World saved! (Again)

field

Melanie - We salute your courage! It's certainly abrave thing to do to express doubts about this sort of thing - especially when so many people's salaries and political careers depend on the reality of Global Warming! I've no idea what is the real truth of the matter. Global warming probably would produce more snow as there would be more moisture - who knows? One thing that I feel is irrational is that there is never any discussion of whether global warming is necessarily a bad thing. Of course there will be losers - but equally there will be a lot of winners. Imagine how much grain Canada and Siberia could produce if GW was a fact. True, some parts of the globe might fry and some might drown. But there is likely to be more water in circulation. We at least need to have a rational discussion of the likely impact.

Alcuin

Not again, Melanie. A few stark facts.

• The Earth is warmer than the Moon. The only difference is its atmosphere. Earth is about 30 degrees C warmer than it would be if it had no atmosphere.
• It is not the elementary gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon) that warm the earth - these are almost completely transparent. It is the trace gases (water vapour, C02, N0x, methane, etc.) which make all the difference.
• If trace gas concentrations increase, the heating increases. C02 has gone from a pre-industrial 280ppm to a current 377ppm, an increase of 35%. A simple calculation suggests 10 degrees warming, but the earth is a complex system and there are many other factors and considerable inertia.
• Water expands when heated, and ice melts. If trace gases stay constant at current levels it will take 1000 years for the oceans and glaciers to reach a new equilibrium.
• There is positive feedback from the reduced reflection caused by lost ice cover, and a more northern tree line. Many major climate drivers are in positive feedback.

This is not difficult stuff. Our potential for modifying the climate was recognised 100 years ago. It is happening. This is not a matter where opinions and citations count one jot. That such a complex system shows contrary local effects is not evidence against the overall trend. Argument is a waste of time - you have to do the maths, all of it. This means the use of Global Circulation Models, and all these agree on the fundamentals.

We shall not stop our bad habits so major coastal cities will suffer within 100 years, so will agriculture. I would advise everyone and every country to become as self-sufficient (in food and energy) as possible.

Don Carter

This is just delicious...

George Steiner

In our anual newsletter I proposed to form an NGO get UN funding then sue the bastards for non delivery and breach of contrant. But I expect to spend too much effort keeping warm to have the time.

Nick Kaplan

I am a global warming agnostic, there is good evidence on both side (although the media and government wouldn’t have you believe this) and I’m not sure which one to go with, however I am convinced that if MMGW is correct we are far too late to reverse it, the idea that people are suddenly going to stop polluting is simply deluded. What is most worrying is how Greenism has become the new religion of the west, to the extent that contrary evidence is not just ignored but shouted down, condemned as immoral heresy. Melanie, I salute your bravery in continuing to bring such evidence to light, but I fear the only reason the Green Lobby don’t burn you for your heresy is because the carbon emissions would be too high!

Frank Pulley

I dunno about global warming, but I have to report that a few moments ago as I was reading your post, at 1am precisely, my chair just bounced about a foot in the air and the house rumbled like the crack of doom. I dialled 999, it took me ten minutes to get through and when I did the police confirmed that there has been an earthquake. Now this part of the world - as Noel Coward so famously pointed out is "very flat" and earthquakes are just a tad unusual. Do you think someone is trying to tell us something, Melanie? All safe in my street, but I don't intend to go on a reccie, lest I finish up in the abyss!

Bogdan of Australia

Of course a Global Warming (they are calling it a climate change now) is a hunbug. One doesn't have to be a climatologist to notice that the Earth is cooling. Since I arrived in Australia 22 years ago, the sommers are getting cooler and cooler. This sommer in Melbourne, for example, was the coolest I can remember, and resembled more an early autumn than a real Australian Sommer. Appart from this I'm constantly observing a sea level at a little jetty that protrouds from my beautiful beach into the Port Phillip Bay. Since those twenty two years the water havent raise d even a centimetre. If sea level were to be raising it would certainly be visible on that little jetty.

Thinkster

Incorrect, sorry. The mistake was our use of the term global warming. Climate change is a more accurate choice. The consistent warning has been that initial warming would slow the gulf stream and bring rapid cooling to the very countries mentioned in the Daily Telegraph article. So the scientists were correct. It was simply a matter of flawed terminology that has discredited those with honest intent. But I still agree with your comments on Israel, so keep up the good work on that front.

Stephen

I love this woman. Can she be our next Prime Minister? Please.

Howard

Exclusive news Melanie. Climate change only takes place in the Middle East. Tonight's earthquake in the UK is part of the Government's attempt to convince the public to accept an extension to 42 days as, so they say, it was initiated by fundamentalists. Now we both talk rot! Does that make you happy!

