Are we overreacting to climate change?

[etramway]

Climate change is not one of many problems... it is a constraint. Bjorn makes a living by bashing Al Gore but his description of the problem is not really any different.

[helpingtogrow]

Yes but no-one seems to talk about the obvious human overpopulation that is the root cause of all this fossil fuel consumption.

[apologeticjedi]

human overpopulation is a myth. The best places to live on earth are often the most populated. The worst places to live on earth have the lowest population density.

[ratzutme]

You cant stop climate change. It's been going on for Millions of years. Temperature goes up, Comfy for the Dinosaur, temperature goes down, (Ice Age) comfy for the Woolly Mammoth

[Alvin691]

Thank you ratzutme, but apparently that is not the "sexy" idea. Politicals are trying to use this to enact social justice. Even though science is showing a cooling trend and that CO2 is not a causal factor for temperature change, there is too much money to be made by the left in America to allow the truth to be heard.

[ratzutme]

I think that all western world governments can see dollar signs. This is why Climate change has become a top agenda item. I remember when Climate change first reared it's ugly head in the media, governments didn't batter an eye lid. When the Carbon trading scheme was brought to the table governments have been jumping on the Climate change band wagon. Me, I believe this is the natural cycle of the planet to heat and cool. We fear what we don't understand and invent doomsday as an answer.

[T961585]

True alarmists of climate change should have no problem proposing a radical agenda like genociding half the world's population to save the earth. If things can go as badly as these alarmists want to say and we don't have any more time, then no amount of half measures will do. Ultimately, it's the climate or the human race. Choose.

[kurtu5]

Where are the videos that talk about these specific damages that will wreak havoc?

I see some about a deep ocean current changing, but thats happened to earth before. Whats so bad about it?

We have to live with the earth and its changes. Climate has always changed. I think the problem is people are lazy and want to force nature to be static so the don't have to build new orleans or NYC somewhere else.

[TonyKaku]

Lomborg has been debunks by both Scientific American and a large panel of scientists at in a Grist magazine series. He is definitely not on to something, wikichris.

[wikichris]

Pearce (the guy at the end) is clearly struggling to counter Lomborg's well thought out arguments. "I don't think he understands the seriousness" is not a good enough argument against someone who has merticulously studied and debated the IPCC's data. Equally Lomborg could just say "I don't think Pearce understands the seriousness either" - it's poor debating as it gets you nowhere. Lomborg is definitely on to something with his writings.

[leadhat0]

Who does understand.The science is not exact but the propaganda that is going on is madness and politicians are using it all to their own end.People should think for themselves and that means listening to and absorbing all information. I just want to hear a balanced argument.Lomberg brings a fresh perspective and different ideas which are sorely needed in what is a one way discusion.John Lennon said they keep you doped with religeon sex and TV.Gosh i have just commited a thought crime.Ho hum

[mmdillons]

The first male speaker obviously understands very little about this situation. The trickle down effects will be devastating for EVERYONE on earth. Pin-brain idiots like he make it all the more difficult to galvanize people to make changes in order to save out planet.

[wikichris]

Where is his misunderstanding? You're doing EXACTLY what Lomborg writes about i.e. claiming that global warming is going to be catatrophic. Where is your data to support this? The IPCC's data certainly doesn't say it will. Lomborg is an excellent debater (Gore won't go near him) so your name calling really doesn't do much to counter his scientific work. Come with some real counter arguments that Lomborg hasn't already answered.

[Ricallbur]

Speaking of pin brain idiots, I'd like to point out those who comment on ideas that they know nothing about. Try reading his book. He gives a detailed cost/benefit analysis of current travesties like the Kyoto treaty. The benefits are so miniscule and the costs so astounding that you'll be shocked. You might want to look into how much climate change is affected by man. When you can't find sources listed in the books you have on the subject, try Bjorn's or Iain Murray's books.

[TonyKaku]

Why is New Scientist dealing with a political scientist (i.e. not a climatologist) who has been debunked as thoroughly as Lomborg?

[Ricallbur]

Tony, toni, tone, if you stay away from propagandists who flunked out of law school and failed at divinity college (sorry Mr. Gore) you would find that Bjorn is a mathematician and economist. These are the subjects that his book deals with. Try reading it.

[TonyKaku]

Ricky, Ricky, Rick, I have not seen Gore's movie. I have however, looked at Lomborg's book and it's claims as well as his professional credentials. Hence my post.

[JonThm]

Nuclear power made up climate change. I thought new Scientsit were into real science!

[Whitlock123]

What? Please explane.

[JonThm]

Nuclear power kills! To get new plants they wanted to get CO2 a bad name - so tehy paid sceintists to say that. But now we can so safe, clean, cheap nuclear fusion, from water! Like the deep sea does.

