SGK

Firstly, about floods etc getting worse, we are victims of a media out of control. People in the past took a disaster on the chin and got on with it, because it was part of life. If you lived near a river you could expect it to flood every now and again. Historical records do hint at this, but record usually only the major incidents.
In comparrison, modern media reports lesser disasters but beefs them up into major events. I am constantly annoyed with the way coverage and importance is related to amount of video footage available.
Two things on the whole climate change / emissions thing. Firstly, I don't believe it is a bad thing to want to reduce emissions as polutions are undesirable irrespective of greenhouse gasses. Witness the overall effect on the car industry in Europe and the US.
Secondly, it concerns me that climate change is deflecting people away from more valid 'green' issues. I think people like the idea that they can unplug their VCR at night and feel they are saving the planet, meanwhile the forests burn....

Clippo

I assumed, (wrongly it seems now) that most here were reasonably rational people. I have difficulty in understanding why you persist in denying that a) global warming is happening & b) mankind’s CO2 emissions and other cr*p is a cause (but not the only one) when the rest of humanity accepts it..

You’ve shut your eyes, closed your ears and thrown your commonsense out of the window. Over a century ago, scientists started to speculate that mankind’s emissions of CO2 might influence the earth’s climate. Since the 1950’s, vast amounts of money have been poured into climate science. Initially this was to improve weather forecasting but it soon became clear to workers in those specialities that the world was indeed warming up and that CO2 emissions may be exacerbating the problem. There were arguments in the 1980/90s about reliability of temperature measurements but what they all agreed about was that the earth was warming. Try this for a very simple summary of the last century.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...te-change.html)

I think I’m right in saying Russia and Australia have now signed the Kyoto protocol leaving just the USA & Canada as non signatories (but who accept the science).

The IPCC was set up in the 1980’s to harden up the science.

In 1995 they said words to the effect that
"It’s likely that mankind’s CO2 emissions have some effect in GW"
In the IPCC report of 2000, they said words to the effect that
"It’s certain that mankind’s CO2 emissions have the major effect in GW"

(If anybody really wants the link go look it up yourselves).

So, you CO2 deny-ers, do you seriously expect to convince the ‘common man’ that all the world’s governments and by far the greatest majority of scientists in climatology, glaciology, oceanography, paleo-geology, astro-physicists, NASA and so on are in a big conspiracy to con everybody else?

WHY?

You certainly haven’t convinced many ordinary people up to now ( link courtesy of Millenium3)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=187&lb=hmpg1

Now, pulled from another thread, Matt wrote:-

Really? You cannot be serious as the man said. How many?

From where I’m sitting, Farage & Titford have made incredibly stupid political blunders. Even if they truly believe this hoary old guff, as so-called politicians they should have taken a neutral view or said nothing.
I haven’t deviated from the view I’ve held for 10 years now. Only UKIP were committed to leaving the EU, but that could only be done by getting a majority of MPs in Westminster parliament. People vote on many factors but one of them is how much they trust a particular party to run the economy. UKIP would have had a big enough problem persuading voters on that point before the utterances of Farage & Tit. How can they have confidence in a party whose leaders deny the belief of the majority of the typical voter?
No, Nigel Farage is not only a party despot, but now a politically inept despot. But perhaps West Dorset and others have already seen this.
If NF’s & GT’s performance is anything to go by and that of many on this forum, I’m being forced to believe that cuddly Dave’s ‘fruitcases’ allegations are utterly true!

As an economist, has John Whittaker MEP made any pronouncement on GW/Stern ?

mkpdavies

Yeah, but you are one of the neo-religious followers who will never admit their blind faith could be wrong.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Clippo

I don't have any faith, I'm an atheist. I refer to facts, as published by independant scientists in respected journals.
There's probably a Journal of Witchcraft somewhere. You obviously read it regularly - can you give me a link?

mkpdavies

I haven't seen you post a single fact to debate over yet, just links to heacily biased sites. Come on pull out the information that convinced you so we can see it.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

UK_Patriot

There is an excellent article on this subject by Christopher Monckton. An (extremely) brief overview of it is that, yes, the climate is changing and will continue to do so, but:

a) many forecasts of future change have been grossly exaggerated, and,

b) most climate change is not man-made (hence previous ice ages and warm periods before mankind ever graced the planet).

Part 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...it/nwarm05.xml

Part 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...12/nclim12.xml

UK_Patriot

Sorry, just saw the Monckton article has already been posted, here: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=15745

jp

Interested parties may know that Al (chickin lickin) Gore wrote a response to Monckton full of the usual political spin & evasion.

Here is Monckton's response which is a comprehensive demolishing of Gore:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf

Ted Bovis

This would be the same Steve Reed who wrote that wind turbines affect the Earth's rotation, I suppose.

No surprise he was ridiculed, I would say.

Ever wondered why UKIP gets such lousy election results?

g hall

Wind turbines - what turns them, the wind what causes the wind? The Earths rotation perhaps and the atmosphere being gaseous and not solid is effected by the surface also thermal currents so if the turbines extract energy from this then yes they will effect the earths rotation albeit a small effect but turbine numbers are growing - does this mean they cause climate change! oh dear