BP?

[Prufrock]

A few points.

As Enfield has already pointed out cows may contribute lots in terms of methane, but the reason for that is there are millions more of them than there would be if we didn't breed mass herds for meat and milk.

Fatshaft. The Nuclear fuel that was 'bad' was fission, the nuclear fuel that is the 'saviour' is fusion. They are completely different.

And Puskas is right. Either it's our fault, and we can do something about it, or it isn't and we can't. Even if there were many fewer scientists convinced it was our fault, the fact that we lose nothing by trying, but potentially gain everything is surely a good thing. Even if we aren't going to all die if we don't, surely we should try to conserve resources and protect the environment?

[thebish]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

y'see - that is simply untrue.

Yes it is, unless you mean it was a bit further back than that?

no - I mean what I say - it is simply untrue.

there was no scientific consensus in the 1970s telling us that an ice age was imminent - really, there wasn't.

there were a couple of poorly written and researched journalistic pieces (TIME magazine and NEWSWEEK) that made those claims - but that would be to confuse journalists with scientists - which is a very bad idea...

in the 1970s the majority of peer reviewed scientific research predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

the whole "Scientists all told us to expect an ice-age in the 1970s" is an urban myth often repeated - but no more true due to repetition.

here's a graph that shows what was published in the 1970s and what it predicted....


Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red).
In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

[Worthy4England]

Er - I'm a bit lost here your bishopliness.

I'd be very tempted to discount ANY research backed up with a graph caption saying

In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

When 1970 appears to have 2 warming papers against zero cooling ones - if I've read it correctly.

I suspect s/he's trying to point to the cumulative total, but if that's as accurate as it gets, then you gotta worry.

I think there's going to be an ice age...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Er - I'm a bit lost here your bishopliness.

I'd be very tempted to discount ANY research backed up with a graph caption saying

In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

When 1970 appears to have 2 warming papers against zero cooling ones - if I've read it correctly.

I suspect s/he's trying to point to the cumulative total, but if that's as accurate as it gets, then you gotta worry.

I think there's going to be an ice age...

And now you've lost me.

0 < 2

N'est-ce pas?

(As Enfield would say...)

[Worthy4England]

Er - I'm a bit lost here your bishopliness.

I'd be very tempted to discount ANY research backed up with a graph caption saying

In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).

When 1970 appears to have 2 warming papers against zero cooling ones - if I've read it correctly.

I suspect s/he's trying to point to the cumulative total, but if that's as accurate as it gets, then you gotta worry.

I think there's going to be an ice age...

And now you've lost me.

0 < 2

N'est-ce pas?

(As Enfield would say...)

Don't trust me on global warming either try 1971...

[thebish]

Don't trust me on global warming either try 1971...

1971 does appear to be an anomaly - but I'm sure that must be an optical illusion...

I lived through the 1970s - and my personal experience of that tallies with the evidence that there was no giant "ice-age coming" harum-scarum coming from the scientific community...

In do remember general (and real) fear of nuclear MAD...

In the 1970s, the most comprehensive study on climate change (and the closest thing to a scientific consensus at the time) was the 1975 US National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Report. Their basic conclusion was "…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…"

[Worthy4England]

That conclusion has "give us more funding" writ large.

[thebish]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

the fact that you know neither is not balanced ignorance - it is double the ignorance.

here's some of the worldwide scientific institutions who believe that human activity plays a significant role in global warming:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

[William the White]

^^

No scottish one, there...

[Bruce Rioja]

In do remember general (and real) fear of nuclear MAD...

Sorry to digress but I've never known any form of collective fear quite like that that accompanyed the fear amongst my age group in the early 80's regarding 'certain' nuclear attack. Conversations would go along the lines of "Well when it happens you're going to want to be with your family", that sort of thing. The BBC's Threads TV drama set in Sheffield, which came out around 83/84 did nothing to help we scardey-cat teenagers either.

As you were.

[Puskas]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

And the "wooshing" sound over your head?

Go on - here's a clue.

Look at what you've done when describing people in terms of positive (realist) and negative terms whilst offering no evidence at all. Look at what I've done. Tell me the difference.

Go on - I dare you. I double dare you...

[thebish]

^^

No scottish one, there...

Is Scotland not in the UK anymore?

[thebish]

That conclusion has "give us more funding" writ large.

maybe so!

(but it doesn't conclude with a harem-scarem ice-age is coming scare-story)

[Hoboh]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

the fact that you know neither is not balanced ignorance - it is double the ignorance.

here's some of the worldwide scientific institutions who believe that human activity plays a significant role in global warming:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA)
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

Nearly all on the Government(s) pay role no doubt!

[thebish]

Nearly all on the Government(s) pay role no doubt!

actually - no...

I guess I'll wait in vain for an impressive list of scientists or scientific organisations who deny the human impact on global warming.. (and to keep up your standards - are not also the PR wing of the oil industry...)

[fatshaft]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

the fact that you know neither is not balanced ignorance - it is double the ignorance.

here's some of the worldwide scientific institutions who believe that human activity plays a significant role in global warming:

Fair enough, I thought you meant who are these guys, not which easily identifiable institution published them. I have no idea who the scientists are, nor which ones we should take seriously, which I thought was what you were asking.

[fatshaft]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

And the "wooshing" sound over your head?

Go on - here's a clue.

Look at what you've done when describing people in terms of positive (realist) and negative terms whilst offering no evidence at all. Look at what I've done. Tell me the difference.

Go on - I dare you. I double dare you...

What evidence would you like me to produce? That is the job of scientists, and more and more are criticising the government advisers who paint a doomsday scenario which they claim is being dramatically overplayed.

[thebish]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

And the "wooshing" sound over your head?

Go on - here's a clue.

Look at what you've done when describing people in terms of positive (realist) and negative terms whilst offering no evidence at all. Look at what I've done. Tell me the difference.

Go on - I dare you. I double dare you...

What evidence would you like me to produce? That is the job of scientists, and more and more are criticising the government advisers who paint a doomsday scenario which they claim is being dramatically overplayed.

you seem to be rowing MILES back there.... first you said there was no human link to global warming - it was all bollox - now you seem to be saying that there is a link but it is merely overplayed...

also - "more and more" - you've already said you have no idea if this is true - else you could tell us how many "more" is - and who some of them are, surely?

[Bruce Rioja]

Scientists? Scientific institutions?

I'm far too hebetudinous for all o' that.

I'll watch this instead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-h6pNv7 ... r_embedded

[fatshaft]

you seem to be rowing MILES back there.... first you said there was no human link to global warming - it was all bollox - now you seem to be saying that there is a link but it is merely overplayed...

also - "more and more" - you've already said you have no idea if this is true - else you could tell us how many "more" is - and who some of them are, surely?

Yes I've no idea if it's true, I've also no idea if the scaremongers utterings are true either. You see they are allegedly the experts, so I read what they pish out, and think about it.

But seeing as the warnings have given us little but more expense and taxes, and more and more scientists are crawling out of the woodwork to rebuff earlier claims, I'm leaning towards natural causes and government agenda rather than 'we're killing the planet'.

Sorry if that doesn't fit with the politically correct 'green' everything, but personally I think it's a load of pish, not too bothered if you think otherwise, that's your choice, and you're welcome to it, just don't expect everyone to tow the taxation line.