Another phenomenon hijacked by the liberals.

[Nick]

In the meantime, the people who are actually qualified in these topics are all saying that the link between human activity and climate change is almost certain.

Who are the scientists that are saying climate change is attributed to CO2? Are they the ones that are getting government grands hand over fist to prove there is a problem? Most likely those scientists are from within the climatology field, the ones who will lose their jobs if people realise there isn't actually a problem.

Maggie started the ole Global Warming thing because she wanted a reason to stop coal production and move to nuclear. She gave out grants with the express message, find me a reason. They built climate models based on the premise that if you increase CO2 the temperature goes up. What a shock when the model told them exactly what it had been programmed to do.

[Borchester]

Perhaps they will do it when you get a PHD in climate science, collect all the data to prove your point, publish it, and then get it accepted.

In the meantime, the people who are actually qualified in these topics....

Who might they be?

I would love to see megabucks invested in Climate Research. If we can control the weather then we will be quids in. But all I can see are a lot of academics desperate to get their names in the papers and a lot of media types happy to take advantage of the free copy.

[johnofgwent]

There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, unfortunately for climate scientists it's the wrong way round. CO2 is a product of temperature and not a driver. The CO2 lags temperature by 800 years with the temperature increase being seen in the wrong place for it to be caused by extra CO2.

Not only that, I saw a report the other month that said they sent a probe up and the temperature measured was actually far LOWER than their models said it should be, almost as if whatever gases they had were blocking the sunlight. But it can't actually be blocking it, as the total insolation in the heat of the midday sun in Newport was the same (1215 watts per square metre) that it was when i was paid to measure it in Cardiff in 1979 ...

[Javert]

First it was global warming, then when they realised that temperatures were sometimes falling they changed it to Climate Change.

Noun: Changes in average climate conditions. Ok I'll agree that, hard not to really.

But... The OED goes on to say: attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. One of the worlds most respected institutions, the OED has been pressed into accepting the polemic that Climate Change is an anthropogenic institution.

All the science says the opposite but everyone up to and including governments are too afraid to disagree in fear of being labelled a heretic. At what point are the limp wristed liberals going to accept that CO2 is a by-product of global warming and not a driver, that the great burning mass that greets us every morning controls every aspect of our lives, climate, weather, everything.

Perhaps they will do it when you get a PHD in climate science, collect all the data to prove your point, publish it, and then get it accepted.

In the meantime, the people who are actually qualified in these topics are all saying that the link between human activity and climate change is almost certain.  The almost is only there because scientists can never be 100% certain about such things, but it's telling that the experts admit that their prediction is 99.9999% rather than 100%, whereas the deniers seem 100% sure that they are right and that humans have nothing to do with it.

That's leaving aside the other two question I always ask myself - if all these PHD level scientists are all telling lies and actually human activity is lowering the temperature or is irrelevant, what is their motive for doing that?  Why would they do that, and why would nearly all the world's government's sign up to that even though it means they will have to introduce unpopular and costly policies?  To answer this question you have to go into what I would class as conspiracy theory territory.

Next point - even if it wasn't human caused, it could still be catastrophically damaging in various ways, so it still needs to be addressed.  The people denying this are all in the end arguing that we don't need to do anything at all, which seems ridiculous either way.

Next  - even regardless of climate change, pretty much all scientists agree that we are using fossil fuels faster than the earth is making them, so regardless of climate change, it makes sense to be moving to more sustainable energy in the long term.

Finally - for us in Europe, it makes even more sense strategically because we have very little fossil fuel reserves and it's useful to become less dependent on other regions.

[Nick]

I accept that the correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rises has been too consistent to be dismissed as coincidence.

There is a correlation between CO2 and temperature, unfortunately for climate scientists it's the wrong way round. CO2 is a product of temperature and not a driver. The CO2 lags temperature by 800 years with the temperature increase being seen in the wrong place for it to be caused by extra CO2.

[Borg Refinery]

Did we not have one in the 1960s? John Christopher wrote a book about it called The World in Winter. It was ok but it was full of middle class angst.

Thought you had a degree in maths and a good grasp of science? 

Come on, use it and give us your thoughts...

Anyway, I am not that bothered by the cold. You can always put another pullie on or throw a hippie on the fire. But heatwaves? Dunno, they make you all hot and sweaty and even less inclined to do anything than before.

Well OAPs loafing about / bone cold and bone idle either in the worst pensioner poverty in west europe, or alternatively glowing orange in the white house doing absolutely sweet f**k knows, could be burned as you've suggested many times yourself for extra fuel 

I've never been keen on the idea myself, it will smell like burning pissy sofas but each to their own and much respect for volunteering your life to help the climate and hopefully one day, contribute your own small part to eradicating us all.    We are thankful.