[Ricallbur]

??? France gets around 90% of it's electricity from nuke plants. Last time I was there there weren't bodies laying all over the place. You're confusing "plants" with "bombs".

[mgilbo1]

I live in NY about 20 miles from a nuke planet and the city it lies in has one of the highest mortality rates in the country so you don't know what your talking about. There is unknown energy coming out of the plant, one we can't detect, which explains why the cement walls start decaying in less than 8 years on those things. Trust me, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. When you play with the atom, we are far from solving its secrets and knowing its dangers.

[mgilbo1]

Global change is real folks. Don't listen to the idiots who think its not as bad as we think it is. Lakes around the world are drying up and our whether has gradually gotten worse over the last 100 years. Its a fact, deal with it.

[Ricallbur]

The hottest year on record was 1934. That was before all those tanks, planes and battleships put hordes of CO2 into the air (WWII). Why hasn't the earth caught fire yet? High school chemistry should tell you why CO2 in the air increases as ambient temperatures rise (Hint: it has to do with water). But feel free to believe the world is going to end. Nutjobs make life interesting.

[mgilbo1]

And only an idiot would think that heat is the only by product of global warming. Hurricanes and twisters have gradually increased over the last 100 years and are at all time highs, including this year.

Our ozone layer is has a whole the size of the US in it. Our ice caps are melting far faster than our scientists would have believed.

What you don't seem to understand is that its almost impossible NOT to have global warming with 7.5 billion people on the planet. Use your head.

[mgilbo1]

Ricallbur, and to finish off on your comments which you think you know so much. Everyone knows the ocean absorbs co2 to reach equillibrium but isn't it funny that the ocean is becoming more and more acidic? The cause, too much co2. Of course pollution and overfishing are other culprits in our oceans destruction but they all have something in common. Please stop blessing us with your idiotic comments and inability to see the big picture attitude like so many others. GW is real, deal w/it.

[Ricallbur]

Well, I guess I could waste my breath arguing against your religious fervor. Or I could wait 10 years and point out that it hasn't gotten any warmer. Then again why wait? It's now 2008 and the temperature hasn't shown an increase since 1998. Also CO2 has already been proven to rise AFTER temperatures have risen. And you sure use the word idiot a lot. Is that because you hear it in reference to yourself everywhere you go?

[mgilbo1]

Religious? Your dumber than I thought. Where in any of my comments was religion brought into the topic. You come here and post crap and think your comments are the end all be all to the earths problems. Alex Jones and other nutjobs have convinced you that GW isn't real while the earth continues to erode due to man and his activity. Is it 100% due to man, no but a good 75% of it.

Again I will say it is impossible to have 7.5billion people on the planet and not have Gwarming.

[Ricallbur]

Haven't heard of Alex Jones,he must be reasonable if you hate him.Are you really old enough to have jumped on the overpopulation mania of the 1940's?If so you must have cringed at the thought of the coming IceAge in the 70's and be about ready to jump ship for the IceAge thing again in 6or8 years.The warming trend we're moving out of is a result of solar activity that has run in cycles as far back as real scientists can tell.That or someone left an SUV running on the other planets in our system.

[Ricallbur]

Just checked out his website. I take back what i said about his being reasonable. Just another insult from someone who has nothing real to back up their arguments. Awaiting the next baseless accusation, wild conspiracy theory or comment based on a belief in the evils of mankind's existence...

[markbotv3]

who are you trying to fool mgilbo1? you are a religous zealot! and Al Gore is your prophet. do you remember the bagwan ragnish? his cult followers gave all their wealth to him and they lived in communal huts and farmed the feilds like peasants while he had a fleet of rolls royces. thats what Al Gore wants. we will ride to the feilds on our bikes and live in thatch huts while he lives in a mansion and jets from carbon tax money. he own G.I.M.

[mgilbo1]

markvotv3, where in the world do you get off calling me a religious zealot? I'm no such thing and probably the farthest from faith you can possibly imagine. But even though I don't believe in faith, god or whatever religion wants to promote, I do believe that GW is tremendously being sped up by humans. Its not rocket science to realize that when you put unnatural chemicals into the air and blow up hundreds of nuke tests, your going to change the planet and weather. Plus, 7.5 billion people.

[littlejohnnyhoward]

Umm...I might want to point out that radioactive substances have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. I might also like to point out that the Earth has always been warming (except during glacial periods). For as long far back as ice cores will tell us, temperatures have risen BEFORE CO2 has risen.

[markbotv3]

15 years from now are you still going to be a "carbon" zealot? or will you be parroting the next thing that big brother tells you to? ever read 1984? Al Gore is big brother but dont worry you are a loyal slave so the thought police wont come after you...i on the other hand...

