Chris_H wrote on 26. Jan 2011 at 09:11:



That's the trouble with humanity Chris.

Some will be ambivalent, some careless, some evil, some calculating, some far-seeing, some insular, some will accept anything they're told because they can’t be bothered investigating any matter for themselves and, sadly, many others will try to profit at any available opportunity.

So I think it is quite right for those of us are concerned that profit will be made from the coming glut of regulations into how each and everyone of us lives our lives to question those who would propose such change.

There are also those of us who do try to be responsible in how we treat the environment and attempt to have as little impact on it as possible (whilst continuing to breathe)

I think that an admirable human trait.

Lizzie Zoom wrote on 26. Jan 2011 at 09:44:



I meant to pick up on this point earlier. Today's article by Booker in the DT has reminded me to dig out the thread.

With respect to the highlighted words:

This was so much the message they wanted that Nurse invited him to confirm that human emissions are seven times greater than those from all natural sources. This was mind-boggling. It is generally agreed that the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 due to human activity represent just over 3 percent of the total emitted. That given off by natural sources, such as the oceans, is vastly greater than this, more than 96 per cent of the total.

One may argue about the "carbon cycle" and how much CO2 the oceans and plants reabsorb. But, as baldly stated, the point was simply a grotesque misrepresentation, serving, like many of the programme's other assertions, only to give viewers a wholly misleading impression.

..and a few were, indeed, misled.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8290469/How-BBC-...

Oh, and I recommend the last part of the article which asks whether the Met's temperature data was "adjusted" to make 2010 the warmest, as claimed.

We can (and probably will) argue about the rights and wrongs of this subject for forever and a day, but I think there is a great danger in watching Tv programmes etc. and accepting them at their word, assuming the contributors are as expert as their job title suggests and believing they are as honest and objective as they are being peresented.
The only hope of getting near the truth imo, is to study as much available info as possible from all perspectives and try to use best judgement as to where the truth is likely to lie.
Personally, I am still extremely sceptical about the whole man made global warming theory.

Albs wrote on 30. Jan 2011 at 10:27:



I thoroughly agree Albs, and as I for one have not taken this on board as my personal crusade I will not be arguing it to death as, frankly, I do not know all the answers!

As for listening to one person, I agree on that as well Albs.  With that last post I was simply answering Nick on his comparison of the NASA scientists 'facts' and the Daily Telegraph journalist views on it all.  I was just basically saying I would sooner listen and accept the facts of a NASA scientist than a DT journalist!

In terms of the whole argument I have spent my life watching man pollute and abuse the Earth.  I have listened, watched, and read most of the arguments for and against what man has done or not.  I have debated at university on this subject, where I must say the learned academics of the staff who have studied the subject argue very much that a) global warming is taking place b) the climate is changing dramatically c) man has had a great influence on the climate d) change is required. 

Therefore my grounding for saying that I am inclined to now believe man is responsible for the speed of climatic change, on top of anything nature intended, is based on a wide and comprehensive input of data, not just one TV statement by a NASA scientist no  matter how compelling it was.  It added to the picture, but is just one part of many sources of data gleaned over decades.

Opti wrote on 30. Jan 2011 at 11:23:


Respiration: 38%
Oceans: 57%
Deforestation: 1%
Fossil fuels/cement: 4%

What lies are you on about? Sorry if the facts offend. 

One thing I have observed from these threads is that Nick tries as much as is possible to deal in facts, or at least data from sources which are as reliable as he can find. The people arguing the opposite case, afair rarely present any facts or data to counter this. The arguments tend to be wide sweeping statements and opinions with little if anything to back them up.
Could one of the reasons for this be that so much of the data produced to back up the global warming case has been disproved and discredited ?
Btw, I also note with interest that people fall into the trap of joining pollution/AGW together. They are not the same thing. I am and always have been against pollution of the planet,only a fool or someone with a large vested interest could argue otherwise, but it doesnt follow that we are destroying the planet by emitting co2, they are two different issues.
I think we would be wise to worry more about large scale deforestation - some of which is being carried out to help produce biofriendly fuels - utter madness.

Sir Paul Nurse used to work at the UEA so that might explain why Phil Jones was quite happy to be interviewed by him, but when it came to the FOI requests he wasnt so obliging, strange one that.