn't. It would be quite possible to imagine a world where humans emitted say 30% of all GHGs, but where the emissions were all being re-absorbed by the environment rather than largely remaining in the atmosphere. In that situation there would not be a problem. Or you could have a situation where the human contribution was just 1% of a much larger natural emission with all emissions staying in the atmosphere, in which case the situation would be worse. The 3% figure on its own doesn't tell you anything useful in respect of the human impact on the atmosphere.
All you need to do to answer the question "Have human beings altered the CO2 content of the atmosphere in recent centuries?" is to look at the actual measurements. Those I gave you in #35 (from 280ppm to 383ppm from 1750 to present, with no value greater than 300ppm for the previous million years). That is all you need to know.
There are three reasons why that 3% figure is churned out by the global warming denying websites that you have consulted: Firstly, because it sounds very small and insignificant and secondly, because it diverts attention away from the simple figures and obfuscates the argument, and thirdly because the authors know that their target audience is, like you, scientifically illiterate and will be taken in by it.
That is how and why you and thousands of others like you have been misled. I don't expect you to like me for telling you that, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is.

#62 And you were doing so well before you decide to go on the "anyone who says different is scientifically ignorant." attack (-1 for you)

In the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm - I like how you ignore previous preriod in time when the results don't support your arguement.

Indeed, there have only been two periods in Geological history where carbon dioxide levels were below 400ppm. Modern times and the Carboniferous Period.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm - about 19 times higher than today - and life existed then, temperatures averaged 22 degrees celcius - not exactly armageddon.

Or how about the late Ordovician Period which was an Ice Age yet at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm.

CO2 does not cause global warming.

#65 Siloch

One step up from being scientifically illiterate is having "a little knowledge", and we know how dangerous that can be.

I'd argue our current state of scientific knowledge is at exactly that stage. J D T (#43) argues that "the scientific debate is largely over". It may be in terms of knowing how CO2 emissions have contributed to current climate change, but I think understanding the effect these changes will have has hardly started. Just last week, I read of a study that showed the melting antarctic ice fields had caused an increase in plankton. This hadn't been in anyone's predictions.

Yet various groups would have us bet the house on a policy that is designed to reverse these effects. Before going along, I'd like to hear what Plan B is.

#49:

The three things you cite are phenomena that are so near to proof as to be indestinguishable from it under normal circumstances.

There is no way that the drivel spouted by the prophets of doom about "global warming" comes anywhere close to that.

Let me explain why this is in comparison with the shape of the Earth (to pick one of your citations).

The earth rotates on its axis and as such, all of its mass is subject to centripetal force to some degree. The earth is essentially constructed of a liquid interior, contained by a flexible and elastic (in astronomical terms) outer shell. In order to counteract the centripetal force, there needs to be something to act against it otherwise the earth would turn into a flat disc. These forces are partly produced by the gravitational attraction of the material from which the earth is made and partly due to the coherence of the outer shell. Mass around the equator (which is moving the fastest) is subject to greater centripetal force than that at the poles. It therefore tends to spread out, giving the earth it's slightly squashed shape. There are only KNOWN and MEASURABLE factors that can be taken into account in this field. It is also an instanteneous and static problem.

The exact shape of the earth my be difficult to define for many reasons but all in all, all measurable evidence points to the theory being correct. Additionally, and critically, there is no possible hidden agenda that could be used to distort the findings. You can't charge people more tax because of it or restrict their freedoms because of it.

Another example is Pythagoras' theorum. It has never been proven but is widely accepted to be true.

Enough about the shape of the earth and triangles. Let's get onto global warming or whatever you want to call it.

There are many, many factors that can affect climate on earth. Some of these are known and are measurable accurately, many are not. There is defin

Sorry, should read: "...there is NO defined set..."

#62:

I take it that you like absorbing propaganda then Steve?

Personally, I would have thought that most people who are capable of their own rational thought would not.

I took the liberty of including you in the group capable of rational thought. My apologies if this was wrong...

#66, just briefly, Nick. The present average global temperature is about 15C.
An increase of 7C to 22C would cause the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps to melt, raising sea-levels by hundreds of feet.

#61 Nick_Byrne. Believe, or the zealots will get you (:-)=

As always, start a religion and skin the marks, when you think on it, religion and politics is all about believing promises, so Al Gore is an expert at the game......!!