[mgilbo1]

Your funny Markbotv3, your comments go to show your ignorance in the subject of GW. As I told another retard above, its impossible NOT to have GW when we have a population of 7.5 billion people. 40% of the lakes in the US alone can't be swimmed in. 70% of the fish tested have mercury levels WAY above maximum health levels. The air we breath is polluted, our oceans are being depleted yet for some reason you think GW is a scam. I don't know what other proof you need to wake up to reality.

[markbotv3]

so what world population is an acceptable population? what is YOUR carbon footprint? my power bill last month was just under $20 and i used 14 gallons of gas. what was your power bill and gasoline usage. i do not deny gw what pisses me off is I PRACTICE what Al Gore PREACHES. while he rides in limos suvs jets. his monthly power bill is $8000 and he owns the company that makes carbon credits GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT. so he gets all the money that generates. see why im mad?

[mgilbo1]

Markbotv3, I can understand why your mad but you need to understand that I'm with you, not against you. We have a huge problem with GW but there are several scientists who are out there as paid junkies trying to push GW as being all natural and nothing to do with overpopulation, pollution or greed. Almost all of our problems stem from there being too many people in the world. Until we control that, there is little to no chance of fixing anything.

[ratzutme]

mgilbo1, where do you get off first of all you start by calling this guy ignorant. Then in not so many words call him a retard. Then you get upset when he calls you a religious Zealot. Mate, pull your head in. What's, not being able to swim in lakes or fish with Mercury got to do with Global Warming. You've been suckered by the bullsh!t

[rangerscoach]

Gore wont debate Lomborg because he knows that the movie has given him an edge in this debate that he can only lose from here. for example, gore talks about the polar bears drowning and I saw a video where lomborg said something like 'yeah about 1 a year. But it would probably be a good idea if humans didn't shoot 1000, maybe we should focus on that first?' Owned in my opinion.

[neuronia]

"yeah about 1 a year" ...what an idiot

"But it would probably be a good idea if humans didn't shoot 1000" Agree 100%

"maybe we should focus on that first?" Why first? What does that mean? There is no order in concern here, just protect them!

[wikichris]

Protect polar bears? At what cost would you protect polar bears? How much of our resources should we dedicate to polar bears that could otherwise be used to fight HIV/AIDS? All of it? How many polar bears do you want? Do we have too few or too many currently? Can you have too many polar bears? How many would be too many? Lomborg is far from an idiot. Go and read his work and try and understand it.

[Wien1938]

Moreteavicar - your statement about the military expenditure being the highest in every country is beyond hyperbole.

It is in fact a bald, faced lie. If you look at every country, especially in the West.

I can state categorically that in Britain the Defence Budget is £32.6 billion this year, the DEFRA Budget which includes environmental affairs is £3.9 billion, and the Department of Health Budget is £90 billion.

The combined education budgets equal £96.5 billion.

[Boomerius]

I would urge you to see "The inconvenient truth" facts presented there by Al Gore I think warming will continue to speed up, for example there are places that are in permafrost, when they melt, they will release lots of methane into atmosphere, that is also a greenhouse gas. Climate change is pretty unavoidable, I don't think we have more than 10..15 years left before HUGE changes start surfacing, and it wouldn't be any fun...

[Sushikokken]

You are not listening

[Gwynne66]

There are very few facts in Al Gore's movie.

[lomborgfan]

Alleluia brothers and sisters. You should have seen Gore do a double take when Mr Lomborg shook his hand (by surprise) the other day. Bet Gore was spitting chips under his breath at not being warned that Lomborg was present LOL. Bjorn is my hero.

[M0reTeaVicar]

The point Bjorn Lomborg is trying to make is how and where money should be spent, and that it is wasted on tackling climate change - even he concedes AGW is happening. As I said previously, why should he suggest the environmental budgets be reduced, and not military budgets? The latter is the biggest expenditure in every country.

[strummindude]

So, the "scientific community" agrees that with a 95 % certainty, some aspects of environmental change is related to human activities. What does that mean, exactly? If I was living next door to a nuclear power plant, and the "scientific community" claimed that, with 95 % certainty, the power plant is perfectly safe, I would regard that as a very low estimate. Not one I would be tempted to bet my life upon. One chance in twenty they got it completely wrong.

[M0reTeaVicar]

The Scientific community is 100% certain that climate change is happening. That is why they've been studying it at ever closer scrutiny over the last 100 years. Funny that you mention Nuclear Power Plants, because a lot of climate scientists believe Nuclear Power is the only way to help significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Many people (and politicians) do not know that research in transmutation of radioative waste has come a long way, making it less dangerous.

