What happened to global warming then?

[TVC]

God knows what's going down so don't worry about it and leave it in his hands.

Let's discuss things we can do something about......like bin men

One way to tackle global warming is to be less wasteful, the less we chuck in the bin the better, and the fewer times it needs emptying.

Does this help?

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

And get out of your car and use a more sustainable mode of transport. Oh, wait!

 

[BigonaBianchi]

the answer to global warming is to turn the thermostat down

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

.... and get out your car!

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Hm. I wonder if Wikipedia carries as much weight as Congressional hearings.

Well, the Congressional hearings were not worth anything in scientific terms. They were an entirely directed political enterprise.

As for Michael Mann undoubtedly has enemies, but that's hardly news - he is an charismatic, abrasive and up-front kind of character who is prepared to speak out in public, which is unusual for a working scientist and inconvenient for those who would try to shout down the scientific work with threats and lies.

But this is, of course, besides the point - the travesty of your posts is that you try to reduce the huge and diverse range of scientific work by thousands of researchers to allegations about the practices of one researcher (and then by association, and by association only, to others). This is simply ad hominem argumentation. It is logically flawed and invalid, not to mention being a deliberate attempt to mislead others.

 

[Red Light]

I remember someone arguing that cycling wasn't particularly green, as we breathed more, and had to eat more food!!

It has definitely been argued that cycling isn't green because we live longer and therefore consume more. Link

 

[Red Light]

I would say yes TBH.

There was an article in New Scientist a while back about the standard of scientific knowledge among American politicians. 96 out of a recent intake of 100 Republican representatives have said they do not believe in climate change or have sworn to resist legislature aimed at tackling it. Out of 535 representatives, only 2% had a science degree, while 222 were lawyers. The article said the democrats weren't perfect neither - some have insisted that cancer warnings be issued to people living near signal transmitters (or it may have been electricity transmission lines), despite there being no evidence for it. Not to mention those politicians who think creationism should be taught in school science lessons.

Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted on its own but there's nothing to stop you following up the sources.

There is a similar lack of scientific understanding in the UK Parliament. The House of Lords is the only place where we now have qualified scientists involved in Parliament and if we go to an elected House of Lords we will probably lose all of those in just the same way as we have in the Commons.

 

[brokenflipflop]

.... and get out your car!

I've been tackling global warming since I first heard about it....I've been leaving my fridge door open.

Then I hear that it's not warming, there's a new ice age.....so I get myself a 4X4 to help warm us all up a bit.

Noone can argue that I don't react to the current info....which leads me to believe the "experts" are talking a crock of crap or they are sponso red by Audi...but like the bin men, they're getting paid for all this research no ?

 

[VamP]

the travesty of your posts is that you try to reduce the huge and diverse range of scientific work by thousands of researchers to allegations about the practices of one researcher (and then by association, and by association only, to others). This is simply ad hominem argumentation. It is logically flawed and invalid, not to mention being a deliberate attempt to mislead others.

Get out of your self important ass.

I have clearly stated why I do not respect Mann. I have not tried to apply his shortcomings to anyone else, and I have clearly stated that I respect the work done by the majority of climate science community.

The trouble with you RC readers, is that you are so used to the issues being black and white, us and them, the believers and the non-believers, that you fail to be able to discern facts objectivelly and critically. Anyone tries to undermine your belief system, you want to sue them. I described in detail why Mann's work on the tree core data is not just wrong, but deliberately skewed, and yet you insist that I am making ad-hom attacks. That, my friend, is called a straw man, perhaps it's you who is running out of arguments?

 

[VamP]

I would say yes TBH.

There was an article in New Scientist a while back about the standard of scientific knowledge among American politicians. 96 out of a recent intake of 100 Republican representatives have said they do not believe in climate change or have sworn to resist legislature aimed at tackling it. Out of 535 representatives, only 2% had a science degree, while 222 were lawyers. The article said the democrats weren't perfect neither - some have insisted that cancer warnings be issued to people living near signal transmitters (or it may have been electricity transmission lines), despite there being no evidence for it. Not to mention those politicians who think creationism should be taught in school science lessons.

Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted on its own but there's nothing to stop you following up the sources.

Erm.... anyone can edit Wikipedia!

Your post shows a chronic lack of understanding how Congressional hearings work. As for following up the sources, I have read MBH97, the Wegman Report, The North Report, and the transcript of the Congressional hearings, amongst many others papers and literature relating to this matter. Have you?

 

[VamP]

Well, the Congressional hearings were not worth anything in scientific terms. They were an entirely directed political enterprise.

Oh and you have obviously not read the Wegman Report...

 

[subaqua]

Yawn. If you were really interested you'd have taken the trouble to look up a more reliable source, but clearly you only want to read things that already confirm your predjudices on the subject...

For those who are genuinely interested in what the 'experts' think:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807

Summary: no change of mind, climate change hasn't gone away.

good post Jonesy, not often i agree with you.
not read all 8 pages so it might have been said already

if the temperature of the planet rises , the polar ice caps melt , the gulf stream slows/stops Britain will get a colder climate for a while rather than the temperate one we have now. then the once the cooling effects have been negated by the constant rise in heat we will start to get hotter and hotter.

i think that covers climate CHANGE .

 

[ASC1951]

Get out of your self important ass.

You've been reading too many Congressional reports. It's his arse. Even in Weybridge.

 

[VamP]

You've been reading too many Congressional reports. It's his arse. Even in Weybridge.

Well I'm not English, and neither is he (I think) so was trying to make him feel at home.

 

[Crackle]

So far, I'm scoring this to VamP.