By the way, the maximum population this island will support in the way the greens etc would like us to live is about 7 to 9 million, this is about the level where self sufficency starts to break down, andthe current population is about 68 million, what do we do with the 60 million overspill??

And we are ruining the best land by building houses on it!!
Funny how all the lessons of history are forgotten or ignored by the latest bunch who will 'save us from ourselves/doom/etc'. And dont forget their 'consultancy' fees.
Charge people for fixing a 'problem' that wasnt untill the fixers started shouting about it.
And we are warned about 'cowboy' builders, how about 'cowboy' semi/ex politicians as well.

Petrolhead, I do have to take exception to your earlier comment about the hydrogen powered economy, You said yourself that energy is just moved around.
You said.

All that happens with electric cars is that you move the source of energy generation from one place to another. All other things being equal, YOU SAVE NOTHING.

Same with hydrogen I'm afraid, with present technology hydrogen is an energy sink as in it takes more energy input to crack the molecules into h and oxygen than is gained back by burning the hydrogen. If on the other hand more energy was gained from burning than went into cracking then we would have perpetual motion which would solve all our problems.

I think the only way hydrogen could be economical is if there was a breakthrough in fusion technology which would provide enough ultra cheap electricity for the huge water cracking plants required.

As an aside hydrogen is a very difficult element to handle, the pesky stuff is so volatile that very hi tech gasketing and valve systems are required to keep it where you want it.

#71.
A report ,I think was BBC , in the last week refers to a time that Greenland was all but ice free , and the sea levels were still the same.
Seems that the Antartic may have picked up more ice cover to compensate?
Sorry I cant give a link, I have forgotten where I saw it.

As that great philosopher Donald Rumsfeld said 'Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know'.
Well, when it comes to global warming I would say that it is a known known but a lot of people don't know it.

#73:

Now that's a great arguement for investing in nuclear research if I ever heard one! I think you'd need to concentrate on fission rather than fusion though because we are after hydrogen, not iron!

A lot of these ideas are not necessarily feasible right now as mass market solutions, however with development and research, they could very easily be feasible. For instance, the manufacture, storing, transportation and handling of hydrogen which is a bit problematic at present---however, they do have a few hydrogen filling stations alongside petrol pumps in Germany which would suggest the some of the problems have largly been cracked.

I think this is all a case of what you would prefer. Would you prefer research to be carried out into ways that we can do without the things we have become used to having over the last 100 or so years or would you prefer research into how we can retain these things, make them better, more efficient and less dependant upon fossil fuels?

I certainly know which one I prefer and to me it is a no-brainer.

#71 I don't even buy the rising sea level argument.

The IPCC sums up the changes in water level trends this way: "The current estimates of changes in surface water and ground water storage are very uncertain and speculative. There is no compelling recent evidence to alter the conclusion of IPCC (1990) that the most likely net contribution during the past 100 years has been near zero or perhaps slightly positive, with an uncertainty of about +/- 6 cm."

So, erm sea-levels haven't changed...interesting, I thought the world was warming up and we were all going to drown..nope.

And as for your Glaciers the IPCC are on the ball again: "In total, based on models and observations, the combined range of uncertainty regarding the contributions of thermal expansion, glaciers, ice sheets and land water storage to past sea level change is about –19 cm to +37 cm."

So, pick a number any number and they'll go along with that.

Essentially - Global warming yes it appears to be happening, but it does not appear to be us, nor does it appear to be the beginning of the end.

8does not appear to be down to us.

I'd differ with you there as in fusion not fission.

Fission involves the splitting of heavy elements such as uranium which has to be mined and then purified at great energy expense (also probably limited in quantity the same as oil). It also has the side effect of producing very radioactive byproducts with long half lives which need to be dealt with.

Fusion on the other hand involves fusing 2 light elements together such as 2 hydrogen atoms to produce helium with a considerable energy release. Hydrogen can be initially produced from natural gas or water so working fusion would be practically perpetual motion (sort of hauling yourself up by your own bootstraps) once the initial reactor was made to work. The other advantage of fusion is that I believe the waste is no more radioactive than low level hospital waste. Availability of hydrogen if this could be made to work, how much water in the oceans?