Roy

Myself and friends have been poking fun at global warmers for some time. The worst part of the perceived threat is busy-bodies organising extra expenditure from the community purse to fight it's progress.

Jon_Boy

I don't know whether global warming is real or not. All I know is that no one will do a jot about it even if it's real. People will do a lot of talking but nothing will be done. I also know that most people who seem to worry about it the most are also the least likely to do anything. There is no way they'll give up the trappings of a modern luxurious lifestyle. You can see this with calls for environmental penitance, sorry carbon off setting where the rich are able to buy forgiveness for their sins, leaving the poor to make the sacrafices. No this environmental issue will be like wars we will only do something, maybe when it arrives. Lastly my opinion is that if there is global warming then surely it is a symptom of a disesase which is world overpopulation. Now in the early 1990s the green movements, which are often tightly connected with left wing political movements, capitulated to pressure from the Islamic block of countries in the UN to have world population control removed from the table as an issue. I can therfore not take any environmental movement seriously which doesn't seek to address the issue of world over population and which quite openly and willingly succumbs to the pressure of Islamic religious zealots. So if the environmental movements are willing to ignore the real cause of environmental damage due to political expediance why should I even care or worry about the environment?

Nick Kaplan

Thinkster, the problem with your argument is that it could not ever be disproved, you have all bases covered. If temperatures were rising you would say that’s evidence of global warming and the scientists have got it right. Now you have been shown evidence that it’s cooling and again you conclude that this too is evidence for man-made climate change and again the scientists have got it right. This is what I mean by Greenism being like a new religion, there is no reasoning with it, whatever you say is twisted into evidence in its favour. However, you should listen more carefully to what scientists say on the issue of global cooling and the Gulf Stream, not just what the Green Lobby tell you they say. Global cooling as result of climate change will not happen for a very long time, it will occur, if it does, because the ice caps have melted significantly, thus diluting salt levels in the Atlantic which will cut off the Gulf Stream which relies on these high salt levels. This means that it is going to have to get significantly warmer before it gets colder which it hasn’t, and the ice caps are going to have to melt. This does not sit well with the evidence Melanie has given, which shows that the Ice caps are not decreasing in size on anywhere near the scale that would be necessary for such a dilution of the Atlantic.

Ian C

Alcuin, The facts seem to get in the way of a good mathematical theory. Warming appears (is NOT proved any more than the known maths APPEARS to suggest) to follow CO2 increases and the warming suggested by the maths of increases in CO2 simply has not happened and indeed is in reverse gear at present when in the past decade we have emitted more than ever and the temp. has stod still/reversed. So stop being so dogmatic and have some scepticism about a consensus claimed by politicians. It is not independent minded scientists who claim the consensus, it is new religionists and charlatan politicians. The true scientists wil tell you that consensus is not science. There is a massive case for energy saving that we have not even begun to address. Concentrate on that - something we can all believe in and stop trying to convince the world that black is white. Its is so damaging to what the real issues are in the world.

Alcuin

Nick Kaplan

There is not evidence on both sides, this is a mistake. By definition, negative evidence is not evidence, it is the absence of evidence. There is, however, some evidence that it is happening that is in dispute (a subtle but important distinction), though not by many scientists. Melanie has cherry picked a few dissidents - such a tactic is not science. There is only one dissenter among the hundreds of scientists who worked for the IPCC. Some, such as Nigel Weiss, have been repeatedly misquoted.

This is not about taking sides, it is about evidence and process, though unlike the next election, which side you choose to go with will not affect the outcome.

Hereford

This is worth a read http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html Also a good article in the Skeptic on why the broadcast media love to tell you the bad news but hate to tell you when it doesn't happen.

Tim

Alcuin Where did you cut and paste your global warming 'facts' from? May I suggest you don't, er, rely on getting your information from dodgy websites? I'm a scientist and your post made me fall about laughing. Indeed, I assume a first year GCSE chemistry student would be able to debunk your nonsencical arguments within a couple of minutes. The measured data does not match the models that AGW theory relies upon. It's that simple I'm afraid. Clearly a lot of people's livelehoods and political goals depend upon saying global warming will fry us, and whilst I think that they're dishonourable and greedy, I can understand their motives. But for the lemon sucking morally self righteous eco doomsters like you, I just can't understand why you need to believe in the AGW scam? Stay cool, like the earth. Melanie, thanks again for bringing reason to the masses.

kate b

Thanks (again) for keeping on top of this. The world is on its green agenda because it suits governments to keep the populations busy recycling this, that and the other - keep them busy, too busy to be noticing the rapidly declining slipping away of things like true democracy, for instance.

