Climate change

[Basil]

Paul- - 2009-12-24 11:00 AM

 

 

Whether you believe it or not, we owe it to the next generations & try to do something about it, if it only preserves the earths resources it will have been worthwhile.

 

 

Paul

 

That is exactly the point Paul, if we allow miss-information to drive this forward then we will not be doing anything to help our future generations with the real problems they may have. It is not a case of whether you believe or disbelieve, more whether what you are being told is correct or not, as doing things based on incorrect information or lies is the surest way to do things incorrectly.

I have no problem whatsoever with doing things to help but as Tracker quite rightly says (I fully support his last post) that is not what is happening currently.

As I said earlier it is the same with any 'religion' if you don't believe in the one 'true' belief that is held by the followers of that religion then you will be cast out, that is what is happening now to stifle balanced discussion.

 

Bas

[Syd]

KOTR

One small point that I feel that I must make from your earlier post is this.

 

when scientists publish papers on some discovery/theory and healthy discussion normally follows then MOST of these papers/theories/discussions, and their eventual outcomes, most certainly WILL have an impact on your life to some degree or other, so please don't dismiss them.

 

That is why they MUST contain accurate and truthful information

[Brian Kirby]

George Collings - 2009-12-23 7:38 PM According to my info the glaciers of the last ice age retreated from the UK about 12,000 years ago indicating that I might be a bit younger than Brian. No offence Brian as I suspect the reverse is the case.

Well, I did say it was from memory, though only of what I had read!  :-)  It was quite a while ago that I read it - and I obviously should have checked before relying on my infallible memory!

You are of course correct, except that it seems we are presently in an ice age, and that our present "warm" period is merely an interglacial, expected to last perhaps another 50,000 years: being one of the swings between glaciations and interglacials that, overall, make up an ice age.

[nightrider]

Syd - 2009-12-24 2:46 PM

 

KOTR

One small point that I feel that I must make from your earlier post is this.

 

when scientists publish papers on some discovery/theory and healthy discussion normally follows then MOST of these papers/theories/discussions, and their eventual outcomes, most certainly WILL have an impact on your life to some degree or other, so please don't dismiss them.

 

That is why they MUST contain accurate and truthful information

 

So basically the people who do not give the accurate and truthful information have vested interests?? either in well paid jobs or connections to companies that instigate these high flying reports.

I very much doubt that the actual rise in the earths temperature will have a drastic effect on you, me and whoever for many years to come.

The only effect that I can see and read about on a daily basis is that you, me and uncle Tom Cobley and all will be paying for all these reports for years and years without any decernible benefits to the global climate conditions.

 

The thing that I would advocate though is better housekeeping on a global scale that is to say work out the means of reducing plastic packaging, no tree logging unless two saplings are planted in place of a harvested tree, any and every consumer product at some stage is made redundant, a license to manufacture something should not be granted unless a firm solid method of recyling is instituted.

 

One very simple idea of reducing waste on a massive scale is the innovation of making all mobile phone battery chargers with the same fitting so that one charger will charge any make of phone therefore manufactures will not have to supply a charger with each phone they sell to someone wishing to upgrade their phones.

 

This system could be applied to all kinds of electrical items, it could also be adapted to many other consumer item, too many to mention.

[Brian Kirby]

Basil - 2009-12-23 8:52 PM  No, that is entirely correct, there is no 'kick', only in the IPCC's discredited Hockey stick graph (made up from the 'massaged' data in an attempt to prove their theory). ............... Bas

Bas, I gather the debate over whether or not warming is taking place, which basically means whether the hockey stick effect exists at all, is still raging in the National Academy of Sciences, and that the latest paper on the subject was submitted by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in January 2009.  I don't think the fat lady is singing yet!!

However, as an aside, I do think the tone of the argument between them and McIntyre and McKitrick has reached the bottom of the cess pit!  It has degenarated to something more akin to a primary school playground squabble than a serious debate between dissenting scientists.

[nightrider]

In my own way I have been into recyling for a long time, there is hardly anything that goes into our wheelie bin, in my job in the garden maintenance business none of my waste that I create goes to the local tip it is all shredded and re-used, bushes, shrubs and any tree's that I am called on to dispose of goes the same way.

We have developed into a throw away society and perhaps the current credit crunch will make people think twice about chucking something in the wheelie bin, whatever you throw away someone can always make use of it.