[minilemur]

This is simply not true. You just haven't read any of the very very many scientific books and articles that challenge the global warming alarmism.

[Air420]

Meh, if hes wrong I like it hot anyway. Im a Canadian, I've been up close with polar bears before and their nothing special, in fact they stink like rotten flesh/shit. 5 million people starve to death every year and people give a shit about polar bears. I'll shoot them all myself it will stop you all from bitching.

[britoca]

too bad Mr. Lomborg doesn't seem to be aware that arctic ice melting rates are beating the predicted rates as modelled and accelerating.

Everything's nice an dandy until we hit an unforeseen and unpredictable tipping point and suddenly ice thaws even fast, say, it's gone in a couple of decades... This isn't a matter of leisurly debates people. It's a uncontrolled globalexperiment gone loose. Act, act, act!

[strummindude]

While we had a record low for ice-coverage in the arctic, at the very same time we had a record high for ice-coverage in the antarctic. Net pole ice-coverage globally actually increased.

[britoca]

the antarctic snowfall has remained somewhat constant, the arctic is thawing and accelertating. I goolgled for this record snowfall in antarctica an couldn't find anything. Can you please post where u saw this? Thanks

Even so, are we just fine with the arctic melting away? Do you not find that extremely worrisome?

[M0reTeaVicar]

The antartic is more or less constant for good reason, its location, and that fact that its on land - it is more or less isolated from the rest of the global climate. It showed at most a 0.8% increase - an upper bound, lowerbound is 0%. Arctic ice is receding by seomwhere between 3 and 7%. The NSIDC is the best place to get the facts ;)

[britoca]

M0reTeaVicar: exactly! I'm there (NSIDC's website) at least once/week to see how things develop. This year it's been a frightening experience! The antarctic did gain a huge amount of ice this year, I don't see anyone claiming a record, but from the charts I see it looks like one. Still, it doesn't balance off the calving of the arctic. Overall, ice cover is diminishing, and the arctic is just frying away.

[M0reTeaVicar]

Isn't it strange that Bjorn Lomborg says we shouldn't spend our money helping to save the environment, and instead divert it to help 3rd world countries. Why cut environmental spending and not military spending? In the US, where the biggest pledge has been made on environmental expenditure, the military budget for 2007 is $163 Billion, whilst Bush's proposal on environmental spending is $46.9 billion.

[MikoMossito]

Lomborg has made himself part of the problem.

[Lucien86]

Bjorn is right but for the wrong reasons, the simple truth is that once we started seeing climate change it was already to late - that's a prediction made as early as the 1960's. What we should be looking at doing now are A. learning to live with it, and B. looking at ways of reversing it i.e. mega-scale 'terraforming'.

[alifico]

please people if you care anything about our future RESEARCH THE NEW WORLD ORDER

[bitRAKE]

Both approaches need to be taken where possible: comprehensive study of planetary evolution, and immediate preventative action. Do we stop learning about the body because we eat "healthy"? Do we just advance biology without taking any personal action regarding our health? We must act responsibly and continue to re-evaluate what it really means to act responsibly.

[colleendana]

Bjorn says that it is a problem, clearly a MAJOR problem, and that we are going to suffer from a heat death than surely no one is overreacting to it?!?! To say that it is not an issue of importance or it is not 'catastrophic' is to take the 'its not my problem' lazy view. No one wants to face up to the realities!!!

Bjorn Books - WHAT A WASTE OF TREES'!!!

[BETLEGEUSE]

At this moment, you are sat in front of your computer screen, possibly replying to this comment. Just think about this, The generating possibly has to increase output to compensate for the extra power that you, I and all our freinds out there are using at this very moment. What are going to do, Switch off, plant a tree or carry on, If you carry on , you are being an hypocrite, do you agree.

[CantStopClickin]

I don't know about climate change.

The reason I'd like to see cO2 levels cut is for cleaner air. They say that a persons lungs in Roman times would be a lot cleaner than a modern day persons. energy at a physical as well as a global cost perhaps.

Interesting vid, same old arguments.

[M0reTeaVicar]

Worth reading are these links:

Correcting myths from Bjørn Lomborg -

info-pollution(dot)com/lomborg­(dot)htm

Bjorn Lomborg is neither sceptical nor an environmentalist -

onlineopinion(dot)com(dot)au/v­iew(dot)asp?article=773

(by Professor Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University)

[BETLEGEUSE]

O.K. Lets talk about " Carbon offsetting" It is one of biggest con's ever, I could tommorrow set up a carbon offsetting company and sell suckers [ that includes our poloticians] trees to offset their traveling over the world by Jet, to conferences about climate change, enjoying slap up meals, whilst talking about the starving people of the third world. Am I a sceptic, to right I am

[OneGamblor]

Thats all we need someone like him bringing a book out like that. It gives lazy ignorant people even more reason to not bother to recylce or do their bit for the environment.

