Leslie

The truth probably is somewhere between Geezer's and ajm's posts. There is plenty of evidence to show how the earth's climate and temperature has varied between vey large differences during it's history. We may well be at the beginning of such a large change at the moment.

I think that there is also enough evidence to show that what we are doing on the earth is also affecting the general climate as well. Just at the moment it is probably difficult to say by how much, but it is happening. There has been an average temperature change and we can see the differences in our weather over recent years. It used to be quite normal to expect snow in the south of England during January and February, and the lakes used to freeze over safely enough to skate on. Our winters are now pretty mild compared to all that. We used also to get hot days in the summer interspersed with frequent rainy spells. That seems to have averaged out too with long dry spells and less amounts of rain. This year the daffodils and crocuses are already blooming, never used to happen until March.

There are signs that the Gulf stream has slowed down, not much but measurable. That has an enormous effect on our climate and if that stops the change will be really radical. We could expect the same sort of weather that they get in Newfoundland and that would certainly be a shock to the system.

I believe that should be treated as pretty important and steps should be taken to attempt to conserve the climate. If it really goes beyond redemption in the 2030's then it will be too late and the promised runaway effects will be truly awful. I think it is beyond imagination that the US can be so selfish with their excessive energy requirement and their attitude towards the effects of that.

I really feel it is essential that governments started an effective programme to restrict these greenhouse effects and that means doing what is actually required and not paying lip service to it for the sake of keeping big business (such as the airlines) happy. Just screwing the lesser polluters such as cars and making money out of it is not the practical answer.

Les

Sprint Chief

Whilst the greenhouse effect is well known and well defined, the link between CO2 concentrations and global warming is much less well defined than the environmentalists (and many on here) would lead us to believe.

Despite significant increases in the CO2 concentration between 1950 and 1970, the average global temperature dropped. In the medieval period (1200-1300), the temperature was higher (with successful vineyards as far north as Newcastle) - in fact similar or higher to todays temperatures. In the mid 1700s the temperature was lower, famed for being the period when a regular festival was held on the River Thames each year because the ice was thick enough to walk on. Yet these variations - equal or sharper than the variations we see today - occurred without any contribution to by human generation of CO2.

There are far closer links to the current temperature change found with things like solar activity. The solar cycle is shorter than average at the moment, and when this occurs solar radiation increases. This in itself could explain the temperature shift.

Further anomalies are easy to find in the environmentalists claims. They attempt to predict 100 years into the future using non-linear chaotic models - this makes about as much sense as trying to predict the weather accurately 100 days ahead. The predictions are not worth the paper they are written on. No doubt such modelling helps us to learn a lot about the climate, but the modelling is not being used way beyond the limits of its capabilities.

And nobody mentions the clear benefit of increased CO2 concentrations - increased plant growth, improved plant resistance to disease, increased farm yields, which if used properly could be used to produce biofuels when the fossil fuels begin to run low and reduce hunger and starvation in the shorter term. These are simple, tangible benefits that do not rely on logical fallacies and mad extrapolations of the harbingers of environmental doom!

Choosing to change our consumption of CO2 on the global warming claims could put more people at risk than continuing normally. But what annoys me the most is how every little difference we percieve in the world today is a function of global warming. Oh, theres a flood, must be global warming, because floods have never happened in the past... when its hot, its global warming, when it is cold, its global warming. This is a classical logical fallacy (post hoc, ergo propter hoc) as it is not demonstrated that these events wouldn't have happened anyway, and furthermore there is clear evidence of these events occurring in recent history before the CO2 concentration changed.

Flatcapdriver

I'm not sure whom you're referring to as the founder of Greenpeace as it was loosely formed by the actions of twelve people in the early '70s, unless you're referring to McTaggart who only believes his own press.

I disagree to some extent about the aims of the environmental lobby being to drag us back to the Stone Age as many of Greenpeace's campaigns have been not only cost effective for the end user but genuinely cheaper for many industries that have been forced to adopt more stringent environmental practice. Take Greenpeace's Greenfreeze technology as an excellent example of an industry insisting on burying its head in the sand, only to be forced in a new direction that has many environmental and postive cost benefits.

Greenpeace and some of the other organisations of their ilk make an excellent foil for countries such as America and big industry which can, at times, chase the elusive big buck at the expense of the environment and the public

Sprint Chief

No doubt some of the campaigns have been of genuine value, but the global warming issue has a clear political undercurrent. This is more driven by the IPCC than greenpeace, although greenpeace have been more than willing to take part in the ride.

Famous quotes include ex-Canadian minister for the environment, Christine Stewart, "No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phoney... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

No hidden political agenda there then eh?

Sprint Chief

Other interesting quotes...

Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

Oregon Petition, from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, signed by over 17,000 international scientists including more than 2000 of the world's leading climatologists, meteorologists and planetary / atmospheric scientists

Flatcapdriver

I haven't made any claims to the contrary as the whole area is a minefield of vested interests whether it be at NGO, corporate or Government level - its totally political with hidden agendas within each group.

What I am saying is that to suggest that environmental groups have no role to play and that they are intent on regressing the world is at best naive if not downright biased. Having witnessed some of the crap that comes out of corporate America and UK Plc at first hand, all I'm saying is that NGOs such as Greenpeace (although certainly not whiter than white themselves) have an important part to play in questioning and indeed slowing the momentum of many of the corporate giants who only really care about the bottom line at the expense of the environment.

hedgehog

As a follow up to this I was interested to note the following:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ea_leaves.html

As you may recall one of the claims of the green nutters is that we are going to have more hurricanes. Lots of their claims are based upon an organisation called the IPCC who, I suspect, wants to open up a global market in carbon credit trading so they can have some political control over developing countries. Chris Landsea is an expert on hurricanes and has contributed to IPCC documents.

As he says himself:

“I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound...

Sincerely, Chris Landsea.”

I know that some of the green nuts will never be convinced that their beliefs are not true but belief is the opposite of science and the science is quite clear. Take the time to read the link above to see just what a farce thie "global warming industry" is.