...My way of destroying the planet is collecting too many plastic carrier bags. Are you doing your part? Show some initiative FGS.

[Borchester]

Did we not have one in the 1960s? John Christopher wrote a book about it called The World in Winter. It was ok but it was full of middle class angst.

Anyway, I am not that bothered by the cold. You can always put another pullie on or throw a hippie on the fire. But heatwaves? Dunno, they make you all hot and sweaty and even less inclined to do anything than before.

[Borg Refinery]

Also:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

I'm quoting this related post from the yank star trek forum I haunt because it's pretty detailed:

In big numbers we're overdue for the next ice age. Expectations are the melting Greenland icecaps will dilute the salinity of the water in the Atlantic Conveyor and stop that heat pump from running. This will let the northern ice cap reform, and with sufficiently high albedo, expand. Will it happen or is there too much heat in the system now?

Not so sure we are "overdue" since we are already in an Ice Age right now.  You mean the next "mini wave " per se perhaps.

Scientists have recorded five significant ice ages throughout the Earth's history: the Huronian (2.4-2.1 billion years ago), Cryogenian (850-635 million years ago), Andean-Saharan (460-430 mya), Karoo (360-260 mya) and Quaternary (2.6 mya-present).
 
Which, BTW, means 75% of our known detectable life bearing history the earth has been MUCH hotter than it is today.  But's let's shorten the leash   here to "since land dwelling life started".  Oddly enough it's almost the same as 25% when you just take land dwelling lifeforms to glacial periods (approx. 400 million years ago).  102.6/400  
 
 Now ...
 
"An ice age is a period of colder global temperatures and recurring glacial expansion capable of lasting hundreds of millions of years. Thanks to the efforts of geologist Louis Agassiz and mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, scientists have determined that variations in the Earth's orbit and shifting plate tectonics spur the waxing and waning of these periods. There have been at least five significant ice ages in Earth's history, with approximately a dozen epochs of glacial expansion occurring in the past 1 million years. Humans developed significantly during the most recent glaciation period, emerging as the dominant land animal afterward as megafauna such as the wooly mammoth went extinct."
 
And what marks them is the formation of Ice caps on the earth.  But the plot thickens (and gets more confusing) per se, because there are such periods known as interglacial an glacial, periods when the glaciers INVADE areas they normally aren't in during our own time. 
 
"The earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for around 11,700 years,^[41] and an article in Nature in 2004 argues that it might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years.^[42] Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, due to the Milankovitch cycles. Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years."
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
 
So ... it appears as if science has not reconciled the two designations properly. Or perhaps in a confusing manner.   Or at least enough so we understand where we really are. I stated in another previous post that the EOCENE had NO polar ice caps and that has been true, and off, through this world's geological history. I also noted that during that period the earth was a whopping 27 or 28 degrees hotter than it is today.  And I'm sure that was not the only time since the non glacial periods are pretty much dwarfed by hot periods on the earth.   
 
Sadly science hasn't agreed (yet) or reconciled the geological eras the earth has gone through ....
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian
 
So the colloquial Ice Age term usually refers to the peak of a cycle (when glaciers actually invade large plots of the earth) in comparison to much more ancient cycles, where the earth didn't even have polar ice caps, which they theorize also happened after the dinosaurs died out (and before) during the early and mid Holocene.  And that last sentence is very ominous 

"Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years."

So that wik is telling us the Ice Age is NO MORE.  extinct.  well,  Sorta.  but it did lead me to someone who may be one of the major sources for the climate change hysteria right now:
 
Spencer R. Weart
 
https://history.aip.org/climate/reviews.htm
 
He even uses the term "denied"  
 
"A few reviewers faulted me for not giving greater attention to the arguments of certain scientists who denied that we have a problem with climate change. These reviewers were themselves skeptics, using their reviews to argue against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change consensus. As I warned in the book, nobody can be fully objective about current scientific work (not the reviewers, and not me). "
 
Indeed.  I can agree with that, including him.   A curious word to use I would say if you know it's meaning ...
 
Deny verb 
1.  state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of. 
"they deny any responsibility for the tragedy"
2. refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone).
 
As this fellow is supposed to be a historian for science I would think that the  proper word should have been "dispute" not deny since we are dealing with theories and not only that, in a science that isn't even in agreement yet worldwide.  
 
Anyway one of my criticisms of global warning has been the lack of reconciliation with other theories of climate that would necessarily compete with the effects.  Now I have the answer.  Based on this book the Ice Age is, according to those who subscribe to it, no more.
 
