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

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

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?

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

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

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.

"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.

.

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.

where did I say increasing co2 leads to rising temprature?!?!?

no you can't?

man made CO2 has steadily risen for the last 100 years.... but the temprature has witnessed great fluctations some in complete contrast with the rising CO2 levels.

I think where you got confused was my inclussion of the sea, I stated that as the sea temperature rises CO2 is released, in quantities much greater than man could ever achieve; if CO2 did act as a warming catalyst cutting back on cars would have no impact as the damage would of already been done when the sea's started warming and releasing CO2 in a never ending cycle of heat & release.

The whole issue is a nonsense and I'm suprised you buy into it.

The ocean is always releasing CO2 andy.....

its the biggest contributor of CO2 (accounting for about 70%) I really shouldn't have to provide this information... but if you insist I will?

As I stated earlier the changes we witness in the ocean could of occurred centuries ago... but if CO2 did act as a warming catalyst then this would only heat the oceans further.

????

excluding it from their report doesn't exclude it from the atmosphere, if CO2 is a warming catalyst and the sea's chuck out 70% of the CO2 in the atmosphere then we're fucked as the warmer it gets the more CO2 is released.... and we know that the earth has a history of warming and cooling.

if CO2 is the cause then reducing our CO2 levels will mean fuck all as the sea will continue to churn out more CO2 untill it reaches a point that triggers a change (which has nothing to do with man).

I seriously think you should step back and think about what youre saying.

It's funny how the science world, political world, and world in general is divided about the causes of global warming, yet a few non-scientists (or at least not very high level scientists) on here argue like they know exactly what is going on.