Ethan

Global warming (or is it climate change?) has become an ersatz religion complete with priests, true believers and heretics. Myself, I am an agnostic. To be convinced, I would need to told when it was the climate did not change. To an ignorant layman, it would appear that the earth's climate goes through constant cycles of warming and cooling with little cycles occuring within big cycles within even bigger cycles. Was there ever such a thing as climate stasis? Also, to become a believer in man-made (as opposed to natural) climate change, I would need to be convinced that we can know, with any degree of accuracy, what the climate SHOULD be without the influence of mankind and all his works. Are any of you true believers up to the challenge?

Nick Kaplan

Alcuin; “By definition, negative evidence is not evidence, it is the absence of evidence,” is perhaps the most ludicrous claim I have ever heard. Firstly I will point out that your claim is self contradictory, By definition ‘negative evidence’ is evidence otherwise it would not be called negative ‘evidence’, this is a matter of definition and thus can be known a priori. My claim that negative evidence is evidence is the same as the claim “all bachelors are unmarried men,” this is also true in virtue of its definition. Secondly; of course one can have evidence for both sides of a proposition! If the proposition is that ‘the climate is changing’ then static temperatures and constant climatic conditions is evidence that this is false, this is negative evidence it is not a lack of evidence! If it were the case that negative evidence were not evidence, but only its absence nothing could ever be disproved. I could make any wild assertion and then wine that anything you give as evidence against it is just not evidence at all. For example if I were to claim “ I am God” there is a vast amount of evidence you could give against this claim, namely that I am neither omniscient or omnipotent that I am not immortal, that when you cut me I bleed, this is certainly not merely the absence of evidence of my divinity, it is proof of my non-divinity. Thus the fact that there is evidence both for and against man-made climate change means it is perfectly legitimate to be undecided on the issue. Your claim to the reverse acts as further EVIDENCE of my assertion that Greenism is becoming ever more like a religion, the religious also argue that evidence against God is also just the absence of evidence for God.

Mark

I thought you mind this website of interest: http://www.climatedebatedaily.com/ Two columns of stories, the ones on the left pro-Climate Change, the ones on the right refuting it. Strange how the right-hand column is pretty full considering how Climate Change is so incontrivertible.

Simon

Several months ago I heard a radio phone-in programme (on 5-Live, I think) in which an archaeologist working in Cheshire phoned in. He said that he could see the evidence, in his trench, of numerous cold periods and warm periods - all long before the Industrial Revolution. "The only difference now," he said despondently, "is that we're going to get taxed for it." Think upon that awhile, and perhaps you won't need those thermals!

Nick Kaplan

In addition I just noticed your comment “I would advise everyone and every country to become as self-sufficient (in food and energy) as possible.” This to me highlights your true intent and the true intent of most people arguing on the Green side. This is not about climate change is it?, this is about the reintroduction of protectionism by the back door. It seems fairly clear to me that the reason the Green and Red (socialist) movements are so closely aligned is because Greenism is a final assault on Capitalism, which has worked in every other regard. Socialists know they have lost every practical argument about Captialism and globalisation which has delivered massive benefits to the whole of South-East Asia and much of the rest of the world. Now that you have finally recognised that the economics behind the benefits of trade are fact, you have resorted to scare tactics in order to discredit free trade and international development. This position is utterly deplorable for anyone who thinks global poverty is a bad thing, the Autarkic development of any LEDC is impossible and the adoption of Autarky by western countries will not only hamper the growth and development of China and India but will kill the potential growth of any aspiring nation. Such policies as you have advocated will thus prolong global poverty in the name of evidence that is shaky at best.

Joe Strummer

Growing up in the 1970's, my generation of secondary schoolmates were subjected to the daily zealotry and fanatacism of the " Ice Age Cometh " doom-mongers masquerading as teachers. Now doubt if they are still alive today these same loonys are now at the other end of the spectrum preaching the " Global Warming" mantra to their new acolytes. Our Government would use either of the climate change theories to tax us to the hilt anyway.

Alcuin

Ian C: I pointed out a few incontrovertible facts about how our planet works. None of this is new. Fourier observed that the Earth is warmer than it should be. Tyndall discovered that it was the trace gases that did it, and Arrhenius poined out that burning fossil fuels would warm the earth - all of these over 100 years ago. These are the basics.

I think you are a little confused about how science works. The Global Circulation Models use a number of mathematical equations with empirical modifications, all of which are a form of theory. Theory is not Maths, but is is often written in the language of Maths. Facts are used to provide initial conditions and to refine the theory.

