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

and prevent the undeveloped world from developing?

on your conscience be it.

No, assist them in developing alternatives, cleaner coal technology, that kind of thing. Which would ultimately put them at an advantage.

works great in theory - but not in practise...

although the devloping world is already addressing this but for their own reasons which are unrelated to the climate myth

but the undeveloped world is fucked if you greenies get your way.

Only for a short time, possibly. And we're all fucked if we don't.

how?

there have been far greater carbon lvels historically and we're still here.

how would CO2 emmissions bring about the end of the earth?

It matters not one jot if it's cause or consequence or symptom.

What matter is if increased carbon exacerbates temperature rises, as the overwhelming body of evidence suggests, and if so if cutting our emissions will reduce this exacerbation, as the body of evidence concludes.

whats this overwhelming body of evidence, rather than directing me to papers written by governments... could you provide me with the relevant parts.

if this body is so overwhelming it shouldn't take you too long

The one I gave you was just an 18 page summary, and I even quoted the key point for you - I'll quote it again in case you missed it

you'll have to explain it to me as spm-2 looks like a snap shot of 05 to me... i feel dumb

You should.

Analysing over 1 year is valid to enable measurement at all - science is based around sampling.

The forcing effect of CO2 is in spm-2.

The increasing concentration of CO2 across longer time spans is documented in numerous other locations.

There's no reason to suppose it would have less radiative forcing effect at any other time.

It's well well within the confidence intervals provided by the methods.

The conclusion appears justified.

it's a disgrace isn't it. the evidence can't be proved conclusively that global warming is not just yet another cycle in our planets atmosphere, yet we are happy to pile political pressue on the poorest nations in the world and deny them the chance to create wealth in the same way as we do.

it stinks. the green lobby are an utter disgrace, not to mention that most of them are self-serving hypocrities.

So I was right its a snapshot of 05, at a time when we know CO2 levels are rising with the temprature they merely suggest CO2 could be effecting it.

But if its the temprature which is dragging the CO2 levels up then that would also explain the statiscal changes.....

i thought you said there was an overwhleming body of evidence.... not an unsubstantiable idea.

You're absolutely right, but we need to redouble our efforts to cut our own carbon emissions before we start preaching, and doing everything possible within technology to enable the developing world to reduce theirs.

We absolutely cannot say 'don't develop whilst we blast the A/C'.

"I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human." - Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace!)

but we have done, and are continuing to say it even louder. Africa is constantly being told don't touch your natural resources - if i was an African i know exactly what my answer to that would be, unfortunately the constant threat of trade and aid removal from the West is held over them - it is akin to a mugging.

.

You could say the same even if it was a 50 year analysis.

What you're back to here is cause and effect correlation. You say it's the temperature dragging CO2 up, and that its impossible to separate the human from the ocean, but it's easy to factor this out by measuring human CO2 emissions - you'll note that the graph only talks about anthropogenic CO2. CO2 is an exacerbating factor for global temperature, and you can see that other gases listed there would not be released by the ocean in response to rising temperature.

You claim that solar irradiance is causing climate change with your graphs, however this diagram shows nicely that even at the widest limits of the confidence intervals it couldn't possibly be explaining it all and that carbon has a far larger effect.

What experiment would you like to do to prove or disprove the causative effect of co2? I can only think of a duplicate world, which isn't satisfactory.

I think some of you are utterly missing the point. Chris.

Becoming sustainable is a basic necessity, if we don't we will run out of natural resources - clean, readily available drinking water and metals being two of the most pressing.

In business if you aren't sustainable, you die, why is this so hard for some people to make the connection?

If we don't imbue developing nations with the need to develop sustainably then we will all ultimately suffer - to say we are preventing the developing world from developing is preposterous - we are preventing them from making the gross mistakes that we have made in our development.

Funny how we seem to be oh so high and mighty when it comes to human rights abuses (child labour, working conditions etc.) in China and India, and keen to correct these ills which will also vastly increase their costs and 'damage' their economy (built on cheap labour) and certainly are a hallmark of our own development...

Yet when it comes to filling the air with sulphurous fumes, water contamination, and a lack of consideration for environmental impact, we don't give a hoot and it's considered as some kind of embargo.

I think youre getting confused andy... no ones saying thast man isn't creating more CO2 than he has in the past... we don't need graphs to tell us this.

Man is releasing more gasses than he has in the past, but this doesn't mean he is the cause of the current warming pattern... this is what we're discussing and you said there was overwhleming evidence to support this.

I'm asking where

that regulates itself though scruf, when one energy model becomes financially unsustainable the market forces us to switch.

rather than worry about peak oil and lock billions of people in poverty, it makes more sense to enable those alive now to use the resources to hand to compete in a global market... upon reaching a level economic security those nations can then invest in the security of future generations.