[Guest Tracker]

Isn't it strange that when I say on here about how I find low or no cost solutions for problems I am slated and maligned as being a skinflint?

 

Because I grew up in an era of don't haves I have always done this - and not least because for many years life was a financial struggle - but it never once occurred to me that I am in fact very environmentally friendly!

 

Now that's a turn up for the book?

[nightrider]

Seeing as it was me that started this thread I have read all the replies with much interest so let me ask this question.

What would all the scientists and experts who waffle on and on trying to blind each other with science, what do they do when they are sat in their house on a cold chilly night?

They turn the heating up a notch or put another log on the fire or if they are too hot they turn on the air conditioning on.

Dont tell me that they say to themselves or their wife and kids, sorry, can't turn the heating up we have to worry about global warming.

[nightrider]

Tracker,

Dont know how old you are but do you ever remember 'coal bricks' that you used to buy from the local coal merchant? made from coal dust and bound together with a sprinkle of cement.

All the old newspapers and magazines we have I put through a shredder then I mix them with woodchippings from my woodchipper in a big cement mixer bind them together with a dilute solution of wall paper paste and then pour them into wooden brick shape moulds, let them dry and they make good smokeless burning material for my woodburning stove.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2009-12-23 8:24 PM Hi Brian Only reason I mentioned you by name is your unusual (for you ;0) willingness to abdicate any sensible thought and to just swallow the Global Warming Scam science hook line and sinker and so advocate following the scare tactics of the crooks at the IPCC and the CRU. .............

I'll assume you omitted the smiley while traducing me!  :-)  You are, however, making assumptions about what I believe, as opposed to which position I take.  On the broad subject of climate change, I neither "believe" nor "disbelieve".  On the whole I find both camps equally silly, each quoting from whatever "bible" today tends to support their preferred view.  I am as suspicious of the motivations of the one camp as of the other.  My conclusion, that we will be better advised to change our behaviour along the lines advocated by the "believers", is that there are other, at least equally valid, reasons for doing this.  So, on the basis that my enemy's enemy is my friend, I favour their approach over that of the "unbelievers".  A sort of wary agnosticism, really.

As for your entirely reasonable question as to what I, as a sceptic, feel we should be doing? – well I am in full agreement with the views of Bjorn Lomborg. Can I suggest you take a few minutes to listen to what he says on these video links Brian.

http://www.wikio.co.uk/video/1864602 We may still have to agree to differ.

Well, I did.  It would take far too long to give the man a proper critique, other than to say I am inherently suspicious of people who talk fast!  He claims to take an economists view, while not being an economist.  So here we go again, with an "authority" praying in aid a subject of which he is not master.  He is a social and political scientist, with a speciality in statistics.  For me, he skips over the inconvenient gaps in his reasoning by resorting to unsubstantiated assertions.  The basic idea is good, except that all of the high priority issues he cites will result in an increase in global population, mainly in the underdeveloped world.  He argues that in some unsubstantiated way this will be commensurate with an increase in their standards of living, which flies in the face of experience to date.  He accepts the "fact" of global warming which, if the projections for it's outcomes are only half true (all outcomes, though, not just those he has fun with at Gore's expense), many, if not most, of those he proposes to help will merely survive to die in distress by other means.  So, overall, I was not persuaded he had any solutions, although his general approach, of prioritising your actions before you take them, is rationally classic business/management school orthodoxy.  It is like risk assessment: you have 1) to identify the risk events, 2) assess their potential consequences 3) assess the likelihood of the events happening and 4) decide whether you can avoid it, buy it off, accept it, or manage it.  He starts well, but never quite gets to the end.

But for my money – I would rather we help the developing world, cure and treat diseases that afflict so many and improve the economies of other less well of nations by using our technology – rather than running off down a nefarious tangent that is by no means “settled” and that the proponents of which stand to make millions.

As above.  If warming is taking place, all that aid will be wasted a few years in as the effects of the warming take their toll by other means.  As yer boy says, this should not be about making ourselves feel good, but by doing actual good by others.

One point we may have to differ on is that you make the specific point with reference to what we can do as a single country. To which I say we need to look on a broader horizon for two reasons. a) Even if we stopped all of our industry tomorrow such that we produced no man made CO2 at all (apart from that which we produce from respiring that is – but that is another, broader question that the alarmists ignore as they like to focus only on fossil fuel based CO2.) the China would produce in two weeks the same amount of CO2 that the UK produces in a year.