The most important are the Navier-Stokes equations for the behaviour of viscous fluids. Significant empirical modifications are required to fit the measured behaviour and to allow for chemistry, air-sea-land interfaces and other effects for which theory is inadequate. Such equations cannot be solved directly, only numerically by a process called relaxation. Errors in predictions are used to modify the models, which are repeatedly checked against known past behaviour of the atmosphere. Many groups are engaged in this activity, with the result of increasing accuracy. The same equations of fluid dynamics are used to design aircraft and car engines. The reason our cars are far more efficient today is the sophistication of such models.

The global weather system is a far tougher problem, but all models predict warming and a rise of sea level over the next 1000 years. We know that were the Greenland ice sheet to melt, the sea would rise by about seven metres. The antarctic ice sheet would cause 50 metres. There are many unknowns, but it would be the height of complacency to hope that these would all be beneficial. Changing pressure on the crust due to melting ice may cause more volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. A single VEI8 event (super-eruption) would overwhelm the effects of our activities, but kill most of us in the process.

Tim: I am an Aero Engineer with long experience in Fluid Dynamics and semi-empiric software. If you want evidence in a forum such as this, what else would you do but cut and paste? What do you think Melanie did? Unfortunately, thanks to our eductional system we do not have many GCSE chemistry students these days, certainly none of the calibre of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. Yourself? All you present to my hard facts is a frivolous dismissal.

Nick Kaplan: You have said effectively nothing. If you have any real negative evidence (not opinions), name it.

I have to say that so far I have seen no arguments here that have shaken my position in the slightest. The most disturbing message, from Melanie down, is one of indolent complacency. Maybe thousands of scientists are wrong, however improbably, but we shaould all be concerned, particularly as the potential consequences are dire.

I suggest all of you listen to James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society. One quote: When I looked at the IPCC report again it was with a new sense of awareness -- I now saw it as the scariest official document I have ever read. It was all too clear that the message from climate scientists was not reaching the public ....

Alcuin

The Royal Society site is not playing video at the moment, though the full transcript of Lovelock's talk is there. The lecture can be watched here.

osama

Me and my mate have formed a consensus...Global Warming is causing the earthquakes...glaciers melting allows continents to rise up and move creating antagonism between plates and then earthquakes. We sent this theory(based on long drawn out, speculative discussions) to the BBC News. Even they comprehensively trashed our brainstorm. Would you believe it. Can't even get one over on the Tristrams these days. If you think this is just a joke...somebody really has blamed the earthquake on GW...happily the BBC did denounce it...though they thought it worthy of mention...can't be too careful...tho' they won't mention Global Cooling.

Nick Kaplan

Alcuin; I apologise, I have apparently made a false assumption, whilst recognising your philosophy is self-evidently poor (re your lack of understanding over the issue of negative evidence), I did at least assume you could read, apparently I was mistaken. The negative evidence I refer to is that given in the article above, however, if you are interested in more may I refer you to the programme the “Great Global Warming Swindle” this programme presented much evidence by many scientists, many of whom are prestigious and well known and some of whom were on your sacred IPCC. The point I am trying to make is not that Man Made climate change is false, just that you should not have this quasi-religious conviction in it. What’s more, scientists have been known to get this sort of thing wrong, I will refer you to Joe’s point about the 1970’s predications of an impending ice age. In fact if one studies geological records it can be seen that Co2 emissions often result from increases in temperature and not vice versa. Agnosticism on this issue thus seems the most sensible course of action. We should raise revenue to pay for the effects should it happen, but not force the rest of the world into prolonged poverty just because some scientist who are prone to error show that there is evidence either side of an issue we can do little about.

THX1138

Why do so many of you distrust science & scientists so much ? My theory is that it's hard & difficult to understand ( I recently looked over an A level physics paper & it's really hard & that's basic stuff) & what we we can't understand we tend to rubbish particularly when the conclusion doesn't fit our world view, AGW being one of the most obvious examples of this phenomenon. Melanie Phillips who with no scientific training or real understanding of climatology, epidemiology & evolution states categorically & with no possible room for doubt that, man made global warming is not happening, that the MMR jab causes autism & we could not have evolved without an intelligent designer. How does she people hold on to these irrational views in the face of scientific experts who dedicated their lives to understanding these highly complex issues but can be brushed aside at the stoke of her politically & or religiously motivated keyboard . The sheer arrogance/ignorance of Melanie Phillips on this subject (not others) always amazes me. Lets trust the scientists to deal with these issues of fact (until disproved by other scientists) & leave newspaper columnists to matters they can properly understand. Climatologists maybe wrong about AGW & lets hope so but how would I know I'm a marketer but I know for sure they won't be proved wrong by a newspaper columnist, If they are wrong it will be shown by another climatologist who comes up with a better theory that survives a rigorous process of scrutiny by experts. In the meantime I intend to believe them over Melanie Phillips.