(it's a long read) 
 
https://history.aip.org/climate/cycles.htm#N_1_
 
Concluding paragraph...
 
"By the start of the 21st century, it was clear that the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels was a major geological force. All through the Pleistocene, the greenhouse gas feedback had turned the planet's orbital cycles from minor climate variations to grand transformations that affected all life on the planet. The geological record gave a striking verification, with wholly independent methods and data, of the processes that computer models were predicting would bring a rapid and severe global warming — a disruption of climate exceeding anything seen since the emergence of the human species."
 
 SPENCER R. WEART
 
(but not exceeding Earth's life bearing limits ... just our own limits as set down in our own sociological context)
 
There you have it.  Fair enough considering the extremely short period of time the actual Climate Change science has been around.  But I can't help thinking it's like a bunch of people who just discovered the internal combustion engine trying to fix a nuclear device.  Humans have only been around for a few million years.  Moreover we are the products of an Ice Age on a world that runs hotter than this.   Even if for some reason we conquered the World in another Euro American Imperialist like crusade (aka the 19th century) what then?  Our sheer numbers contraindicate that we will be able to curtail  the growing CO2 levels.  Not without cooperation or the kind of cooperation war and conquest bring.  And then. stagnate?  

Nope ...  worse ...

"Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years."

What that means is that we already did the damage and can't reverse it.  Even if we go on a killing spree and win.

A conundrum.

All the more reason to GTF out of here before our lease runs out.  After refreshing my knowledge on this topic I still have the same opinion I did 10 years ago.  We can sit here and wait to devolve back into "whatever" or go extinct.  Or  ... leave.
 
Leaving is the radical I would choose.  It quite literally opens up a "universe" of new possibilities for our species.

Beam me up Scotty.

[Borg Refinery]

[HDQQ]

Most scientists these days agree that human activity, mainly that of burning fossil fuels, has added to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Although CO2 only accounts for a tiny proportion the gases that make up air, its presence causes air to absorb more heat and retain it for longer and they believe this phenomenon is slowly driving up the global annual average temperature.

For a long time I was a climate change sceptic but for the last few years I accept that the correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature rises has been too consistent to be dismissed as coincidence.

But there's another important green agenda, that of sustainability. Fossil fuels are finite and increasingly difficult to exploit as reserves dwindle. Now that renewable electricity is a maturing industry the need for fossil fuels and nuclear (uranium is also finite) will diminish. When most of our electricity, for much of the time, comes from wind, solar and hydro with gridscale storage batteries then electric cars will be genuinely zero emissions. With the green technology revolution it will soon be a case of 'what not to like?'

[patman post]

Seems reasonable to assume the environment will be affected with the resulting pollution from excavating mega tons of various chemicals, ores and other materials (that took millions of years to form), stripping the Earth of natural vegetation, and processing them mostly over the past few centuries.

Some people might like the altered environment climate change brings. Others may hate it.

Frankly I'm happy with cleaner air, less dust seeping into our home, fewer plastic bags flapping in the trees and hedgerows.

Another plus comes from the advanced technologies (being devised and manufactured to keep pollution levels low) that the UK could take the lead in if it invests wisely. After all, it needs all the effort and wisdom it can muster to see itself through the post Brexit years...

[Streetwalker]

First it was global warming, then when they realised that temperatures were sometimes falling they changed it to Climate Change.

Noun: Changes in average climate conditions. Ok I'll agree that, hard not to really.

But... The OED goes on to say: attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels. One of the worlds most respected institutions, the OED has been pressed into accepting the polemic that Climate Change is an anthropogenic institution.

All the science says the opposite but everyone up to and including governments are too afraid to disagree in fear of being labelled a heretic. At what point are the limp wristed liberals going to accept that CO2 is a by-product of global warming and not a driver, that the great burning mass that greets us every morning controls every aspect of our lives, climate, weather, everything.

I would agree with the gist of that Nick .
During Lockdown 1 though I was impressed on how quickly the air quality changed with reduced human activity . If the limp wristed liberals in their fantasy of climate change somehow achieve that on a permanent basis then Im not going to be too objectionable to their reasons for it .

[Borchester]

What's this the children of the corn at it again.

Didn't they blind him in that one?

Those hippies can be a lot more po faced than they pretend to be.

[Sheepy]

What's this the children of the corn at it again.

[cromwell]

Well I certainly ain't getting any smarter, but previous disaster seem to have been more fun. Even with miserable sods such as Terry Nation writing the script, most folk managed to end up in the countryside living in stately homes with Lucy Fleming and Carolyn Seymour. But today's eco pains in the arse don't seem to want to enjoy end of the world etc.

Yeah have got every episode of survivors on disc,loved it.