Still think makind makes a difference

[R1Geezer]

http://news.sky.com/s...ears_Of_New_Ash_Cloud
Volcanoes are pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the atmosphere constantly, the link is just the latest of many. So how does mankind's emissions compare to mother nature's own? I haven't even mentioned the largest source of Carbon!

[rov1100]

Maybe the hockey stick graph is a temporary blip which will flatten out when judged over a longer period using rolling averages?

[R1Geezer]

The main green house gas is in fact water vapour!

[LazyGun]

Think I will forward this link to every scientific academy and every scientific institution around the globe - they obviously have completely overlooked the motion of the earth, completely missed the fact that water vapour is the single largest contributor to global warming.

AB for the win! Problem solved - Nobel prizes all around :)

[R1Geezer]

clouds keep in more heat that co2 by a factor of thousands, even the most ardent eco warriors accept that.

[LazyGun]

Show me a single Scientific Academy or Institution that does not state that water vapour is the single largest greenhouse gas. You make that statement (clouds, water vapour) as if it is not already known, has not already been considered.
All things being equal, I will attach more weight to the reports from such bodies as the Royal Society over a couple of posters on here ;)

http://royalsociety.o...e-summary-of-science/

As to whether Mankind makes a significant difference to the process of climate change- Of course, without doubt - How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.

[LazyGun]

@pixi - good fer you! Methane has an even greater forcing effect than CO2 :)

[New Judge]

It is no use, Geezer, trying to apply logic to this argument. I have long since given up and have now turned my attention to the ridiculously ineffective (but hugely expensive, very inconvenient and sometimes dangerous) measures which are proposed to combat this supposed problem.

It is widely accepted, even among “experts”, that only 4% of gases which are allegedly soon to bring about the end of life as we know it are the product of man’s activities. The rest come from volcanic activity, reactions that take place in the sea and other non-human origins. It has never been satisfactorily explained how the planet can cope with variations in the latter but not the former. We are asked to accept (because “the debate is over” or “the science tells us” or Lazy Gun’s assertion “Of course, without doubt - How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.”) that the huge variations in things like the volcanic activity that has been mentioned can somehow be catered for, but the relatively small variations (in absolute terms) in manmade activity cause the hysterical responses we have witnessed in recent years.

There are signs, admittedly very small signs, that the worm is beginning to turn and some commentators and indeed politicians are starting to show signs of the heresy which is levelled against climate change deniers. This is good news, but it may be too little too late. The damage being done to economies and environments and the threats posed to (particularly) European nations’ energy security is immense and will take decades to reverse. People will find that the cure is far more unpleasant than the supposed disease.

If climate change is evident and if humans are responsible (two very big “ifs”) it will not be reversed by European nations changing their light bulbs and covering the continent with useless wind generators.

[LazyGun]

Well, now I am being patronised by a judge, I know I am right ;)

[New Judge]

Quite, LG. But that doesn't explain the 96%/4% conundrum.

[LazyGun]

I disagree profoundly new judge. I think the reason we should be concerned about specifically man-made contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is really very simple to understand, but hey ho.

[askyourgran]

pixie, you'll need to go around the farmyards with all the cows other animals too, causing methane gas.

[New Judge]

Try to explain it to me (and others) then, LG, 'cos I'm only a simple lad. In particular I'm interested in the difference between man-made CO2 (4% of the total with which, apparently, the planet cannot cope) and naturally occurring CO2 (96% of the total with which, apparently, it can).

After that, perhaps you would help me understand how the ludicrous proposal to reduce the UK’s Carbon output by half (which is neither achievable, practical nor desirable) will help matters. Particularly when considering that the UK’s contribution to global poisoning is 2% (of the 4%) and when China (23%); USA (18%); India (7%) and Russia (6%) have no such proposals and indeed are forecast to increase their emissions enormously. Or do the emissions of those nations somehow enjoy some special dispensation which means they do not contribute to the perceived problem in the same way that our do?

[LazyGun]

@New Judge. Its a global issue, and just because someone else produces more than us doesnt mean we should not move away from a fossil fuel economy, and a glimpse at your utility bills or in your shopping baskets should tell you why.
From a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to move away from a dwindling,increasingly expensive resource.
If you really wish to challenge your own preconceptions surrounding climate change, you could do a lot worse than watch this video - This guy has a lot more patience than I have in going over the basics.

http://www.youtube.co...layer_embedded#at=637