Turbohot

Right! Global warming is taking place.Whatever the reasons are,human nature is to protect oneself from any disaster.In order to do that,we all should make an effort to minimise the chances of distruction,if not reverse.
Sell your ******* gas-guzzling scoobs for a start,you do-gooders!

Mick

iTrader: (1)

- Only 6 Billion People On Planet - all dead within 6 days.... AAAAAAGGGGHHHHHH

- Come to think of it... I am feeling a bit peckish - time for elevenses

Mick

shooter007

more nuclear power i say bye bye conservative party

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Haha...for example there are 350million people in India living below the calorific poverty line. So they never ever have enough to eat and suffer related diseases of malnutrition.

Rannoch

shooter007

yes but nice weather and the`ve got all our call centers

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Sorry Rannoch - thought there must be a typo in that comment 'millions' not 'billions' or something... - but I get you now - it's billions in the process of dying of starvation, not that actually billions die each day! DOH! - Sorry

Mick

StickyMicky

where do you live??
i have had my storage heaters switched off for the past 2 months

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

If all the ice melts, wont the oceans stay the same level anyway

hedgehog

No, only the arctic sea ice is actually "floating" the ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic are sitting on land, and both of these ice sheets are increasing in volume rather than decreasing. The Arctic sea ice accounts for only a very small proportion of world ice, less than 1%, and although we are being repeatedly told that arctic sea ice is melting this is entirely a relative term as it is approaching the extent that was seen in 1940.

However, the situation is somewhat more complex as sea level has been rising at a steady rate for many thousands of years now. Even during the period that archaeologists describe as the "climate optimum" when prehistoric monuments such as Callanish and Stonehenge were built and when the climate was about 3 degrees warmer than today the sea levels were actually lower than today.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

But the north pole has no land mass at all , all this propaganda bull**** about the north pole melting and flooding the world

hedgehog

The Arctic Ocean holds about 0.01% of the earth's ice. By comparison Antarctica (where the ice mass, including sea ice extent, is increasing) holds about 88% and the Greenland ice sheet holds about 9.8% and is also increasing in depth by just over 5cm per year.

Leslie

With all due respect I don't think that any of us are qualified to say whether we have got global warming or not. We can only look at graphs etc. and believe or not the scientists who are studying the problem with advanced instrumentation.

As I have said before, there is a vast difference in the seasons from when I was a child. I can't explain that and no 0ne else has been able to either in my experience.

I certainly am not prepared to say one way or the other, but the evidence must not be ignored. We have an obligation to our descendants.

Les

OllyK

Les "on average" the globe is in a period of warming, I don't think there is too much contention about that. The bigger issue is what contribution if any humans are making to that warming and even if there is actually a problem with the planet warming up anyway - it has been warmer in the past.

My concern is that there is too much knee jerk reaction going on. Yes humans are wasteful and making more efficient use of resources is to be encouraged, but bringing in draconian measures without being sure if they are required does give me cause for concern.

hedgehog

I agree that the evidence should not be ignored Les, but what we must not do is stand back while interested parties use science as a political football to forward their own agendas. To do so would be a great disservice to following generations and also to a very many people in the world who still have an average life span of 40 years to look forward to.

Some of the nutters are highly organised in organisations such as Greenpeace which, as Dr. Patrick Moore a founder member, highlighted is now merely an organisation for those who oppose development and modern society. This is fine and good for people who already live in a rich developed country, it is easy to oppose development from that position. However, 2.5 million people each year die of malaria just because of the political pressure applied by similar nutters who got DDT banned after the "Silent Spring" book was published. In truth there was no scientific basis for the banning of DDT and in some countries malaria was almost eliminated before the ban came into action, today it is back in business. However, the nutters in developed countries called for a ban and I am sure they said it needed to happen for future generations, they got political backing, DDT was painted as being a deadly poison and it was banned. In truth all they did was condemn 2.5 million people per year in future generations in developing countries to a rather unpleasant death.

Those who are using so called man made climate change in a similar political role today are no different to the very vocal minority nutters who got DDT banned and they are going to leave a similar legacy if they are successful.

With that in mind I don't believe that it is sufficient to sit back and say you don't really know enough to decide. I think it is important that each and every person studies the science and then takes a stand against the nutters who are using our ignorance as a weapon against us and against many billions of fellow humans. You don't always need a lot of science, the recent letter signed by 60 climate experts from universities around the world highlighting that the human signature in climate, if any exists, is well below the noise level is simple and easy for all to understand. To date there is no scientific evidence of humans having an effect on climate and the climate, in changing, is doing exactly what it has always done. What caused the last ice age to melt? What caused a 6 degree C temperature increase in Greenland between 1920 and 1930 when there was no increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration? Why could the Vikings grow grapes in Greenland until a very short time ago? In the 1940s what caused the Arctic sea ice to be so reduced in extent that during the war we ran "Arctic convoys" to Russia? What caused the same nutters to publish documents in the 1960s and 70s warning of an impending ice age unless we took action?

The subject may be complex but the science is clear and is well within the understanding of us all. Lets not condemn future generations in the same way as those who sat back and let DDT be banned did.

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

Man has been churning out gasses for what? 200 years a mere blip on this earth and yet the climate has been changing continuously for billions of years without our meddling.

Dont get me started on DDT, how many millions of lives have been lost due to panicking politicans banning its use

Leslie

Well I certainly agree about knee jerk reactions and I also think that the politicians have jumped on the bandwagon in order to screw millions out of us all also without exhibiting any significant restraint themselves.

I find the whole business very concerning and I honestly hope the the world's climate is not going into decline.

Les

Nimbus

I don't suppose you have a link to this info do you?

hedgehog

The text is available here:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...Mletter06.html

6 April 2006

Dear Prime Minister:

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science.

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise". The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.

We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas.

We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

pete1977

Climate change has always been happening and would have happened anyway without any help from us,thats why you have all these experts backing it.Do you know how much humans have an effect in destroying the ozone layer?The percentage is tiny,its not worth bothering about.The reason its being shoved down our throats recently is because it is in powers that be interest for us to believe that the end is nigh.Just another form of control.Yeah sure it is a reality but a reality that im pretty sure was always going to happen,cutting down on car usage,not using CFC,s ,all the rest of that crap isnt going to stop it.So just accept it and get on with enjoying your life.

dpb

Somewhere in between

Leslie

Bit like the terrorist excuse really!

Les

hedgehog

The men who debunked the IPCC "Hockey Stick" have a very accessible article published yesterday. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick called the methodology used to create the "Hockey Stick graph" into question and were refused publication in the British science journal Nature because their paper was too difficult for the readership! Once their findings were published they caused a considerable stir and totally destroyed the IPCC report which was largely dependant upon the Mann "hockey stick" graph for evidence of so called man made global warming.


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...f98f416e71&p=1