But, my point was not based upon CO2 production rates, Chinese or ours.  What I am arguing is that we need to aim for self sufficiency, because of the knock-on effects of the warming, if indeed it is taking place.

So frankly what is the point of crucifying our economy and hand our accrued wealth and experience over to other nations when we as a country produce so little in real terms? b) Our technological infrastructure is often “old hat” – by this I mean the likes of our phone network. All that copper wire strung all over the place and updates to fibre optics, when most developing countries just leapfrog over that tired old stuff and go straight to mobile phone networks.......................

You first have to decide if you accept the climate is changing: that the warming is taking place.  If you accept that, and you wish to act rationally, you have to modify behaviours.  If we fail to act, we will become the victim of what is to come, rather than being able to influence how, and to what extent, it affects us.  If you reject the possibility of climate change altogether, saving only normal small scale annual fluctuations, then the status quo will do.  However, I think that is rather a fool's paradise, since we know with reasonably undisputed certainty that much wider fluctuations - that have the capacity to seriously disrupt our lives - have taken place in the past, that they have an approximate cycle, and that they appear to be an inherent feature of the earth's climate.  From this we can reasonably conjecture they will happen again, with long periods of greater warmth, and greater cold, than at present.  It is this that we should be preparing for, and not fretting over whether this, or that, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is cause, or effect.  In this one respect I agree with Lomborg.  To paraphrase him very loosely: either climate change is happening, has just happened, or is about to happen.  We should proceed accordingly, and not just continue blindly forward on our old economic model.

To those of you now asleep, our joint apologies, Merry Christmas, and sleep tight!  :-)

[malc d]

I have a broadly similar view to Brian.

 

The climate has been warming up, off and on, for thousands of years.

There used to be an ice sheet over Britain down to somewhere around Derbyshire.

(It is no longer there, I've checked).

 

So global warming is natural.

 

The argument is about whether or not man is making it warmer, faster.

 

The two sides of the argument (some of whom may well have a vested interest ) find all the statistics they can that support their view and feed them into a computer model.

Surprise, surprise - their view is then supported by the results (or 'facts' as they call them).

 

I have no idea who is right, but I do recognise that we are using up the worlds natural resources at an increasing rate, and it would be a good idea to slow that process down a bit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Tracker]

malc d - 2009-12-24 5:25 PM

There used to be an ice sheet over Britain down to somewhere around Derbyshire.

(It is no longer there, I've checked).

 

Down to more or less the M4 - so I am told.

 

And according to my cousin who lives near Swindon, as of today, most of it IS still there!

[Basil]

Brian Kirby - 2009-12-24 3:25 PM

............Bas, I gather the debate over whether or not warming is taking place, which basically means whether the hockey stick effect exists at all, is still raging in the National Academy of Sciences, and that the latest paper on the subject was submitted by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in January 2009. ..............

Bearing in mind it is Mann who doctored the origional 'Hockey Stick' graph that gave weight to the IPCC report and was subsequently found to be fraudulent.

Brian Kirby - 2009-12-24 4:37 PM.......You first have to decide if you accept the climate is changing: that the warming is taking place. If you accept that, and you wish to act rationally, you have to modify behaviours. If we fail to act, we will become the victim of what is to come, rather than being able to influence how, and to what extent, it affects us. If you reject the possibility of climate change altogether, saving only normal small scale annual fluctuations, then the status quo will do. However, I think that is rather a fool's paradise, since we know with reasonably undisputed certainty that much wider fluctuations - that have the capacity to seriously disrupt our lives - have taken place in the past, that they have an approximate cycle, and that they appear to be an inherent feature of the earth's climate. From this we can reasonably conjecture they will happen again, with long periods of greater warmth, and greater cold, than at present. It is this that we should be preparing for, and not fretting over whether this, or that, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is cause, or effect. In this one respect I agree with Lomborg. To paraphrase him very loosely: either climate change is happening, has just happened, or is about to happen. We should proceed accordingly, and not just continue blindly forward on our old economic model.