George Steiner

Stop going around in circles fellows. Science works like this. You propose a theory of how something works. You make a prediction based on your theory. The prediction is tested. Either by experiment or by some measurements. Measurements confirm theory. Theory is good untill further notice. Measuremenrs don't confirm theory. Theory is NFG. The boyses of the UN noticed CO2 increasing. Proposed the theory of Global Warming due to CO2 increase. Measurenets deny global warming, while CO2 contines to increase. Global worming theory based on increase of CO2 is NFG. So the boyses at the UN go to plan B. Climate change is due to increased CO2. When Mr. Alcuin has done enough math, he will conclude that this theory is also NFG. So the boyses of the UN have to look for something else. And in the meantime, stop telling the world to cut down on CO2 emission just to please this fellow Pachinko or whatever is the name of the Indian charlatan at the UN.

THX1138

Nick K & Joe Strummer "I will refer you to Joe’s point about the 1970’s predications of an impending ice age" Thanks you proving my point I think some scientists did predict the possibility of a new ice age in the 70's but other scientists subsequently proved them wrong not newspaper columnists . As I say lets hope that scientists working in the field of climatology are proved wrong about climate change but from my understanding of what real experts say I doubt it. As Damian Thompson says in his excellent book Counterknowledge "There are good reasons to trust scientists when ever a huge majority of them endorse an empirical claim. The tests applied to empirical statements are for the most part , impressively rigorous & they are applied by a scientific community that (unlike creationists (& climate change sceptics- my addition )is made up of individuals from diverse ethnic, religious & cultural background

Nick Kaplan

THX1138; it is amazing that you can have so much faith in ability of climatologist to predict the climate trends for the next 100 years when they can barely even predict tomorrow’s weather correctly. I am not saying I do no support science, it is the best method for finding out about the world that we have, but they are not infallible and they are not all united in the theory of MMGW, many scientists deny it, and it is only on this basis that I am unsure of of its truth.

Tim M

THX1138 You say: "Why do so many of you distrust science & scientists so much ?" Which scientists are you talking about? The ones who earn money from the AGW industry (like the UN)? Or the one hundred eminent scientists who signed a letter to the UN, which begins: 'It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.' You can see the entire letter here: http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1521 Just because the BBC tells you that 'all' scientists are agreed that we're gonna fry don't make it so, bro. Er, as I previously posted, man-made global warming theory is a scam. Relax THX1138, you can trust me, I'm a scientist...

bill-tb

Man made it too hot, man made it too cold. Now if we only knew how, man could make it just right.

Lynne T

C'mon folks. The folks who were touting the "global warming" line are now regrouping as "climate changers", so they can explain away lower than average temperatures as still being a human activity-driven phenomena. If I am recalling my readings of some of Dr. Stott's blogs and commentary, in his opinion, human activity accounts for very little of the CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't know how many years humans have been keeping accurate records of weather patterns and extreme events, but in the greater scheme of things, I'd say for a rather short block of time. This is not to say that we should continue to be profligate with limited resources, especially those that are toxic to different life forms. I'm just saying that as with economics, it is much easier for scientists to explain events once they have come to pass, than it is for them to predict what will happen in the middle and long terms. Sad that so few of them are wiling to admit this as it goes to the heart of what is science vs what is art.

Robert

Thank you Melanie for being the (almost) sole voice of reason on this issue. I suppose we will all have a good laugh about this someday provided that we have not surrendered too much our freedom to a world government telling us what light bulbs to use and how much water can flow through our toilets.

Ian C

Alcuin - Prof Loveleock makes the point himself whether or not you buy his theories. He says [if it is happening] there is very little we can do about it in the short term. Noone sensible is going to invest trillions on the basis that there may be a pay off to humanity generally in 100-200 years time. The fittest will survive and that is it - based on his theories. In the meantime there more pressing problems that we can do something about. So get off the hobby horse and apply your scientific skills to something useful (like improving air tarvel) we can do something about.

Michael B

"Apart from a couple of lonely newspaper pieces, virtually none of this dramatic news has been reported." - That's what happens when truths actually are inconvenient. Iow, when putative "inconvenient truths" are endlessly promulgated, become ubiquitous and are superficially yet widely promoted as moral status symbols - then all of that might be a "subtle" hint that those "truths" are not in the least inconvenient. To the contrary, they are strikingly convenient since they represent moral pabulum and too eager arrogations, wherein no risks whatsoever are involved - again, to the contrary. All that may reflect a too glib formulation but even if it does, in a categorical sense, it still points to some prominent truths and some conspicuously convenient motivating factors; tell-tale indicators that something other than science is afoot.

