In the 1970s we were told that we were entering a period of global freezing, heading towards a new ice age. In fact in 1976, the UK had one of the longest hottest summers ever on record, and the remainder of that decade wasn't very cold.

 

At the start of the last decade we were told that we are in a period of global warming, with the prospect of long hot dry summers and mild very wet winters. In fact the UK has suffered a succession of wet and poor summers and now consecutive harsh winters with deep snow and very low temperatures.

 

Since climate scientists predictions have so much in common with political party manifestos, maybe it's no surprise that politicians give them credence.

 

I don't.

.

I agree with you Flecc.

What annoys me though is the way it is being drummed in to people that it is the 'end of the world' if not sorted now. it is like brain washing. School children have enough to contend with as they grow up without the added burden of so called Global Warming being their responsibility. Climate Change however has gone on from the beginning of time and there is little we can do about it.

This present cold spell seems unusual as well but I can remember a similar spell about 50 years ago. In those days we just got on with it, without all the T.V. publicity that we get nowadays.

Whether you believe the science or not, In my view you shouldnt dump waste if you can avoid it, not in landfills, not in drums into the sea, and not out through your exhaust into the atmosphere.

 

You wouldnt want your neighbours emptying their bins in your garden everyday, so why should we leave our waste products for the future generations to deal with, its just plain vulgar.

 

What really get my goat is all the plastic in food product packaging. There is absolutely no need for it.

I agree John. I started being what is called being environmentally responsible in 1970, but that's only because it's good for my local environment and country. I reconstructed the interior of my home then to minimise fuel usage, I recycle everything possible, my car mileage is a tiny fraction of the norm and I last flew in 1975.

 

None of these or present and intended environmental measures will make any difference to a global warming end if such a thing exists. The only thing that could help ameliorate such an event would be a truly massive reduction in the global human population, but even that woud have little effect on the natural global climate trends over time. What effect we have with our puny efforts, whether good or bad, is trifling compared with the power of the natural forces of this planet and the sun.

.

.

Edited January 7, 201016 yr by flecc

Whats the difference between global warming and religion,both can and have been used for the people at the top to take large sums of money from believers,and there is no real way of knowing if either is real, or just something made up to influence behaviour and take money from us.

I find it irksome the way politicians have all jumped on the climate change bandwagon, whilst completely ignoring the real threat to future prosperity posed by peak oil.

Global warming is about average temperature trends across the whole globe. Regional and shorter term temperature variations will always occur.

 

Just because it is cold in Britain does not mean that the whole world has gone cold, it hasn't!

 

Actually, scientists are not sure whether Britain will get warmer or colder as a result of climate change. Their models are only really useful for the whole planet.

there is no real way of knowing if either is real, or just something made up to influence behaviour and take money from us.

 

There is a way of knowing. Unlike religion, with science, if you want to take the trouble, you can study the evidence.

Global warming is about average temperature trends across the whole globe. Regional and shorter term temperature variations will always occur.

 

Just because it is cold in Britain does not mean that the whole world has gone cold, it hasn't!

 

Actually, scientists are not sure whether Britain will get warmer or colder as a result of climate change. Their models are only really useful for the whole planet.

 

Of course I realise that John, but they use the local events as support for their modelling predictions, thus undermining that argument.

 

In particular it's that last sentence of yours I call into question. In view of all the rest of the uncertainty they have, there's no assurance that their models are useful for the whole planet. They've failed in the past, including as recently as the 1970s, so there's no reason to believe they are any more accurate now.

 

I want to see a whole lot more proof than a highly speculative computer modelling.

.

I want to see a whole lot more proof than a highly speculative computer modelling.

.

 

Proof you won't find, science doesn't provide that but there is a vast amount of evidence. A good place to start is the IPCC reports.

Perhaps a graph would help to answer the question:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

Seen most of them John, no different from what has occurred many times in history, both short and long term and often with sudden changes. Indeed there's historical, geological and archeological evidence of more extreme sudden changes in past times.

 

Since nothing we are doing or are likely to do in the near future will make any appreciable difference to these trends, what's the problem with waiting for another 20 or 30 years to see how or if the trend continues? We might then have more evidence one way or the other.

 

Meanwhile I'm not so easily convinced.

.