As another aside I seem to remember reading somewhere that a fusion reaction is much easier to initiate and control using an element called helium 3.
Pretty unavailable on earth as it is only produced in fission reactors but apparently available in vast quantities in the lunar regolith. Perhaps time to invest more in space research to initiate lunar mining programs.

You may have gathered I am not anti nuclear just pro anything that has a good chance of working so we can all continue to live in the style we have become accustomed to, I do think we have a problem looming on the horizon but I also believe we have the technical abilities to tackle it.

The latest NASA research* shows that recent greenhouse gas emissions 'place the Earth perilously close to dramatic change, with great dangers for humans and other creatures.'
As the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt they will darken and begin to aborb much more heat energy from the sun. This 'albedo flip' is a powerful trigger and supplies a positive feedback mechanism leading to ice sheet disintegration and a burst of added global warming which will be followed by a devastating rise in sea-level within decades.
* Hansen et al, Phil Trans Roy Soc, May 2007

This is the link:

http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k7p4068780/

81. 'Sorry, 'absorb' not 'aborb'

Also see the link at my post at 13 above.

84. You can access the full article for free at the link I posted.

Not exactly on topic pal but just spat beer all over the keyboard.

88. You don't need to register. Just click on the lines 'open full document' or 'open full text' on the right hand side of the page containing the abstract.

#95 no it does just seem to be the full article, just did it and none of my defences kicked off, no cookies or anything.

For those that either don't want to or can't read the paper, here is the gist of it today's Indy:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/artic...

So, Gordon, it took you only 8 minutes to form a totally dismissive opinion on a complex 30 page scientific paper in one of the most eminent journals in the world.
Your mind is as closed as a fresh oyster.

I don't think people actually get it.

We are in for an energy crisis of some sort, whether it comes from cutting back to slow global warming or cutting back because the oil is running out. Our lives are likely going to change dramatically for the simple reason that there is going to be less energy available per head of population.

We need to address this issue either by new technology or drastically reduce our consumption.

Personally I prefer the new tech route such as developing fusion.

The other way basically means taking a step back towards the dark ages, I like being able to discuss issues online with others such as yourselves. I like the fact that if I have to get up in the early hours for a p155 I can push a button turn on the light and see where I'm pointing. I like eating a varied diet and not relying on last years spuds not having gone off so I can get my vitamin c midwinter.

We are very reliant on burning fossil fuels for this lifestyle and we need to find viable alternatives, otherwise the adjustment could be rather harsh and painful.

#107 that was sod all, 55mph speed limit was about the worst we had to endure, the fuel was still available things kept rolling along, 73 was caused by opecs political posturing, today I think is a whole different ball of wax.

Interesting article, admittedly some of it is a bit sensastionalist but if you take it with a pinch of salt and follow some of the serious links it can be very interesting reading. I'm a cynical sod but cannot knock some of the logic and points made.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

By energy crisis I mean our inability to get at the energy available. There are almost unlimited sources of energy we just do not have the ability to unlock them.

For about a century we have been locked into fossil fuels. Oil and coal, easy to get at very energy dense. So we got lazy, sat there sucking at the teat and assuming it would go on forever.

It is time we weaned ourselves, look upon fossil fuels as our mothers milk, it is drying up and we are growing up. Time to start eating solid food.

Ok probably a crap analogy but best I can do off the top of my head.

think they need to bring the prices of solar panels,wind turbines,etc down a bit,how can folks "go green" when everything is so expensive!

#111 twowheel loom

"probably a crap analogy"

Doing OK I think. But you're talking about limits to resources. That's not exactly the same as as greenhouse gasses and CO2 emissions.

#108 "73 was caused by opecs political posturing"

Wasn't it a power workers strike and Ted Heath? (We're talking about three-day weeks, right?)

112# 113#

Doing my best, problems with solar wind etc are

1 they only really work while the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, so whatever the manufacturer quotes as output divide by 3 to get a true figure. In scotland where the winters are cold I would not want to rely on wind/solar to keep my arse from freezing in january. You also have to take into account the energy put into producing said solar/wind generators and ask would we be able to produce them without an energy sink ie more energy put in than gotten out, factoring in maintenance and infrastucture for transmission.

I can just about remember ted and the winter of discontent, I think it was all tied together, prices going up people getting the hump with the cost of living vs inflation. I do remember my dad telling me about less oil being produced so we had to drive slower and I definitely remember the 55 limit as i was being taught to frive at the time by said dad.