David Gibson

you disappoint me Melanie...i was sooo looking forward to the Costa del Belfast.... This global warming nonsense has the whiff of hard left politics...more taxes, more micro management of our lives..group think.. keep up the good work melanie

David M.

Warming or Cooling the ever changing global weather is always perfect for the cult of MMCC. The new church of eco-mentalism has grown from a small handcart of bearded nutters to be big business. Like every other religion it has its profits, er sorry prophets. Just like every other religion it demands complete compliance in thought and deed and that sheeple have faith. Just like evey other religion it is uncomfortable with science and seeks to subvert it with junk science produced by people who are not real scientists. i.e The anarchists and their useful dimwits who, in this case, would better employed colouring in maps.

THX1138

Nick K & Tim M -As believers in science surely the only rational option is to trust the scientific opinion of experts like the Royal, Society, The IPCC, The Hadley Centre, The Tyndall Centre & The American Association for the Advancement of Science ( I could go on & on) who all agree that AGW is happening & is a threat to us. Can all these people be in the pay of the UN or the AGW industry I'm sure they will continue to have jobs should AGW proved to be wrong. To discount all this scientific opinion & elevate the opinion of a few rogue scientists who on closer examination are either not experts like Melanie Phillips pet scientist Philip Stott who is a Paleo Geographer not a climatologist or deny saying what was attributed to them, would be the most absurd form of irrational behaviour. I repeat I will be looking to the Royal Society for my lead on this subject not Melanie Phillips & I urge all rational people to do the same.

Ivor, Chelmsford

Can't everyone see: it's the Millennium Bug all over again. It's in the government's interest to keep us all in a State Of Fear. I suggest that global-worriers read the book of the same name.

Andy

Yes you are so right Melanie. We have had eco-nazi (to quote James May) protesters in the news though breeching security at Heathrow and House of Commons - hmmm the police say that it was possibly an inside job. Could it possibly be that this distraction is more important news than the 'planet is saved'? I think it shows much more than an embarrassment on the part of those who have been hoodwinked once again by political spin (let us not forget ever the WMD deception), what it shows is just how wrong the one-sided global warming debate was/is and the extent the government is willing to go to impose their communist style policies on the public. This to me is the most worrying aspect of the global warming hype.

Nick Kaplan

THX1138, I will repeat; I am not saying I think that we should not trust scientists, I am saying that the scientific evidence is far from conclusive and the idea that there is a scientific consensus is merely a myth propagated by the BBC, which you have apparently fallen for. I am not saying I don’t believe in global warming, just that I am not sure. I am convinced however that the evidence for global warming and the effects it will have, have been blown out of all proportion in an attempt to scare people into action. I recently attended a lecture by a professor who worked closely with Nicholas Stern, in this lecture the professor explained the reason why the Stern report had made out the issue was one of impending doom. This is because they have been using a method based on Pascal’s wager. If you are unfamiliar with this idea, Pascal stated that the proposition of God existing is highly unlikely but the consequences of not believing in God (eternal damnation) are so severe that it is worth pretending to believe in him. Likewise those propagating the myth that Climate change is going to be absolutely disastrous have taken a similar approach. They believe the chances of such severe climate change is highly unlikely, but the consequences are so bad that it is worth petrifying the public into action by making out that the probability is much higher. You also claim that Paleo-Geographers are less qualified than climatologists to give evidence on issue like climate change, I would stress that the reverse is true. Such geographers take into account evidence of many millions of years, i.e. evidence before man was around and before pollution was a problem, such evidence highlights the fact that climate change operates independently of people. This seems a much more accurate basis on which to study the problem of climate change, rather than just looking at the last 200 years of climate data which is what climatologists base their views on.

C02 Sceptic

Melanie, I agree with your thesis of Media bias on the issue. That climate change happens is an accepted fact. That the sun is the main driver of our climate is an accepted fact. That mankind pollutes the atmosphere is a fact. However, it is far from being an accepted fact that CO2 emissions from mankind’s activity have any effect in changing the earth’s climate. Proponents of anthropogenic (mankind caused) climate change are fond of drawing spurious conclusions from among other things historical data, natural fluctuations in the weather and pointing to “climate models” that are at best guesswork about the future and at worst snake oil from researchers , pressure and politically driven groups seeking funding, publicity or both. Models contain bias, statistics and assumptions. Anyone can speculate about the future but no one knows what it holds. Remember we are that we are continually warned by superannuation and financial advisers that past performance is no guide to future performance. So it is with predicting weather and our climate future. Everyone should take a step back and consider before we wreak unnecessary havoc on our economies and societies There is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Mike Bentley

Your British humor is showing. Nice writing, and good summary of the science. Too bad that Mike Moore, the UN and Al "I invented the Internet" Gore aren't forced to give back their Nobel and Oscars. Publicly! Dispite the mounting evidence, we need to be cautious in pronouncing anything least we become as those we oppose. (But the data looks really good!)