Whenever somebody uses these sort of graphs to prove AGW I always think, observation does not prove causation and I would add even the measurement of global temperature is difficult so the observation is suspect. Incidentally the scales are interesting being very small in both axis. Actually my Gartmore shares are doing similarly well if I only take the last 3 months and ignore the previous year. In terms of the science it clearly shows that increasing the CO2 levels will cause a temperature increase but it will be quite small, not the sort of figures the politicians and campaigners are talking about - 4-6 degrees C (and I am including the researchers at the CRU in that description by the way).

 

One inconvenient fact is that the atmosphere's response to CO2 is logarithmic, so the first 100ppm increase has the same effect as the next 200 ppm increase etc. We would have to be putting in CO2 exponentially to cause the sort of temp rise the politicians are using to scare us. Similarly we would have to make staggering cuts in CO2 to have any effect in cutting temperature as well.

 

Of course it is the computer modellers that are coming up with these figures and they simply do not have the data to make them accurate. We are talking about hundreds of variables here that all have to be assumed based on best evidence or guesses. The modellers do like their positive feedback loops. Take one example - water vapour (this is the major greenhouse gas by the way). So increased temperature causes evapouration, more water vapour means more greenhouse gas so increased temperature, a loveley positive feedback loop. But water vapour increases can also cause more cloud cover, so a reflection of sunlight and a decrease in overall temperature. So do we know enough about cloud formation to make accurate models? I doubt it.

Edited January 8, 201016 yr by HarryB

A timely discussion but the current inclement weather is of course irrelevent. I never doubted the Global warming trend but whether its mainly caused by people or solar activity etc - I've no idea. I suspect as usual it's a complex mix of many things. I seem to recall a report last year that the planet hasn't actually been warming up for the last 10 years.

Since nothing we are doing or are likely to do in the near future will make any appreciable difference to these trends

The vast majority of Climate scientists disagree with you there.

what's the problem with waiting for another 20 or 30 years to see how or if the trend continues?

If the scientists turn out to be correct, in 20 or 30 years it may be much more difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

Global warming is being used to advance global taxation ,global government and eventual global enslavement .Alex Jones Tv: Lord Monckton Reveals Scientific Fraud at Copenhagen! | infowars.dk However freedom can still be found whilst riding a throttle equipped derestricted ebike. {off road of course}

Edited January 8, 201016 yr by tonio

The vast majority of Climate scientists disagree with you there....

 

...If the scientists turn out to be correct, in 20 or 30 years it may be much more difficult or impossible to do anything about it.

 

 

This always said as if there are thousands of climate scientists. Really there are not that many and now we have discovered that some of this small band have been manipulating the data. How about using a trick to hide the decline or absolute (and illegal) refusal to release raw data or destroying the raw data. I am sorry but they have entered into the realms of campaigning and are no longer researchers.

TBH I think the problem with concentrating on these complex figures is that it gives people the wrong reasons to duck out of looking after the environment.. IMO the real problems are more to do with pollution and resource consumption and basic infrastructure than outside climate issues - and they are something humans can do something about. As for "scaring the children", all through my childhood and youth from about age 10 until 20 I lived wondering if the Soviets would drop the atomic bomb on our heads.

 

This persisted well into the early 90s for most of my generation, and yes it did create despair amongst older kids and teens, reflectedin a rather nihilistic youth culture where teens turned to drugs, hedonism and loud music which persists to this day.

 

However humans did at least try and do something about this. it wasn't perfect, the way the USSR and its satellites fell caused hardship and bloodshed across Eastern Europe and todays contentious issues regarding immigration - and the Soviet threat was fairly quickly replaced by one from the Middle East. but it did bring a brief respite from one threat and a few years of relative prosperity safety (the mid 90s until 2001). we might not be able to save all of humanity, but why not try and at least make things better?

If global warmings real why am I so chuffin' cold!!!!! :D

Since nothing we are doing or are likely to do in the near future will make any appreciable difference to these trends, what's the problem with waiting for another 20 or 30 years to see how or if the trend continues? We might then have more evidence one way or the other.

 

Meanwhile I'm not so easily convinced.

.

D'oh!

We are all doomed.

 

The vast majority of Climate scientists disagree with you there.