It all happened about the same time but in hindsight I would put it down to political mismanagement, public disgruntlementand the uk being the poor man of Europe at the time (go on holiday you could only take £50 sterling out of the country).

#113 I think they are so closely related that they are the same thing, we are limited in our resources even if oil and coal were in unlimited quantities that we cannot use them due to the fact that global warming will end up drowning us due to our own emmissions.

Therefore due to the limitations on the use of these resources we must find ways of tapping new sources of energy which do not have the supposed unpleasant side effects of high levels of c02 production.

Apologies for the slightly screwed previous post was trying to address 2 points at once and not doing it very well.

1973 Oil Crisis and arab oil embargo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Arab_oil_emb...

#114, #115

No need to apolgise. That should be me. My memory is screwed up about three-day weeks too. Was that a different time from the scheduled power cuts we had for a while? (3 hours on, 3 hours off).

About the difference between limits to resources and CO2 emissions, I think there is a difference, especially in terms of solutions that are advocated. Back in the 70s (again!!), "population explosion" was the big bogeyman. (Have another kid and you'll destroy the planet.) We don't hear cutting population proposed as a solution these days, yet it seems obvious that fewer people will consume fewer resources and produce less CO2. In fact, we have political campaigns to increase population (Scotland and Japan are examples I know of.)

We hear about "carbon offsets". Rather than aiming to reduce consumption, it sounds more like a way to allow it to continue, if you can afford it. Why do I have images of one of those telephone packages that Scottish Gas or Tesco offer.

I think what it comes down to is that our entire economy is based upon pumping oil out of the ground and converting that oil to food and consumeable products. Pesticides are oil based, our agricultural machinery both sowing and harvesting are oil powered, our transport is oil powered.

Basically we are converting oil to food, if this system fails the consequences will be horrendous.

If perhaps we could get reliable hydrogen fusion to work we would be converting water to food, what a get out/breather that would be.

We know fusion works (after all the sun hasn't gone out) we just need to get a grip on it controlled rather than our crude fusion bombs.

Look on the bright side, the wright brothers probably never imagined the possibility of a 747 or a space shuttle.

118. The "bright side" better come sooner rather than later, because time and existing fuels are running out!

#119 I do think the human race has a good track record of pulling rabbits out of hats, if I didn't believe that I'd be digging my own grave in the back garden noe.

Heres hoping.

114,115,117

I do remember sharing a bath with a friend by candlelight............But I think we'd be too big for it now!

#121 que????

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
that just about sums us up eh
global warming wont kill us
old mother earths been around millions of years and shes perfectly capable of sorting herself out .
So forget about your new taxes labour numpties

122
In the 70's, when there was the 3 day week and they printed ration coupons for petrol. Sharing the baths used less electricity, and in any case the lights kept going off. So we all had candles, and a brilliant excuse for not finishing our Maths homework.

I mean, some ways to save energy can be fun!....Oh never mind

I don't remember ration coupons, never had to share a bath due to the fact that my grans house had a backboiler and my little brother and myself used to collect logs from the woods to produce loads of hot water. I take your point though,

Funny how things have changed in a generation.

#124 strange thing is that those of us who remember that way of living are probably the last generation who remember how to get along on local resources. Want to set up a company teaching survival tecniques? We'd probably make a few bob.

#80 Chairman Gordon

Erm...I was agreeing with you

Anyway, I was dragged up in your neck of the woods - well, Alloa anyway. Not completely rural, and certainly not middle class.

Menstrie distillery used to run a pilot plant to convert the spent wash from the stills into methane to heat the buildings and fire the stills. They gave it up in the 80's as too expensive.

I bet with the price of oil at $75 a barrel it would look a lot more cost effective now.

It will come.

Big business can make a ton of money from it.

The media will increase their readership and viewers by telling us that doomsday is near.

The politicans can orate on how bad it is and that they must be elected to save us.

After getting elected they can create a great bureuocy and rais taxes to pay for it. Also enact laws that for your benefit dimish your rights.

Proiblem, even the scientist are split on the issue.

Me I eat organic food and MEAT. I also recycle and use the new energy savings bulbs. Trouble is they contain mercury. Also my lawn and garden contains no chemical fertilizers.