[BETLEGEUSE]

As I have said, The enviroment, I am interested in, I like to see Pristine rivers, countryside and a nice clear sky. I recycle as much as I can as I prefer that than the rape of the planets rescources.

[xrm1996]

The average eco-utopian supporter is an emotional kid on a college campus. HE isn't the one paying for the pursuit of Utopia... the rest of us are. We're lucky as hell we didn't invest in the Sierra Club's Ice Age back in the 80's. Eco is turning into fashion statement for air heads like Ed Begley, that I'm sick of paying for.

[33LB]

we certainly aren't overreacting to climate change- as the man in the video said, we've barely reduced carbon emissions at all. some people don't even think climate change is real.

[Drzacksmith]

Part 1 :Has any one done any research into the global impact of all the books for and against man made global warming. The CO2 emissions for the protesters and our illustrious leader as they travel to all the summits, the food miles all these people use. The offices of governments and environmental groups, think of all the paper ,ink, computing , gathering data .

[Drzacksmith]

Part 2 : Man this list must be F***ing humongous. There's got to be a PhD in it? I'm going to apply for a research grant. If this is as big as I think it could be, I'll have to do some more research into the impact of the first. Then yet another one after that etc. I could be employed to the extinction line.

[StunnedByStupidity]

This is not, contrary to what Exxon propaganda would have you believe, a natural change in climate, that is the conclusion of the latest IPCC report which has reviewed all the scientific information on the subject. They are 95% certain that this is NOT a natural cycle! It's the man made CO2! And thus human action can have influence to reduce the impacts of the warming.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Methane in the atmosphere is blamed on cattle. What about every living thing that lives on this planet that lives and breathes[ and Farts]. That includes you. Every time you light a fire, to keep warm, to cook your food, you release the CO2 locked up in whatever fuel you use, even using so called green fuel to grill food you release the gas

[StunnedByStupidity]

Uh... yeah, your point is? Are you saying because we breath out relatively tiny amounts of CO2 that emissions for energy production, transport and production can be all ignored? This is a very strange argument.

[entreri100404]

Unfortunate that he doesn't mention that *population* is the main cause of emmissions and therefore climate change, and that the only effective way of stopping climate change is to restrict birth rates. None of the environmentalists do, either, because they know it will be unpopular and basically don't have the balls.

[transferosome]

To all the doubters - and there seem to be horrifyingly many - PLEASE tell me... Why would the overwhelming majority of scientists lie to us about this impending catastrophe?

What have they got to gain? What have they got to lose?

I can see EXACTLY what the governments and oil companies have to lose if we DO try to cut emissions.

[entreri100404]

It's such a bandwagon. Didn't you hear in the video about how the author of "Cool It" is "hated"? Anyone who goes against the status quo on climate change is immediately subjected to a witch hunt. And there is SO MUCH money in the environmental movement now. There are obvious benefits to agreeing with it. Hope this answers your questions.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Do not not forget the extra Taxes that we are paying to pay for these changes, so goverments have a vested interest in the propaganda that surrounds the issue, it is very lucrative to people who have the technology, if goverments are not after the extra revenue. why is V.A.T. [ sales tax] added

[transferosome]

Governments will tax where they can. They only need the barest of excuses.

They are completely in the pockets of the oil companies though. And the oil companies REALLY have a vested interest in keeping emissions up.

[BETLEGEUSE]

I don't think that the goverments are in the pockets of the oil companies but, here in G.B. we are taxed to the hilt compared to most other places on the planet. The goverment are trying to force us onto public transport. For me, it is not viable option, for some people it is . P.s. the fares are taxed.

[transferosome]

BETLEGEUSE, I'm also 'here in G.B.'

I'm not happy about the tax or the exact method the government have chosen to reduce emissions... But I prefer it to no action at all.

I no longer use a car. I think public transport should be cheaper and receive more investment...

But that doesn't mean global warming isn't man-made.

[BETLEGEUSE]

I work 16 miles from home, it takes by car20-25 minutes it cost me approx £5 a day. By bus[ Two buses] £9 a day and over 1hour inthe morning, in the evening , up to 1 1/2 hours. so no contest. Also I'm not stood waiting in the cold wids, snow or rain. No contest or viable

[BETLEGEUSE]

Sorry, the fare is oneway

[transferosome]

'Hope this answers your questions. '

Er... No. Scientists don't 'hate' people for just going against the status quo. They hat them for pushing bad science on the public.

Where is this money being made by (the absolutely overwhelming) majority of scientists who support the man-made global warming view-point?