 

We are, broadly, in agreement I have said in discussions with you before on this subject that we need to limit the use/ find alternatives to fossil fuels if only in order to escape the clutches of external governments and fossil fuels finite nature .I must make comment on the your last paragraph though as this is my concern. We are being so geared up to accept that it is us that is creating the problem with CO2 emmisions that the actions being taken are mainly geared around that in the hope that it will stop or reduce Global Warming. If that is wrong and the inevitable continues to happen then we will not have made provision for the new hotter, or will it be cooler, temperatures and any change of climate so caused if indeed it will cause a problem.The current decline in temperature since 1998, if it continues, may make a rethink essential as there has been more deaths and extinctions from cooling of the climate than there has from heating!Bas

[Basil]

malc d - 2009-12-24 5:25 PM

 

.......The two sides of the argument (some of whom may well have a vested interest ) find all the statistics they can that support their view and feed them into a computer model.

Surprise, surprise - their view is then supported by the results (or 'facts' as they call them). ..........

 

 

 

This needs to be thought about as it is only the IPCC and Global Warming theorists that are using computer models (that they then claim are facts), most of the 'opposing' side are pointing to facts from records that disprove the claims of the GW theorists and showing up where the facts have been distorted to give the results that the IPCC want.

 

This is the main reason that I would recommend anyone who has an interest (we all should do) to take a look at the book by Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth published 2009, as it is a science based (not conjecture or from computer models) and reasoned publication dealing only with the facts available and is right up to date.

The information contained in it is readily verifiable and with the exception of the last chapter is soley based on science not conjecture. The last chapter is his own summary of the information.

Interestingly, for me anyway, is that the publication is supported by Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and President of the European Union 2009 as I thought all polititions were behind the GW Theory.

 

Bas

 

[Brian Kirby]

I don't think we should be overly swayed by references to computer models.  They are just a modelling tool, and are widely used in all branches of science.

The main thing to remember, and it is as true of computer models as any other form of modelling, is that garbage in, equals garbage out.  It is whether the inputs (and the way they were statistically adjusted) were garbage that is under debate here, and not whether the use of computers skewed the results.

With all due respect to Basil, the way he has presented his argument is possibly a good example!  :-)

[malc d]

Brian Kirby - 2009-12-27 7:06 PM

I don't think we should be overly swayed by references to computer models.  They are just a modelling tool, and are widely used in all branches of science.

The main thing to remember, and it is as true of computer models as any other form of modelling, is that garbage in, equals garbage out.  It is whether the inputs (and the way they were statistically adjusted) were garbage that is under debate here, and not whether the use of computers skewed the results.

With all due respect to Basil, the way he has presented his argument is possibly a good example!  :-)

I am well aware of the uses of computer models to predict outcomes but they are not necessarily reliable to back up arguments - particularly when they may contain selective statistics from opposing sides of an argument.As you say, garbage in - garbage out.Computers don't skew results.People may well do so.

[CliveH]

People with an “agenda” certainly do want to skew the results.

 

If you look at the way the IPCC deals with the Science and then the Summaries it produces you can see how this process has worked for the Alarmists in the past.

 

I mentioned the UK House of Lords review of the workings of the IPCC and it is fair to say that for many the IPCC never recovered from this stinging analysis of what they get up to. To précis just one example (there are many if you read the full H of L’s report) down as much as possible:-

 

Prof Reiter is an acknowledged expert on insect vectored disease and so was chosen as a “Lead Author” by the IPCC. He produced a report for the IPCC that stated that CO2 and global warming was not causing an increase in insect vectored disease but that local deforestation was. This report is in the main body of the report but the summary that was produced for the IPCC and published all over the world and sent to all world leaders stated that diseases like malaria and dengue fever WERE on the increase and that global warming was the cause.

 

The authors of this skewed summaries had the following qualifications according to Prof Reiter in his evidence to the House of Lords :-

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm

 

31. Only one of the lead authors has ever been a lead author, and neither has ever published on mosquito-borne disease. Only one of the contributing authors has an extensive bibliography in the field of human health. He is a specialist in industrial health, and all his publications are in Russian. Several of the others have never published any articles at all.

 

34. I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been selected: "It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists and specialists in human health?"

 

35. I also pointed out that one Lead Author is a "hygienist", the other is a specialist in fossil faeces, and both have been co-authors on publications by environmental activists.

 

So here we have one of the acknowledged experts in his field producing a report for the IPCC that they then bury and rewrite the summary to ignore the work of Prof Reiter. He complains but gets nowhere. He then asks for his name to be removed from the IPCC’s list of scientists and they refuse.