THX1138

Nick K- Thanks for you reply. So lets trust scientists & please how would you know if the scientific evidence is conclusive or not? I haven't fallen for any line propagated by the BBC I have fallen for considered opinion of all of the scientific organisations listed in my previous post which has to be the rational decision you however seem to have fallen for the irrational position of Melanie Phillips & her pals. I'm familiar with Pacals wager as an atheist I have always felt that if I'm wrong the "god of love" would be big enough to forgive my error unlike the climate which won't. Can you please tell me how you know that the possibility of disastrous climate change is a myth? You think it is you can't possibly know. I will concede your point on Paleo-Geographers I don't know enough about scientific disciplines to be sure on this point. You are however wrong when you say climatologists only look back 200 years for instance with & tree rings & particularly ice core data they can go back much further. Shame we can't debate this over a pint.

Charles de Podesta

Melanie quotes "Meteorologist Anthony Watts" with her own emphases. It is worth noting that Mr Watts has already demanded corrections of the misinterpretations of his data that Melanie reproduces on her blog. His words: "I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years” There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied." http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/ Perhaps Melanie would also graciously comply and correct her misleading emphases. For me this illustrates the main problem with Ms Philips global warming comments - she tends to reproduce any snippets of information appear to support her existing opinion without understanding the real science behind the facts.

Nick Kaplan

THX1138, I too am an atheist, so at least we are agreed on something. The evidence from ice cores is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that geographical evidence can go back millions of years. If one looks at the data presented by the ice cores they actually tell the reverse story to that presented by Al Gore, they confirm that in the past temperature changes have led to increases in Co2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. This works through a chemical processes whereby co2 is absorbed into sea water at low temperatures, as temperatures rise this process slows thus leading to an overall increase in co2 in the atmosphere. This is the reason for the correlation between Co2 and temperature increases in the past. However once again let me reiterate I am not saying I do not believe in the possibility of MMGW, there are however many dissenting voices and much contrary evidence. Scientists and climatologists have got this sort of thing wrong in the past and the correlation between man-made carbon emissions and temperature rises has not always held. In my view there are significant gaps in the story that need a much better explanation before I can accept the expense of the many freedoms we are being told to give up. Part of my atheism is about being independently minded and I will not just accept a view because there happens to be a consensus on it, even if this consensus is between the majority of scientists. I have not given up one God to worship at the altar of another, that of fallible scientists.

Bri

It's fair to say that despite quoting various oil-funded scientists Melanie is not an expert on the science behind climate change. Nevertheless, considering that oil has gone from $10 to $100 in around 10 years and is a scarce resource would she not consider heavy investment (initially with public subsidy) an essential and worthwhile exercise as well as reducing excess luxuries?

field

One thing is clear: the amount of energy transferred from the sun is easily the most important variable in determining the temperature of the planet. For the rest, I think the jury is still out and the jury is still out on whether global warming (or "climate change") is a good or bad thing. We KNOW we've had warmer climates before now - in the period 1000-1200, it was substantially warmer. Later we had the Little Ice Age with frost fairs on the Thames. My view is that if carbon really is causing climate change and that is a problem it can easily be addressed by technology, if necessary direct removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It will cost a bit but it's easily achieved - unlike say nuclear disarmament or population reduction.

Benjamin Kirby

Alcuin - "Arrhenius poined out that burning fossil fuels would warm the earth - all of these over 100 years ago. These are the basics." Basic but that last one is not a fact. We don't know yet if the feedbacks for increased CO2 are positive or negative. It may be that increased cloud cover will cool the planet. Alcuin - "The most important are the Navier-Stokes equations for the behaviour of viscous fluids. Significant empirical modifications are required to fit the measured behaviour and to allow for chemistry, air-sea-land interfaces and other effects for which theory is inadequate." Please correct me if I am wrong but when I was did Aerodynamics many years ago, one of the "modifications" we did was to throw away all the higher order terms. I forget if we only solved such equations for first order derivatives or for first and second, but certainly we ignored the rest. Can you please tell us how accurate any equation is likely to be if you only include first order terms and no other, you know, like trying to describe a curve with a straight line? Alcuin - "Errors in predictions are used to modify the models, which are repeatedly checked against known past behaviour of the atmosphere." Can you please point out to me one single model that, if given the data up to 1970, say, comes within an order of magnitude of predicting the basic climate of 1990? That is, doesn't make the Sahara a rainforest and that sort of thing. Alcuin - "The reason our cars are far more efficient today is the sophistication of such models." Well no. It is because 1. our computers are getting bigger and faster enabling us to solve PDAs it was not worth solving before 2. because we usually run these backwards - we get the solution we want, model it and then look backwards to find the correct starting conditions to get the right result and 3. we then fiddle with the starting conditions until it works. Only the first factor is at work with the climate. Alcuin - "The global weather system is a far tougher problem, but all models predict warming and a rise of sea level over the next 1000 years." If you assume that increased CO2 will lead to warming, program your model that way, no doubt your model will tell you what you want. Big deal. There simply is not enough computing power in the world (or useful starting data) to model the climate. Even if we knew much about the underlying science. Which we don't.