[entreri100404]

All I'm saying is it takes guts to go against the (absolutely overwhelming) weight of public opinion that is the status quo - just as Copernicus had guts when HE went against the overwhelming weight of public opinion. Why don't more scientists point out that population control is the only real answer? Because they know it'll be unpopular.

[M0reTeaVicar]

Do you know what the weight of public opinion actually is? Do not confuse that with the popular press. The point is, real science is not about opinions, it is about facts. Bjørn Lomborg is not a scientist.

And I don't know why my posted links have negative ratings, they are to websites with lots of information from other scientists exposing the flaws in everything Bjørn says.

[entreri100404]

I totally agree that real science is not about opinions. That doesn't change the fact that it takes guts to present findings and conclusions that go against the weight of opinion. And my point about population control remains. It is the only real answer and noone will even mention it.

[M0reTeaVicar]

It isn't about going against the weight of opinion, it is about going against well researched facts. He isn't presenting any real findings or evidence, most of it is contrived and distorted chunks from reports that he selectively includes, and generally complete ignorance of science. See the links I posted previously, which show just how flawed Bjørn Lomborg's arguments are. And there is no "population control" conspiracy - you watch too much TV.

[entreri100404]

I'm not talking about conspiracy. I'm saying the only way to combat climate change effectively in the long term is to limit population growth. That's why it annoys me that I have only ever seen or heard of one scientist (not this guy btw) mention it.

[M0reTeaVicar]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant by "population control". That term is frequently used for "brain washing" etc. The role of scientists is not to dictate how we should live our lives, but communicate through publications their observations and hypothesis. It is fairly axiomatic in any case that population growth causes problems, and there have been frequent reports citing population growth, for e.g. placing burdens on rain forests. Again you seem to suggest Bjørn is a scientist. He is NOT!

[entreri100404]

I don't care about Bjørn, ok? Not a scientist.. fine. I'm discussing climate change in general. And you're splitting hairs. Scientists can recommend a point of action to achieve a specific result and politicians can act on them. Who SHOULD dictate how we live, anyway? The idiots from Greenpeace or FOTE?

[M0reTeaVicar]

"Splitting hairs" is mostly what scientists do. You have to critically analyse every minutiae and be very concise in your presentation of facts. Whilst it is good that an anti-AGW body exists to challenge and give a 2-sided debate, unfortunately, being mostly non-scientists they are not as careful in their methodology and interpretation of publications. Politicans ultimately decide based on advise, although they frequently ignore it.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Flaws can be found in any argument. I like facts, not hypothesis or theories. when and if they are proven, they become facts, then I shall believe

[BETLEGEUSE]

China are already doing it by limiting married couples to one child, as the lineage and and assets are passed on the male heir, female children are[I'll leave that to your imagineation. is that what you want.

[entreri100404]

It doesn't have to be done in the same way as China. And if climate change is such a big problem, then "what we want" shouldn't really come into it. It's the hypocrisy that bugs me. Having kids is the most environmentally unfriendly act you can commit - yet it NEVER gets mentioned.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Hear, hear, hear

[websnarf]

I've seen this guy's TED talk. He is *NOT* someone with an understanding of the stakes in the climate crisis. He primarily focuses on the dollar cost, for short term lives saved. He totally misses the long term global effect of the climate crisis, and I think its a bad idea to give this guy any more publicity.

[M0reTeaVicar]

You're right websnurf. A big mistake is that the general public thinks he is a scientist, actually his background is in statistics, and he knows nothing of the data analysis techniques used in climate research. And regards to cost, yes, how can reducing your CO2 emission through renewable sources be "more expensive", if its free fuel?!

[Drzacksmith]

Well his got to grip on the way to make money .Controversy sells books, and gets you free publicity for your books.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Yes cotroversy does make money, Why is it ,do you think, why the whole controversy in the first place. It is a great money spinner fo the manafacturers of the so called green technology

[StunnedByStupidity]

Are you honestly claiming that science comes to the conclusions most beneficial to its financial interests? So, if I gave a bunch of scientists £1 billion I could get them to prove that say, gravity is a repulsive force, or the sun goes around the earth or that unicorns exist. Are you nuts. Show me any proof what so ever for your claim. There is plenty to show that the Bush administration is doctoring scientific findings however, explain!

[BETLEGEUSE]

Who was it who said that there " lies and damn lies and statistics". What is meant there is that statitics can be bent and worked to fit any scenario. I'm am not against changeto our way of looking at the enviroment as it fit into my hobbies, in particular, light pollution

[StunnedByStupidity]

Who was it that said you can bring a fool to knowledge but you cant make him think...

[DrakeMagnum]

What a wonderfully sober video on an important subject.

[Unfathomable42]

a very informative and well made video, nice job NS!