 

He has to threaten legal action before they do remove his name from their list of “consenting” scientists”.

 

The IPCC then select also ran numpty scam scientists to produce the idiotic data that the alarmists want to portray – NOT what is actually happening!

 

And here is the rub! – and where I think many miss the point that Bas makes so well!!

 

If we get sidetracked and spend billions on reducing CO2 to no real effect at all, that means that the real cause of real health problems such as the deforestation that Prof Reiter found IS causing an increase in insect vectored diseases will get ignored on the Alarmists religious altar of anti CO2 rhetoric.

 

There is such a thing as “opportunity cost” – you build a Warship as one option – or you could build several Hospitals and staff them for the same money. I am not saying either is right or wrong – what I am saying is that we rely on politicians to make those decisions as to what to do with OUR tax £’s.

 

It is my belief that the politicians have been duped on Global Warming. They go along with it as it enables them to apply more so called “green taxes” and to be fair – if those green tax £’s were actually spent on developing new technologies and improving efficiency then I would accept that.

 

But they are not.

 

The whole thing is a scam.

 

The UK House of Lords report is damning. – Any one interested I would urge them to read it AND note that this critiscm was levelled some years ago but the IPCC and its “Climate Research Unit” at the University of East Anglia that was intrinsically linked into the whole debacle of skewing the data to fit their preconceived notion or “agenda”.

 

We owe a great debt of thanks to the individual(s) who bravely leaked the emails last month that prove beyond doubt that these scam scientists have been lying to us all for some time. So some of the new, younger, minds saw what was going on and said enough is enough!

 

There have been many indications and hints – such as what happened to Prof Reiter – but now the genie is out of the bottle and we can all see for ourselves the extent of the scam and how close it got to succeeding.

 

[Syd]

Ah, but is it defeated yet I ask.

So much political reputations has been invested in this will they, the politicians, have the backbone to pull back and admit that they have been mislead

[CliveH]

No Syd I think not.

 

But they will let it die over time.

 

Saying things like "new information"

 

"Rationale approach"

 

etc etc etc.

 

We have to make sure that THEY know that we voters are watching!

[breakaleg]

I feel the only real thing about climate change is; will the human race survive it, or perish?

Pete

[Brian Kirby]

I don't think survival of the direct affect of climate change, assuming it follows the predicted path and that we fail to do whatever is necessary to minimise it, is in question.

The unanswerable question is what further affect any such change may have on human behaviour, and whether that may cause our demise.

For example, whether a resulting territorial dispute over land or water rights (seemingly quite predictable) might provoke a nuclear power (of which there are a gradually increasing number) to use its nuclear weapons.

Such an incident might well finish off an already weakened and highly stressed surviving human population.

[Syd]

Brian

One of the most awful things that could stem from any climatic changes that may occur is that it could change the lifelong behavioural habits of the human species.

For instance it could make our MPs honest, how would you see us copeing with that eh

[CliveH]

That is of course a possibility Brian. But just because it gets a bit warmer or the weather patterns change is surely less of a threat than say, our invading a country because we want "regime change" or India suffering another racist atrocity by extremists from Pakistan or vice versa.

 

I really do not think it valid to link possible climate change to possible nuclear conflict.

 

There are far more simple and stupid reasons why someone or some country may want to press that button than the prospect of slightly warmer average temperatures. Even if the CRU data was/is correct. However I can see justifiable conflict where indigenous people get mightily hacked off with us in the west for requiring them to destroy their habitats, wildlife flora and fauna on the Altar of Climate change so that they can grow enough palm oil so that we can all run our cars on bio diesel and make our EU emission targets. Is that barmy or what??

 

Apart from which Russia and Canada as two nations which have huge expanses of frozen tundra have run their own models and the indications are that their ability to increase food production if these areas thaw out is substantial.

 

ESA is trying to get across the fact that the Arctic melting is in fact creating plankton blooms which helps the entire food chain - see

 

http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM6ZCQ4KKF_index_0.html

 

But you won’t see that on the BBC - they would rather spin the story that Polar Bears are dying and IT'S ALL OUR FAULT!!

 

Where as in reality the number of Polar Bears is seemingly increasing. Something the Alarmists wanted off the agenda for their bun fight in Copenhagen.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2009-12-29 6:12 PM That is of course a possibility Brian. But just because it gets a bit warmer or the weather patterns change is surely less of a threat than say, our invading a country because we want "regime change" or India suffering another racist atrocity by extremists from Pakistan or vice versa. ...................

