I'll partially agree with you irlca. Politicians do say very different things and they sound convincing. It's their job to say something and sound convincing.

However, scientists on the whole do not. But you can always find one or two fringe scientists going against consensus. But on the whole, I think scientific consensus is probably the most accurate body of opinion there is.

In regards to global warming, very few scientists now doubt it.

So we are left with a choice. Do we look at the data and make our own minds (which requires endless searches to find the data), or do we rely on the scientists?

i was so impressed with the programme that i joined this forum,(it was about time that we had a balance to the issue of global warming) and i have recorded the programme, so that i can sit down with my kids and watch it again, so that they can make an informed choice for themselves. in school, my kids are being taught that the human race is slowly but surely killing this planet, but if you look back into the earths dark and not to distant past (approx 10,000 years ago) it was a pretty rough place to be, with huge earthquakes and volcanoes happening all over the place, causing the type of distruction to the enviroment that we can only see in our worst nightmares. Yet it has still managed to provide an environment that we can survive in. a half decent volcanoe would chuck out more harmfull gases in a few hours than the human race could do in years if not ever, and it will have nothing to do with global warming. those of us that are fortunate enough to live in the developed world have no right to stop the rest of the world developing to our level, just who the hell do we think we are to tell (for example) the people of africa, china, etc, that they can not use thier natural resources i.e. coal, gas, oil, etc to bring them up to anywhere near the level that we are in the developed world, the fact that london may or may not get alittle wet in a few years should have nothing to do with wether they have a coal fired power station. anyone who says it has is talking rubbish, because if you gave them the choice, what do you think they would choose. would anyone in this country swap places with them.i wouldn't volunteer.
i love my life (and 4x4), and realise how lucky i am, and i wouldn't dream of stopping anyone from wanting to get a better life for themselves, we need to be on a level playing field first. we should be advicing them on what does and does not work and helping them to improve thier lot, rather than trying to apparently "keep them in their place". no wonder they are p****d with us. they should have the same oppertunity to develope as the rest of us and in a way that is sustainable. if that means using thier gas, oil, coal, then so be it, and when that has run out, then hopefully the whole planet will be in a situation to develope alternatives as equals.
as for the whole CO2 - global warming thing, it is just an excuse for bringing in more taxation.
the sea levels will rise and fall, the poles will get bigger and smaller, and the weather will change for the better and worse, not because of CO2 or humans, but because they always have and always will.

Again Martin, I ask, have you swallowed the films propaganda because you have considered the issues, looked at the SCIENTIFIC evidence and made up your mind; or do you simply love your 4 by 4 so much you will swallow anything to justify it?

Perhaps you might like to explain the bit of information that you feel you have that almost the entire scientific community has got wrong.

the anti-CO2 lot have been using propaganda, doctoring graphs and generally using ststistics to prove thier point of view for years, and to be honest i don't really care. my opinion is that the earth will continue to evolve and change and has its own natural rhythm. it is going to get hotter and/or colder with little help from man.
as for my 4x4, its the best thing since sliced bread, i could spend the next six weeks or until i get my new one, justifying my reasons for having one as it is the most cost effective and efficient means of getting myself and my family around

On the volcanic CO2......a portion of it ( I am not sure of the exact amount....I don't think anyone is yet ) is actually recycled. What happens is that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean and then gets into the subduction area of techtonic plates where it then re-emerges via volcanoes. This is certainly the case with many of the Andes volcanoes....so in their case some of the CO2 is actually part of the carbon cycle ( albeit over millions of years ) and not 'new' CO2.

But you certainly cannot say that for all volcanoes, and there must by definition be new CO2 added or we would not have 300 feet worth of white cliffs of Dover. The discovery of subducted CO2 is a fairly recent discovery, so I'm not sure any real data exists on what portion of volcanoes are guilty of belching out new CO2 and what portion are recycling. I doubt if the recycling is a major element, but its certainly another factor in the equation.

real scientist,

I guess you are right. At some point I will have to accept the scientific consensus. I did not realise there were many dissenting voices at all. Of course there is an immeddiate attraction for Durkin to put his oar in with the dissenters. It's journalistically better to be the one against than the 101st with an argument. I will probably read around a bit and convince myself in my spare time. I wish the debate was more accessible on tv & radio etc. I live in Ireland and listen/ watch both all the time and it's always presented as: it's a fact we've caused global warming and now what are you going to do about it?