Global warming, Al Gore and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Soon, the sinking of an Aircraft Carrier(by Mossad) will occur and the US will 'retaliate' against Iran. Which AIPAC-lobbying country benefits from that? How much will the environment matter after a Nuke attack on Iran? Not much. Stop Iraq, Prevent Iran then work on the environment.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&i...

In #10 above, I made the following comment:

“It seems … that the more that the possible negative consequences of global warming are discussed, the more some people are driven to denial.
The reaction is, "What you are saying is dreadful: therefore I will not listen to or consider the evidence; I will ridicule and deny the science; I will erect impenetrable barriers to understanding in my mind to ensure that my cherished world view, of ever expanding material comfort in which I am embedded, cannot be challenged; I will not, will NOT, believe that my cherished world is threatened."

Within hours, Chairman Gordon was providing a perfect example of that sort of thinking. Fred Bloggs in#81, 83, 86 and 94 made repeated attempts to get Gordon to look at a paper by Hansen et al (of NASA) published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. These are scientists of international repute, publishing in a peer reviewed journal of impeccable standards. The paper as Fred pointed out is 30 pages long and complex. It deals with a matter of huge importance: the possibility of the climate “flipping” to a much higher temperature due to changes in ice/water albedo, thus creating much greater sea level rises than hitherto predicted.

The result? Having eventually been persuaded to look at the paper, this was Gordon’s response, after 8 minutes:

“That made about as much sense as a Jehova's Witness on your doorstep.
Propaganda- pure & simple. Do you honestly think that if those authors had tried to present evidence which proved MMGW was a myth that the RS would even have published it?”

That is why you deserve to be called a climate change denier, Gordon. You have not the slightest interest in learning about the subject. You merely spend your time speaking ill of things that you have not the wit to understand.

"Unelectable" - As Electronic voting Machines are designed to rig ballots, along with Postal Voting and 'Party' politics - how do you propose to 'unelect' them. Did you not see the Scottish Election farce?
Its these criminals in charge that are responsible for nearly every ill foisted upon us and this CO2 led Global warming is another piece of the Jigsaw. Hundreds of Proxie studies have shown the Sun is driving Climate Change. CO2 = 0.038% of the atmosphere and has been much higher in the past. Oceans take 1000 years to propogate out changes. CO2 levels rise 800 years AFTER temperature rises completely destroying this 'CO2 led' argument. Take away their acknowledged 'not perfect' modelling and there is no evidence at all, just 'hot air' from wannabe experts with Grants to protect, Politicians with a New World Order Agenda, desire to reduce Populations by 80% for 'Control' reasons, and to send citizens into paupership and the lying mainstream media who have sold their soul to the devil. Its 'end of empire' time and they are squirming in a last bid to retain their decadent Lifestyles, hence the forced EU and and this will be to your torment unless you start seriously researching these lies. Yes... Climate Change is going on... but its the Sun! The EU is a Dictatorship with the laws of a Police State and they will take everything you own and then kick you out your own country or kill you. Wake Up.

#117 Selgovae

You said - "We don't hear cutting population proposed as a solution these days"

Perhaps you should hear what Dr Eric Pianka (AKA Dr Death) has to say on the matter. His proposals to kill off 90% of the worlds population make Hitler look like a good guy.

Now these people are using the out of control global warming hype to push their insane desire to cull the human population by 5.5 billion and silence anyone who speaks out against them.

the Optimum Population Trust says that children are 'bad for the planet and 'having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

Yet these people continue to steam ahead with the lie that CO2 causes global warming when numerous accredited scientists have said that an increase in global temprature results in an increase in CO2 levels and not the other way round, that is why there is a correlation with CO2 levels and global temprature.

#131
Earlier you said to someone "That is why you deserve to be called a climate change denier" perhaps the person in question doesn't believe the lies that are being foisted upon us, that is that co2 causes climate change. I myself believe that the climate is changing, but do not put it down to CO2.

#133 said, "I myself believe that the climate is changing, but do not put it down to CO2."

Maybe you do, but the reason you do so is because of your paranoia, rather than any understanding of the science concerned.

#134

And what paranoia would that be? or are you one of these people who just rubbish anything someone else has to say because it is of a different opinion to yours?

What is your understanding of the science concerned,? I need some amusing bed time reading