stanley Jerusalem

To all fans, sceptics and don't knows out there I have two things to mention [1] Millenium Bug [2] Maunders Minimum [Look it up and be totally deflated]

Alex Bensky

I would be careful about where you travel, Ms. Phillips, because David Suzuki, a television personality in Canada, wants to jail people who deny global warming.

Edward Welsh

Alcuin,1stpost, you make three errors in your first three paragraphs.1. "The only difference between the Earth and Moon is it's atmosphere" The Earth is c85x more massive than the moon and generates vast heat energy from nuclear reactions.We live on top of a nuclear reactor. 2.Over most of the globe water vapour is not a trace gas in the atmosphere-it is far and away the most important greenhouse gas. 3.Having worked as what would now be called a Health Physicist,I know that absorption of radiation is not that simple.(non-linear). Re your third post. Lovelock is no doubt a clever and able scientist when his feet are on the planet,but I cannot take seriously superstition,Gaia theory,anthropomorphism and the rest. Why should n't Melanie comment on this matter,after all she has one of the sharpest intellects in the land.By contrast I do worry about the quality of hopefully,just some of our scientists and their research.To see what I mean you could read- "Its time for a body count" Simon Lewis,Royal Society Research Fellow at the Earth and Biosphere Institute,University of Leeds. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/26/climatechangecarbonemissions There is a link via Numberwatch forum-Jeff Woods Feb 26.The comments are astonishing- there is hope yet if guardian readers react like this.

Ann

"We’re all up to here with worry about it" --- oh, are we? Well, we are not. Speak for yourself. Up to here, are you? Oh, poor little Melanie, having to worry about the impact of humanity on the planet. Much better to curl up with a good book and let someone else worry about it, right? You don't have a science degree, right?

Ann

Resorting to the phrase 'eco-nazi' tells us all we want to know about the people who are trying to fight the scientific evidence: they are an unholy alliance of oil corporations and flat-earthists, with a few police state worshippers who want to suppress environmentalism thrown in for good measure.

Doug

As usual Melanie Philips is excelling herself in pouring forth hysterical, spectacularly ill-informed jibberish. Can someone please export the useless old windbag?

Michael Gersh

This is only starting. Now that the evidence will begin to weigh in against the global warming cultists, they will become ever more shrill. Don't worry Melanie. Our side wins in the end.

Chris, Swindon

Malenie Phillips for Prime Minister. Trouble is, global warming is such a huge industry you'll never stop it now. It's a bit like American Wrestling: completely fake, but worth too much money to stop.

Ver_n_TN

I am from America. I am not a scientist like many of you. I lived in California during Mt. St. Helens (in Washington) volcanic eruption. I was just a grammer schooler, I remember the ash in the air and you could see the haze the ash made, and we had a COLD summer!!!! Now understand how far away from Mt. St. Hellens I was, I was almost to the border of Mexico. I remember that summer and knew that when particles are in the air- like brown dust etc.- some of you are talking about- IT GETS COLD NOT WARM!
I also remember very well that the scientist told us we were going to freeze over in the '70's. We also had to draw posters and stuff about it because that is what they told us to do in public school.
I am sorry, I do not believe in global warming. I do believe in pollution affecting areas and know of that fact first hand from living at the beach during the '70's.
Another thought for those favoring GW, a lot of the scientists who agree with the UN ARE on their bankroll, those who oppose GW ARE NOT, the UN will not fund them because it is against their agenda. Those in favor of global warming, follow the money, just follow the money!!!!

willcat

We are mere tads on this planet... specs. Mother Nature is in control as she always has been. Climate change is a natural part of what the earth does. It's like breathing. We all need to get real and stop wringing our hands over it. Cheers to Melanie!

YER

Hey man,your messing up the mpst profitable scam since Gorey Al imvented the internet! All of the sweet little ole ladies who willed their husbands huge fortunes to ex-hippies to get it started, would soil their bloomers