Chi squared,

Interesting with the volcanoes. This was the one thing that I did see somewhat of a hole in the "swindle"'s argument with the animals and leaves and now you with the volcanoes. He says if I remember right that the air co2 is from industry and the 3 above. With animals and leaves surely the recycle time is short and its all recycled and therefore shouldn't be an issue? But an immediate thought occurs: I remember hearing cows contribute a lot of methane (a far worse offender by an order of magnitude) from their digestive processes which may be "new" so it's again more complex than I'd hoped. It'd give an aspirin a headache thinking too long on this stuff!

The global thermal models are effectively using the known historical change in the CO2 concentration and the change in the heat flux that this can be calculated to cause as a “calibrating stimulus” for their models. Apart from looking at diurnal variation in surface temperatures (which give some indirect indication of cloud cover) we have very little to go on as to if, or how, the contribution of clouds to the thermal budget may have changed historically. If clouds were 'robust' systems – with their processes and properties appearing to be substantially immune to perturbations in the environment then it would be quite reasonable to assume that there effect would have remained constant over the relevant period. However, clouds show many signs of being extremely sensitive.

To give an indication of the instrumentational problems (especially historically) in this field take a look at the following paper on Cloud Condensation Nucleus (CCN) counters from JAM

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/16/10/pdf/i...-0450-16-10-1120.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by real scientist:
I stand by my comparison of global warming with holocaust denial for two very simple reasons.

It really is incredible to read something like this for a so called educated person.

This is so offensive and lacking of any basis compassion and humanity it makes me sad. Only a fanatic defending his cult at any cost could sink to this level.

Martin Durkin's GGWS has certainly taken us all through the looking glass and afforded a peak into the more surreal ends of academic life. I do not mean to imply all scientist are like this guy quoted above.

I think one of the reasons for the Carbon Footprint cult is the rise of the media hungry scientists. With the growth of cable TV you get the new attention seeking nerd who craves media spotlight in the same way Jade Goodie and the whole Big Brother generation does. A whole media industry from Discovery planet to Mythbusters to the show on sky were two clowns blow up caravans. Even the BBC's Horizon once the benchmark for quality science broadcasting is now all sensationalists and MTV-ish.

The days of a rational, measured scientist in the media seems to have gone as hysterical arm-waving middle-age sufer-dude types have taken over. The more hysterical and sensationalist their "science" is, the more media it gets and what has more of the "wow" factor than man made global warming and mankind wiping itself out...

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:
On the volcanic CO2......a portion of it ( I am not sure of the exact amount....I don't think anyone is yet ) is actually recycled. What happens is that CO2 is absorbed by the ocean and then gets into the subduction area of techtonic plates where it then re-emerges via volcanoes. This is certainly the case with many of the Andes volcanoes....so in their case some of the CO2 is actually part of the carbon cycle ( albeit over millions of years ) and not 'new' CO2.

But you certainly cannot say that for all volcanoes, and there must by definition be new CO2 added or we would not have 300 feet worth of white cliffs of Dover. The discovery of subducted CO2 is a fairly recent discovery, so I'm not sure any real data exists on what portion of volcanoes are guilty of belching out new CO2 and what portion are recycling. I doubt if the recycling is a major element, but its certainly another factor in the equation.

Do you think the atmosphere cares whether the CO2 is 'new' or recycled. If you are allowing a recycle period of millions of years then CO2 from coal is recycled as it started in the air, turned into plants (as hydrocarbons), then coal then gas. The journey, the cycle time and whether it remained as gaseous or dissolved CO2 are utterly irrelevant.

quote:

Do you think the atmosphere cares whether the CO2 is 'new' or recycled. If you are allowing a recycle period of millions of years then CO2 from coal is recycled as it started in the air, turned into plants (as hydrocarbons), then coal then gas. The journey, the cycle time and whether it remained as gaseous or dissolved CO2 are utterly irrelevant.

Well, in a sense it is true that CO2 from coal or oil is actually CO2 that came from the atmosphere in the first place. But clearly it was not all in the atmosphere at the same time.

Nevertheless, the sheer extent of new sources of CO2 is shown by just standing at the base of the White cliffs of Dover and grasping that every cubic meter of that white stuff contains about 10 cubic meters of trapped CO2. It's clearly not being recycled ( neither are most of the other vast areas of CO2 deposit on Earth ).....so there you have evidence of vast sources of new CO2 over time.........long before mankind ever turned up.