 

If the trifling things we are doing convince the climate scientists they will make a difference, there obviously isn't a problem of any size to threaten us.

 

We live in an age of hysteria and gross over reaction John, and the current situation shows that only too clearly.

 

The winter of 1947 was the worst of all in living memory, but this 11 year old at the time walked to school alone as ever, getting there on time every day, despite the snow and real and imaginary paedophiles. So did all the other kids, none absent or late, and neither were the teachers.

 

The next worse winter in 1962 saw all of us getting to work ok, almost all on time as well and virtually no absenteeism.

 

The wimps and nanny state types include those climate scientists and politicians who see every conceivable problem at every opportunity and over react accordingly. Fortunately as this thread shows, there are still many of us who keep a cool head.

.

Whether we like it or not, we are effecting our environment. Every ounce of fuel that is burnt or turned into plastic is releasing toxins into the air and reducing what is an extremely valuable resource. Forests are being cleared and heavy metals mined, consumed and dumped (including by us lot on here).

 

This is all additional and in quantities beyond the natural cycles.

 

Does it make any difference, no-one knows for certain as it takes too long to be able to tell. Do we need trees at all? Why shouldnt we dump in the sea if the land fills are full?

 

I think common sense speaks more clearly than all the science and any ones beliefs.

Almost everyone agrees pollution is a problem. Its the assertion that global warming{if it exists}ix caused by c02 emissions. Plants take in the co2 to make the oxygen we breathe. YouTube - The Global Warming CO2 Scam Goverrnments are 'owned' by lobbyists { oil companies, pharmaceuticals etc},If not they would break free and invest seriously in alternative energy sources. its about Global govt and the new world order.

We live in an age of hysteria and gross over reaction John, and the current situation shows that only too clearly.

 

The winter of 1947 was the worst of all in living memory, but this 11 year old at the time walked to school alone as ever, getting there on time every day, despite the snow and real and imaginary paedophiles. So did all the other kids, none absent or late, and neither were the teachers.

 

The next worse winter in 1962 saw all of us getting to work ok, almost all on time as well and virtually no absenteeism.

 

The wimps and nanny state types include those climate scientists and politicians who see every conceivable problem at every opportunity and over react accordingly. Fortunately as this thread shows, there are still many of us who keep a cool head.

.

 

To be fair 1962 really was a different era. Far less cars and trucks on the road, probably more public transport, less communication options, less suiing, and a lot less people. In my day to day experience I haven't encountered any of the hysteria, mass absenteeism, panic buying and complaining that we read about in the press. The papers make most of it up like they do those overstated sub zero tempereatures.

Also many people stay at home because they can work equally effectively from home. This is good for them and better for those people that do have to travel.

I blame most of our problems on the PC(personal computer).

To be fair 1962 really was a different era. Far less cars and trucks on the road, probably more public transport, less communication options, less suiing, and a lot less people. In my day to day experience I haven't encountered any of the hysteria, mass absenteeism, panic buying and complaining that we read about in the press. The papers make most of it up like they do those overstated sub zero tempereatures.

Also many people stay at home because they can work equally effectively from home. This is good for them and better for those people that do have to travel.

I blame most of our problems on the PC(personal computer).

 

Some of those things like the amount of traffic were appreciably different, but I think you overstate the others. A change from about 50 millions to 60 millions of population is hardly detectable to the average person, there is mass absenteeism from the schools, 100% in huge areas like mine where the kids could easily walk to school. Only a tiny proportion of the population can work from home.

 

And the hysteria is blindingly obvious and self evident everywhere. The gross over protection of kids, the perception of a paedophile on every corner ready to snatch their kids, the refusal to let kids cycle, the perception that cycling is terribly dangerous for everyone else, the head teachers who won't open schools when the teachers and kids could easily walk there in only a few inches of snow as here at present, the expensive erection of tall high security fences around schools, the quoting of health and safety at every point where there's any human activity, all these are hysteria and anyone who doesn't recognise that is one of the hysterical.

 

I've watched all this happen in the space of just over two decades in the estate where I live, and I have to say I find it very disturbing and unhealthy. Kids have always misbehaved and I expect and tolerate that, but now that they have become the untouchables, certain of their own rights and confident of being protected all the time, many have become arrogant in the extreme and utterly contemptuous of anyone else's rights.

.