What I wrote had a number of provisos Clive, that you do seem to have overlooked.

The question I had sought to answer was whether the human race could survive climate change.  In reply, I said "assuming it follows the predicted path and that we fail to do whatever is necessary to minimise it" I thought our survival was not in question.

If one accepts the projected outcomes of climate change, and I know you do not, and I say this without accepting either argument, there will be extreme hardship caused over large parts of Africa, South East Asia and Central America through drought, desertification, and violent weather events, while many low lying areas will become uninhabitable due to permanent inundation or repeated flooding.  Those events, should they happen, would result in huge population migrations on the one hand, and increasing tensions as nations strive to control resources within their reach.  Rivers will be increasingly exploited in their higher reaches, meaning that less water is available to nations downstream.  The resulting tensions would be liable to provoke conflicts, out of which wars may grow.  The possibility of a nuclear state, of which there are now rather more than we may think, acting rashly, is not beyond imagining: it is, after all, why they have the weapons in the first place.

I sincerely hope this scenario will prove invalid but, on the basis we are playing Devil's advocate and accepting the climate change projections, it must remain a possibility - however remote.  Were that to happen, at a time of great social turmoil and with populations weakened by food and water shortages, the end of humanity is a possible outcome.  Please note I say possible, and not probable.  Other routes to our demise exist under these hypothetical circumstances, and seem no more nor less possible.

However, although the population spread and make up of the world, always on the above basis, would be greatly changed, I still think such events would be survived by a very large number of people.  I also think many millions would die, both in wars and of disasters, and it is very doubtful any part of the world could survive unscathed.  Unthinkable maybe, but we should, from time to time, think the unthinkable, lest we have to confront it.

[CliveH]

Hi Brian

 

I accept most of your points and of course the scenario you outline is a scary one. It is the “trump card” the alarmists use to scare people into doing what they want and thinking what they want you to think.

 

Nothing like a threat of a nuclear winter to force people to think along the lines you want them to think.

 

However, the point I made is that there are quite enough reasons other than the prospect of climate change to get some crazed loonytunes to set one off.

 

And yes you are correct I do not accept the models that predict a catastrophic global warming. And neither do the alarmists now because they have seen that warming plateaued from the late 1990’s and so coined the phrase “Climate Change”.

 

Their problem was that their models all assumed that there was a cascade link between CO2 and water vapour. Water vapour being a far greater greenhouse gas than CO2. So all the models assume (and still assume) that as CO2 increases then the fabled “Tipping Point” will be reached where water vapour takes over and we all broil in a global pressure cooker.

 

However, NASA being NASA wanted to measure what is actually happening and they sent up a series of satellites – the Aquasats – to measure and “report back” on what is really happening.

 

http://aqua.nasa.gov/

 

Much to the Alarmists consternation these satellites indicated a negative feedback loop between CO2 and Water Vapour – NOT the positive feedback loop assumed in all the models.

 

Not surprising then that the leaked CRU emails clearly show the frustration of these “scientists” that what is really happening does not fit their projections.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185

 

As for the specifics of the scenarios that you picture – please ponder this. If CO2 is not the driving force of climate change and the planet is just going through one of its natural cycles

 

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172

 

(a good read – I recommend it)

 

would it not be better to do what Lomborg suggests and deal with the real issues by investing in better infrastructure, flood defences, peoples health rather than sacrifice all the $billions on reducing the CO2 we produce?

 

Which when you look at the reality – 14% of the planets annual CO2 production is down to mans activities. So 86% of CO2 production is natural. The actual percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.0385%.

 

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=107

 

So are the Alarmists really serious about getting us to restrict our economic systems that have provided such prosperity so that our economies no longer function properly (whilst they make £millions from Carbon trading schemes) to reduce a trace gas, essential for plant photosynthesis, from 14% of diddlysquat to 12% of diddlysquat.

 

(Diddlysquat is the scientific unit of measurement that approximates to 0.1% of bugger all)

 

Seems to me to make far more sense to do what Reiter and Lomborg suggest – treat the REAL cause of indigenous peoples hardship – NOT rush up the blind alley of CO2 being the evil poison that some would have us believe.