Its well documented that the opposite is happening and there are many who now dont believe that the problem is man made. The IPCCs last publication itself had retract some of its previous claims

However, to really solve the problem if it IS man made is to eliminate all fossil fuel burning - NOW!!! So, back to what I said earlier. turn off all of your electricity, gas if you have it, get rid of your car. Then we need someone to convince the rest of the world, including China, India, Russia....... to do the same and now, before its too late!!!!! oh, and no, we cant send our tanks, weapons, soldiers over to physically stop them, cos we wont be able to use planes or ocean liners - or whatever we take there!


Jo xxx

It makes me wonder you know. If 98% of scientists told you the plane you were about to get on was unsafe to fly but 2% told you it was perfectly safe and that the 98% were all taking payments from anti flying lobby groups would you still be happy to step on the plane?

Tell me JoJo/ Jo's hubby, what is the opposite to climate change? Climate unchanged? Completely normal weather patterns? I'm confused.

Mate, my son in law is a pilot and his brother is an aviation engineer - I refuse to listen to the tales they tell or I wouldnt ever fly again lol!!!

Jo xxx

read it properly, I've highlighted the answer to your question in red to make it easier for you "Its well documented that the opposite is happening and there are many who now dont believe that the problem is man made"

Jo xxx

.....

A very good question Matt but of course if the track record of the 98% was always (and I mean always) missing the 95 percentile in their predictions then statistically speaking the 2% are more likely to be right - just a thought

So I assume you are in the camp of "the physics of climate change are flawed"?

Changing our modes of transport will certainly be a step in the right direction. I guess that´s why there are new emmission laws. I guess that´s why companies are investing millions into vehicles with zero emmissions. Or perhaps why there are already prototype cars which run on nitrogen.
Literally billions being spent on alternative power research and development.

All an utter waiste though if there are still idiots happy to burn plastic sacks and such like at the bottom of their gardens in the name of B.S!

Forget the plastic sacks - we wouldnt be able to make them - or the cars - run by nitrogen or otherwise - you see the factories wouldnt be able to use any fossil fuels, so they couldnt operate at all - even the electricity power stations!!! So, it would be back to the good old horse and cart.

Jo xxx

No, not at all my dear fellow, I am in the camp of I think that humans are contributing adversely to climate change, I don't buy into the alarmist global warming nonsense.

Some thoughts for you:

1. People keep referring to the consensus of scientists and making up figures like 98%. Anyone who has ever been to a conference with a load of eminent scientists will tell you there is no such thing - it is always geeks rutting and they defend their own hypothesis to the death to demonstrate they are the alpha geek - it is not pretty and very time consuming.

2. What they are doing is attempting to model something very big, hugely complex and incredibly unpredictable. Quite frankly their modelling to date has been an abysmal failure hence their inability to hit the 95 percentile and I am not denigrating them here just illustrating the challenge they have in producing robust scientific proof.

3. The physics of climate change are undeniable (although some loonies will still deny it), the effect and the proportion that man makes to the change is the issue for me.

4. The proportion is clearly is not the armegeddon postulated by the orignal protagonists of global warming and in all liklihood it is not zero. Man's contribution to global warming is, therefore, somewhere between negligible and damaging - I for one don't know where the balance is and nor do many of the people making predictions and doing the modelling (if they were honest).

5. The Earth is not an easy system to model as it is "open" and the causal effects are numerous and diverse. Having a simple model and some clever extrapolation allows you to "prove" we are heading to armegeddon on global warning or to prove we are heading to the next ice age.

In short the answer to your question is that I don't know, I suspect there is an element of truth in the global warming hypothesis but I remain to be convinced on the exact proportionality of the element.

Phew, a sensible comment - thank you for such a concise and informative explanation

Jo xxx

It is clear from some posts with the frequent use of "overwhelming evidence" and the "3%" that some of you have swallowed google Instead of accepting the wheel that squeaks the loudest why not eg. look into the qualifications of those who sit on the IPCC

Here are some views of the 3% (although it's much more)

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/...shback-report/

For those unwilling to click, here is one comment

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Just one question, when we are asked to pay to offset our carbon footprint or pay more on heating bills. Who gets the money?

If your husband studied volcanoes, plate techtonics and all that geoscience, he must surely have a clue about the origins of the atmosphere?

He should also know that just because he didn't understand the relevance of the question doesn't make the question irrelevant.

Might I be so bold as to suggest that you, and vicariously he, refrain from further comment until you've figured out the answer to my very relevant question?

(Which, if you wish, could be the start of your enlightenment).