It is clear that the carbon cycle cannot have been recycling all this lot completely, or there would not be vast deposits. So one can infer quite logically that CO2 levels must, by definition, have been much higher at times in the past. So alamist reports that say things like ' CO2 level highest in 650,000 years ' paint a totally false picture of a reality in which at times on the geological time scale the CO2 level was anywhere up to 10 times higher than today. And of course........the world did not end then, and is unlikely to do so as a result of our own somewhat meagre input.

quote:

It really is incredible to read something like this for a so called educated person.

This is so offensive and lacking of any basis compassion and humanity it makes me sad.

Why is that? I don't understand why you defend those that deny observed facts. Flat Earthers, holocaust deniers and man made global warming deniers are all the same in that respect.

The fact remains that almost nobody capable of knowning denies global warming.

quote:

The fact remains that almost nobody capable of knowning denies global warming.

The "one true truth" eh?

It is always amazing to watch a new religion forming before one's eyes.

"Onward Climate Soldiers...marching under Gore..."

quote:

Originally posted by real scientist:

In regards to global warming, very few scientists now doubt it.

That's not what this issue and debate is about.

Nobody doubts global warming is happening (the evidence is rock solid) - some of us (I would most people who have looked at the debate from both sides with an open mind) do not believe it is a result of man made C02 emissions. It can't be. The "science" which are told proves this completely is nowhere to be found and what is out there would be akin to burning an apple pie in the oven because the heat was too high and then blaming the apples inside the pie. It's highly speculative at best, and outright lies and distortion at worst.

I also suspect that the number of scientists who question the Book of Gore is a very sizable percentage. From what I am reading there would seem to be a "McCarthyism" culture surrounding this issue among academia, and if you are indeed a real scientist, then this assumption would appear to be real judging by your comments.

quote:

a half decent volcanoe would chuck out more harmfull gases in a few hours than the human race could do in years if not ever, and it will have nothing to do with global warming.

Unfortunately this was one of the errors in the programme. A half decent volcano such as Pinatubo is virtually undetected in the plot of CO2 levels over time. The US geological survey estimates of volcanic CO2 are less than 1% that of humans.

I have read (but can't cite references for) that even a supervolcano such as the big Yellowstone eruption of 2 million years ago (the sort that would severely damage the USA) manages about 3 months worth of current CO2 output from fossil fuel burning - most of the damage it causes is through clouds of soot and aerosols.

quote:

Why is that? I don't understand why you defend those that deny observed facts. Flat Earthers, holocaust deniers and man made global warming deniers are all the same in that respect.

This sort of statement is not science, it's the sheer arrogance that one gets from some scientists.

You forget that science arose in the first place directly as a RESULT of people questioning things......and back in those days often being burned at the stake for it.

How preposterous to imagine that science should now itself take that same Inquisition ' how dare you speak heresy' type role that its forebears fought with their lives to overcome.

The entire basis of genuine science is that NOTHING is beyond question. The minute you start to impose unquestionable dogma.......you may as well just scrap science and reinstate the Inquisition.

quote:

Replying to the idea of introducing more clouds to counteract the warming :

Well....ironically we already are. Did you ever see the report on the studies that were done during the 3 days that flights were grounded after 911 ? Average temperatures across the US rose by a degree or so. All those contrails created by those carbon fuel guzzling planes are clearly ( and ironically ) having a cooling effect.

I wonder if this is being included in computer simulations yet.

Actually, check the 4th IPCC assessment report, Summary for Policy makers. Estimates of contrails have been included, and given a very small effect. I understand some studies of temperature have been done, but I've not seen any proper scientific assessments eg to whether it had real effects, and whether they were effects at night, during the day etc.

PS I was in the Rockies the day the planes started again and it was very foggy

quote:

Why is that? I don't understand why you defend those that deny observed facts. Flat Earthers, holocaust deniers and man made global warming deniers are all the same in that respect.

As a scientist I really would not use such language. I'm currently having a debate elsewhere with someone who accuses me of being an ecofascist because I believe the science behind global warming is sound. I do recognise that there is a veritable industry of "pro-free market" websites propogating myths about global warming, and I find it irritating because it distracts from real debate. But, I think it is better to just respond to the scientific points.

quote:

quote:

In regards to global warming, very few scientists now doubt it.

Nobody doubts global warming is happening (the evidence is rock solid) - some of us (I would most people who have looked at the debate from both sides with an open mind) do not believe it is a result of man made C02 emissions. It can't be. The "science" which are told proves this completely is nowhere to be found

Sorry. What I meant is that very few scientists now doubt that global warming caused by man made CO2 emisions is now happening.