I think that investment in new technologys to prevent, slow up or halt aspects of climate change should happen at the same time as research into easier or cheeper ways of doing it.

[methinxaweezil]

If you want to see what a runaway greenhouse effect looks like take a look at Venus, which was once similar to Earth. 900 degrees under a dense atmosphere of carbon dioxide with all water completely evaporated. The good news is relative humidity is always 0%, so it's a dry heat...

[StunnedByStupidity]

According to the Stern review that will cost 5 times as much as tackling the problem. Oh, and we also have wars, famine, mass displacement and loss of 1 million species. Just how the hell do you adapt to that?

[marjan15]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[StunnedByStupidity]

...is lies and half truths from beginning to end.

[BETLEGEUSE]

It's amazing how the climate change lobby has so much influence on goverments. there is more scientist's say that the climate change is natural than the scaremongers in the lobby.

In the industrial revolution, there was far more pollution than there is now

[transferosome]

'there is more scientist's say that the climate change is natural than the scaremongers in the lobby.'

Have you got the figures to back that up Betlegeuse? What's your source for that information?

Don't you think it's odd that scientists would be scaremongers? What do they possibly have to gain?

If you want to find the liars, ask yourself 'where's the money?'

[BETLEGEUSE]

Since time began [ not biblical] there has been numerous times when the average global tempertures have risen and decline. there is no way that those times could be attributed to man made global warming. Figures, I have not, but I'm sure that they could be found on the net. You have to keep an open mind to all the possibilities

[jonesr999]

It's hilarious to me that people, who can't control the weather, think they can control the climate. Oh yeah, we're people! We run this planet! That's how powerful we are! Right. Dream on.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Bacteria are infinitely smaller than humanity yet it was they that caused the initial rise in oxygen 1.5 billion years ago and there is one hell of a lot more oxygen than CO2 in the atmosphere.

[BobCassidy]

Whats your point?

[StunnedByStupidity]

You're arguing that people cannot affect the weather because they are too small in comparison to the Earth. My point is that bacteria are far smaller yet have significantly changed the chemistry of the atmosphere. So this is not an argument to show that CO2 levels and thus weather and climate cannot be affected by humanity!

[jonesr999]

The Earth is always in a warming trend or a cooling trend, depending mostly on variations in the energy output of the sun. We've been in a mild warming trend since the mid 1800s. It has nothing to do with the CO2 level, which has been 10 times higher in the past than it is now without causing any greenhouse problem. This is politics and fear-mongering.

[StunnedByStupidity]

To prove this you have to show what else is causing the warming. It's not the sun (that's cooled slightly in the last 30 Years), its not Milankovitch cycles, its not comic rays (there is no trends in them. The stratosphere is cooling, most of the warming is at night and in the winter, the only remaining expiation is CO2!

[jonesr999]

So if it's not A and it's not B, it must be CO2? Great logic, there. Here's an idea for you: We don't know diddly about the global climate. We do know that C02 is not a significant greenhouse gas, and that only 5% of the world's CO2 is related to human activity. And if we could control the climate, we'd fuck it up. We'd reverse the warming trend and start a cooling trend and end up in another iceage. Luckily, nothing we do will have any effect on it.

[StunnedByStupidity]

There is a finite number of factors that cause the warming we know the others (I mentioned) are not factors therefore by a process of elimination... I'm guessing by you post you haven't read a single book on the subject - that might be a good place to start, especially if you think the human contibution can be dismissed. Scientists have been studying this for decades, and I think I;ll go mwith their conclusions!

[jonesr999]

Okay, you go with their conclusions, but if you think we understand what causes the warming, you don't know what you're talking about. Go ahead and believe that what kind of car you drive or what kind of lightbulbs you use will change the climate. It's my opinion that thinking of that sort is just arrogance. The Earth is going to do what the Earth is going to do, and we're along for the ride. One book I'd recommend to you is State of Fear, by Michael Crichton.

[StunnedByStupidity]

Prove your first sentence with some SCIENCE just what papers prove this first statement? The exact detail may be elusive but the broad sweep is very much understood! 'State of Fear' are you serious! I suggest you read 'Global warming', 'The Last Generation', the fourth IPCC report and 'Six Degrees' then come back humbled!

[jonesr999]

I'm not humbled by bullshit propaganda—I've seen too much of it in my life. The broad sweep of climate changes is not understood at all. Every computer model is completely different. Sure, there are lots of theories. I suggest you read "Getting Your Science Education from a Politician -- Always the Smart Move," and also "Everyone Panic! We're All Going to Die! You Must Act Now!", a report by the flourescent lighting industry.

