Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

Their data are there for all to play with - if there are holes in it, I'm pretty sure the automotive industry would find them faster than nucastle.co.uk

Curren modelling of a form more sophisticated than ours suggests around 90% likelihood that human output is responsible for climate change, with rising temperatures and rising greenhouse gases taken as pretty much proven.

I like to see over 95% as my usual threshold of significance, but this kind of thing is as strong as evidence gets in the absence of experimental data, which, as I've explained, is unobtainable.

If anyone has any equally comprehensive and well regarded reports demonstrating 90% likelihood that gases are not related to temperature then do feel free to post them

aren't half those experts politicians?

andy I'm asking you a basic question, why do you blame global temprature rises on fuel consumption when there appears to be no real correlation between fuel consumption and temprature rises, while there seems to be a strong correlation between solar energy....

Absolutely it's a mutlidiscplinary panel and so it should be.

I'm waiting to hear about the holes you've found in the methodology and data though, that make their 90% likelihood incorrect? A link to your better report demonstrating no evidence will also be satisfactory.

are you seriously telling me i should trust polliticians to tell me whether or not CO2 is causing our current temprature rise.... wtf do politicians know of climatology?

The IPCC is a heavily funded political movement, it is not a credible scientific body...

As this is a grotesque oversimplification I shall provide a grotequely oversimplified answer.

There was correlation between fuel use and temperature. It is not possible to say if this is causative, as I illustrated. Your dip does not negate the entire exercise in the slightest as any statistician will tell you. Normal variation is both acceptable and normal in these things.

Fuel use is correlated with greenhouse gas emission. Greenhouse gas emission is correlated with global temperature, as explained comprehensively in the report I've provided you with. It seems reasonable therefore to suggest that reducing fuel use might reduce the greenhouse gas level. Reducing greenhouse gas level is likely to lead to reduced temperature.

?

So you're saying you think the scientists are sitting back doing nothing whilst the politicians collect the data, analyse it and present it for their own gain?

Who exactly should fund these studies?

The involvement of politicians in the process is necessary to ensure action might be taken on findings.

Found any flaws in the data yet?

I'll over simplify it even further, on all the other times the earth has left an ice age.... what caused the carbon dioxide levels to rise?

Infact what caused the earths temprature to fluctuate....

We're not experiencing anything new and our carbon emissions account for 1% of all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... So my next question is - did man end all the other ice ages?

The entire document is flawed andy... theres no correlation between the two.

I'm astounded you have so much faith in politicians.... scores of independent scientists are in disagreement, scores have also left the lobby (yet their names are still cited by the IPCC).

Its a nonsensical political movement spawned by thatcher.

I explained all this on the first page, carbon is not responsible for the initial rise in temperature, but is a contributory exacerbating factor - your argument was destroyed by a professor of climatology on the first link on google after I popped your argument in We don't know what caused the initial rise and it's irrelevant.

Stop oversimplifying and read the better models! I've provided you with the data.

It's a peer reviewed, open, accountible, auditable process exactly to avoid this kind of mindless yappering from those with a terminal distrust of science - you can read the principles here http://www.ipcc.ch/about/procd.htm

Absolutely you should go in with scepticism to any such report. Absolutely this process could be improved.

However this document remains the single most comprehensive set of data humanity has on the subject. There exists NOTHING comparable to suggest that human activity is not responsible for climate change, whilst here is good evidence that it is.

Joe - Forgetting global warming, what about scarcity of resources? We will run out of them very soon if we keep going as we are!

andy if something triggers a rise in temprature what releases more CO2 man or the oceans.... man = 1% the oceans = 70%.

Lets add that the oceans can be releasing CO2 from triggers centuries old.

So if CO2 is responsible for the rise in temprature (which it isn't) a trigger 200 years ago would cause the rise which would trigger the oceans to release CO2 on levels that man could never match, meaning:

mans influence on the carbon levels would be virtually unnoticable.

if we run out of fossil fuels we run out of fossil fuels... it doesnt spell the end of man kind

I'm all for exploring alternative energy sources.

Read former contributors like Chris Landsea.. they give better cirticism than my 5 minutes on google ever will.

Joe the oceans have been releasing CO2 as part of the carbon cycle for millenia. They aren't the problem. It's our output that's upsetting the balance and causing the problem.

If this could be modelled satisfactorily by message board clubbers then I'm sure it would have been by now.

I don't see any point soldiering on with this really, if you're going to look the humanities most comprehensive data and models in the face and say 'you're wrong' (again ) then you at least need to provide some satisfactory evidence to support your claims to the contrary.

The report I gave you explains why human activity is the most likely cause of increased co2 levels - even michael crichton accepts this at the end of 'state of fear' if memory serves.

You're asking the wrong question really, the major doubt (I use the term in its loosest sense) is whether CO2 is causing temperature rise.

There are arguments for and against whether mankind's emissions of CO2 are responsible for global warming. However, even if it is questionable we should do something about it. Better safe than sorry.

you missunderstood what I said, as the temprature rises (caused by a non CO2 trigger) then oceans heat up - as they heat up they produce more CO2 than usual.... An amount vastly greater than man.

The argument that mans influence adds to it would only bear true if we were experience a rapid warming unknown to our climate... we're not - there is nothing unique about the current warming pattern its happened xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx times in the past.

CO2 levels rise as the sea's warm up, if this did effect the atmosphere surely our planet would of came to an end by now as there have been times when theres beeen vastly larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere.... yet the earth didn't come to an end it cooled down.

CO2 is not the cause.... tis a consequence and we don't know if it has any effect.

and I can give you countless papers which rip the report to shreds (for both scientific and idealogical reasons)....