You seem to have doubts. And I value your doubts. However, I value the opinion of scientific consensus more.

quote:

Why is that? I don't understand why you defend those that deny observed facts. Flat Earthers, holocaust deniers and man made global warming deniers are all the same in that respect.

quote:

The "one true truth" eh?

It is always amazing to watch a new religion forming before one's eyes.

You can call anything that states there is one truth a religion if you must. But if you put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, I believe, yay I believe that the chemical reaction will cause an expansion of gases and yay I believe that that expansion will accellerate the bullet from stationary to over 100 miles in a fraction of a second, and yay I believe from momentum considerations that it will penetrate your brain and yay I believe from biological systems that it will kill you.

I believe there is one truth. I believe you will die if you shoot yourself in the head.

You don't have to join my religion of one truth. But for your own sake, I advise you not to bet your life, or the life of this planet, on ideas that got against scientific consensus.

quote:

How preposterous to imagine that science should now itself take that same Inquisition ' how dare you speak heresy' type role that its forebears fought with their lives to overcome.

The entire basis of genuine science is that NOTHING is beyond question. The minute you start to impose unquestionable dogma.......you may as well just scrap science and reinstate the Inquisition.

There is no inquisition. If a respectible climate scientist finds evidence that contradicts global warming, then he is welcome to present it and if he is right, he will be listened to.

But alas, nobody has produced this evidence. The scientific debate is all very free. All that matters is the political debate we are having now where people like you with almost no scientific knowledge once again profess to know the truth based upon a little bit of knowledge (in this case from a manipulative documentary) and despite the opinion of scientific consensus.

You have taken over the roll of the inquisition I'm afraid by refusing to believe the all but unchallenged science [at least amonst those that actually know anything about it]. But instead of hanging scientists, you are trying to hang this entire planet.

quote:

As a scientist I really would not use such language. I'm currently having a debate elsewhere with someone who accuses me of being an ecofascist because I believe the science behind global warming is sound. I do recognise that there is a veritable industry of "pro-free market" websites propogating myths about global warming, and I find it irritating because it distracts from real debate. But, I think it is better to just respond to the scientific points.

You are wise to refrain from the bold language that I use. However, how can we hope to respond with scientific points when the people who we talk to cannot tell the difference between science and scientific sounding but false sound bites? The debate is political, because I can't see how we can educate people of the issues that take at least 4 years to understand in a couple of minutes or a post or two.

Instead, I think we should focus on the fact that there is scientific consensus and therefore any attempt by non-scientists to challenge global warming is intellectually similar to flat Earth, intelligent design and general science bashing.

quote:

You are wise to refrain from the bold language that I use. However, how can we hope to respond with scientific points when the people who we talk to cannot tell the difference between science and scientific sounding but false sound bites? The debate is political, because I can't see how we can educate people of the issues that take at least 4 years to understand in a couple of minutes or a post or two.

To real scientist:

By all means respond with scientific points. Some will choose not to believe them there and then, but there are other readers out there who may. Especially if more than one person is saying the same thing.

I have spoken to a number of intelligent people whose intellect I trust who were to a degree taken in by the programme. They did not believe every word of it but a casual watching gave them the impression that there is more debate (among the scientists) than there really is. Because they know me, they trusted my opinions and (limited but sufficient) knowledge of the subject when I debunked it. On a forum such as this, your credentials are not visible, and neither do they matter. If you believe your arguments, I recommend that making them in a measured way is more likely to plant the seed in people's mind that there is at least information that they need to know. Remember also that your responses are visible to more than just the people with which you converse. Regards.

Steve_M,

Again, what you say makes a lot of sense. I guess I am a touch more synical than you.

What you say may be scientifically right but you agree that people will not be able to know that.

Instead, you have proposed that if they hear the correct science enough, then they will think there is sense to them even though they don't understand it. However, the same can be said for the pseudo false science as this mechanism could work for them too in the same way.

It's just propaganda in the end. This political debate is all about propaganda, spin and presentation. That's why I don't like engaging in it like that.

The way I see it, one side is directly challenging the scientific consensus of one aspect of science. This is a challenge not just to them, but to the concept of scientific consensus, and represents a fundamental challenge to the scientific method in every scientific discipline.

If they can pick on environmental science to frankly demonise ["all motivated by Tsacherite policies" etc], then what is to stop them picking on any other piece of scientific knowledge?

The real issue here in my view is a deep mistrust of the scientific community.