[StunnedByStupidity]

See this just proves you know nothing about the science - you were quoting a fictional novel as your source for goodness sake! Every computer model is SLIGHTLY different they run them all and average the results and they have made accurate predictions and can recreate much of past temperature (this is Crichton poisoning your mind!). The future predictions have some terrifying presidents see the PALEOCENE-EOCENE or END PERMIAN MASS EXTINCTION!

[jonesr999]

I never quoted a novel. Get your facts straight. (If you've read any Crichton, you know his books are packed with real information.) You expect to arrive at the truth by averaging out a bunch of erroneous computer models? Good luck with that. Yes, there have been mass extinctions in the past, mostly thought to result from vocanic activity or impacts. Fear mongering is a huge industry. When you've seen enough of it, you quit being afraid.

[M0reTeaVicar]

Lots of journals you should read. Yes, fear mongering is a huge industry, but AGW has been extensively researched long before politicians started chanting "communism is evil". I posted a list of a few articles, which you really should read to get the full facts, but they never appeared here. Basically sciencemag is the resource, articles over 1 year free. Its a proper journal, unlike newscientist (which ironically was responsible for most of the fear-mongering about AGW).

[BETLEGEUSE]

A person who reads the Times is unlikely read the Daily Worker, it depend where you come from and the state of your thoughts on a particular subject as what you read and believe. I maybe a lowly wagon driver, but I like to think that I have enquiring mind. I don't make up my mind just because somebody has put it in black and white even the so called experts can get it wrong and I'm am not saying that I am right either, you have got to to take both arguments and weigh the pro's and con's

[M0reTeaVicar]

Scientific research is not about personal thoughts opinions, it is about measuring and quanitfying the facts. If you do not arm yourself with the facts, you should not criticise something upon which you have no knowledge. It's like a school exercise or a debating society, which really doesn't take into account the facts, just like Bjorn Lomborg, who actually knows nothing about meteorology.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Averages mean nothing, you can take enough examples and prove that the average man could win the Marathon at the next Olympic gamesor that Joe Bloggs from down the road could be the next man on the moon.

[M0reTeaVicar]

That is incorrect. You can show the average athelete can win a Marathon, not the average man. And you're confusing terminology here, "samples" not "examples". If you had a sample set that included an entire population, then it will show a trend that all the winners are atheletes. If you analyse the data further, it would then show that the average athelete would be x m tall, weigh y kg, be aged z years, and a good estimate of the probability of somebody losing based on deviation from the mean.

[BETLEGEUSE]

Iagree with you, all it takes is the decimal point inthe wrong place or one digit out and you end up with an erroneous answer

[M0reTeaVicar]

Right, decimal place missed... so its that easy. The peer-review journal process and competing research groups (because researchers always compete to be the first to release the most accurate data) are not going to pour sufficient scrutiny over each other's data to spot those things, but some Wagon Driver from "Liisburn" knows best. Amen, its all a mistake, lets go home. Oh, there's measured data too. Well, the man from "Liisburn" says that must be a mistake too...

[BETLEGEUSE]

Even Einstien added, that he had made a monumental mistake in calculating his famous theory of relativity, he spent the rest of his life trying to find a unified theory of every thing when he realised that originally he had missed a specific calculation, if he can make a mistake, so can others

[M0reTeaVicar]

You don't have a clue what process researcher go through to get their work published. If you can submit a paper to a journal, then comment. Einstein never made any mistakes in his theories of relativity, of which there were two. His attempt at unification was a different matter altogether and was not subject to scrutiny by thousands of independent scientists and was never published. Stop arguing about things you have no knowledge of and read the literature.

[apsmithy]

No, because we haven't punctured massive holes in the ozone layer, deforested or otherwise altered imense areas of land, brought countless species to, or past, the brink of extinction, covered coast-lines with oil, made river systems lifeless, widely distributed smog and radioactive material, or spread at an exponential rate accross the globe into almost every habitat have we?

[jonesr999]

The hole in the ozone layer is closing, animal species going extinct happens constantly without regard to humans, no coast lines are covered in oil, there is smog over some cities, no one is spreading radioactive material to any significant extent, deforested areas recover in time. We've managed to dirty up our living areas, but we don't control the planet. And cloud seeding is the same old smoke and mirrors bullcrap it always was.

[StunnedByStupidity]

The present rate of extinction is around 1000 times the background rate! This will be the 6 of the great mass extinctions in the last 600 million years unless we do something about it! We don't contol the planet but we certainly have affect on it!

[apsmithy]

Maybe you should look up cloud seeding, because we can use planes to distribute substances in the air that can make it rain or stop it raining, they do it at big public events and in drought areas.

[JohnDeBunkTest]

It makes sense to get better systems technology into production faster. This will save money as well as save the environment.

Pretending there is lots of time is a sad joke, and a poor excuse for inaction.