Yeah yeah, we've all heard the arguments before... "Its all cyclical..." or "Its just nature..." but its bollocks, yes there have been events in the past that clearly show climate change and at times that change can be massive but there is one FACT that most people overlook... The changes we have seen in the past (OK, not seen I know, but you know what I mean) took place over tend of thousands of years, in some cases even longer, in others maybe shorter but never has that change taken place in less than a 100 years, its the speed of the change that is causing concern, for one it means that nature doesn't have the chance to adapt, to evolve and that means extinctions.


Its funny how not only is the climate debate a generational thing but also an education one, when I was doing my Hort courses a few years ago I was convinced that Global warming was the only environmental science, it was during those studies that I realised that global warming is a bit of a myth as the WORLD is not warming, but climate change is, its clear to see all over the world.

Oh and to the person/people who think that man is not causing it, get a grip, just because you don't believe something doesn't mean its wrong, do a bit of research, look up places like the Dead Sea and the utterly shocking river Citarum, if that doesn't sway you towards the damage man is doing to this finite resource we have then I suggest you curl up in your Spanish bubble and hope that god takes care of you in your old age...

The original post of this thread pointed to the fact that there are a number of scientist who are bucking the trend and saying that the current bout of climate change is not man made.

I am one of a number of ordinary Joe's who happen to agree with them.

What I am not saying is man is not guilty of producing pollution and wasting resources.

All I am saying is that I truly believe that man is not responsible for climate change. Nothing that has been said in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Yes there has been some passionate debate about the rights and wrongs of man made terrestrial pollution but that was not the theme of this thread.

Things I would dispute are is it proven that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change, no scientists are split.

Of all the gases that make up green house gases, how big a proportion is CO2, less than 2%??

How much of that CO2 is extra ie produced by man, and not animals, vegetation or evaporation of the oceans??

If climate change is man made and we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow how long would it take for this climate change to stop or slow down, another hundred years??

What we need is to stop banging the drum and apportioning blame and put all our energies into finding cheaper renewable sources of electricity. We do not need to give vast subsidies to companies etc. to reduce their 'carbon footprint' giving spurious results at best.

The whole terrestrial pollution debate needs a thread of its own, it has nothing to do with climate change.

All of this is MOHO of course as I am not a scientist or an expert.

Wrong. Not a big fan of physics are we? Everything we do, everything we are is connected, without sounding like a hippy at all, because I'm not, there is nothing on earth that is not connected. The irony about life on earth is that man has spent so long looking for its own origins and coming up with countless myths to explain our origins we have almost completely, as a general population, overlooked the real miracle.

So much ignorance in a post is incredible

I wont waste my breath with more explanations. Maybe before having an opinion about climate change you should learn something about science?

As for saying "scientists are split", no they are not! There are a noisy minority being paid off by big industry who are dening it. Just like there are holocaust deniers, or people who think we have an inner alien lizzard

Have a look to see if there are any climate change deniers from the top UK universities. These are the ones I trust. Not Iowa state university sponsored by Exxon Mobil, or the University of Monsanto

I am not joining in this debate but you do appear to contridict yourself.
On the one hand you say scientists are not split when the paragraph above clearly shows that they are.
Just because you don't trust them does not necessarily make them wrong and you should not ignore them.

where is bil when we need him to put a bit of common sense into life ??

What paragraph above?

If less than 1% of scientists are for something - and 99% are for something else. They are not splt, there is a minority of scientists who think differently

A split implies that it is somewhere close to 50:50

The scientific community is not a closed community and is not difficult to enter. There are loads of stupid and bad scientists. Just like there are in many other fields.

You need to study the journals, papers and references of individual scientists - and try and understand their experimental work and data analysis before concluding who is right or wrong. You can't just look at a list of random names, you dont even know what they are scientists of. They could be scientists in the field of optimisation of fossil fuels or "political scientists" as the Americans call them

Why do you choose to align yourself with the minority?

I was talking about the thread subject not about the science you patronising person. Just because you and others shout the loudest does not make you right.This forum is about discussion and opinions not about taking sides or one upmanship.
You know nothing about me or my background or the subjects that I study as I you.

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible - the vast majority of scientists, based upon the available evidence, are saying that it's happening. They are many compared to the few deniers.

Yes

What are these billions being spent on exactly if not on the reduction of burning hydrocarbon fuels?

What are these billions being spent on exactly if not on the reduction of burning hydrocarbon fuels?[/QUOTE]

Subsidies and tax breaks given in return for reductions in carbon footprint. Most of the reductions I suspect are at best spurious.

The only way for a company to reduce its carbon footprint is for it directly or indirectly to reduce the hydrocarbon fuels it burns - which is what you are advocating isn't it?

In theory yes, but in practice I suspect it is just juggling statistics.

I do not align myself with either side, but do question what we are told and when I have the option to plant a tree when I book a flight (at a cost) I cannot help being a tad skeptical (not to mention carbon tax)

I watch at least a few science based documentary's a week & it is becoming clear that the more science discovers, science realises just how much they do not know (I generalize of course)

Cricket says he is a scientist, that being the case I thought it was a scientists role to question the status que ?, but if you do not subscribe to the current agenda you are considered a heretic & can then be the subject of name calling.
Are you funded by the Global Warming Industry ?, no then a good many scientists owe their living to it.

Hmm...