Climate change not man-made, say majority of Britons: poll

Finally, some people are starting to wake up from this God-forsaken nightmare!

If you ever wondered how human's went off on a complete tangent in the past, all you have to do is look at the slavish way in which people have fallen for the AGW lie.

What a farce!

Proper science is never based on polls, but politics should be,... and 95% of the AGW debate is politics. This cannot be denied by the AGW crowd, as politics is the proposed vehicle for enacting global solutions.

Now, one could do a scientifically valid statistical study and find that nearly 100% of AGW 'scientists' are liberal (far left of center) politically.

What this implies is that the institution of AGW does not approach the science from a disinterested perspective. In other words, science proper must be unbiased by personal political views or advantage.

The AGW environMentalists rely polls every time they claim a consensus.

Science proper must be able to empirically verify theories, not just dogmatically declare them within the context of a "sense of urgency". Such a context is used by nefarious used car salesmen, and one should be suspicious.

In other words, there may be a multitude of viable theories that serve to explain GW observations if all possible causes are not ruled out. This is nearly impossible in 'global weather science', because the multitude of variables cannot be isolated.

Scientific theories should be based on empirically verifiable and reproducible observations, and should allow for future accurate predictions to be made, as a means validating, modifying, or rejecting the theory. Global Weather science falls far short of the ideal scientific method.

We could reach roughly the same conclusions about other scientific theories. For example, depending on how the question is asked, only about 20-50% of Americans believe in evolution by natural selection. Placed in that perspective, I don't think this is that unexpected or bad an outcome for Global Warming since evolution has had a century longer to prove its accuracy.
Of course if you believe most scientists are atheist, liberal, commu-nazis, then you can reject the science of that offhand as well and believe that "finally people are waking up" to that too.

Somebody remembers Einstein's remark on "common sense" ("gesunder menschenverstand")?

Finally, some people are starting to wake up from this God-forsaken nightmare!

If you ever wondered how human's went off on a complete tangent in the past, all you have to do is look at the slavish way in which people have fallen for the AGW lie.

What a farce!

The arctic ice at the north pole is melting like never before. If we give in to those idiots that say there is no greenhouse warming we will have to face a cataclysm that makes very other natural disaster look puny. The national economy of every nation will collapse all at the same time. All the coastal cities will be dead or taxing everybody up to their eyeballs to build dikes and drainage pumps. Imagine if every major coastal city resembled new orleans at the end of 2 decades, in every country with a coastline. What do they get when they lie about it? Whatever it is it will seem like it was not worth it after the polar caps melt completely. More bad news to come!

Hmm! Well, we didn't evolve worrying about long-term problems. More about the immediate survival problems. It's difficult to get people to look very far ahead. As regards increasing taxes, given the recent behaviour of our politicians, most people will think it's a chance for the politicos to get more money for their expenses.!!

Settle down Nostradamus (Neil). No one is saying there is "no greenhouse warming".

Folks,

This study doesn't change the world ...

It first needs to be replicated.

What this study is that we don't need a big increase in CO2 to get a big increase in global temperatures ...

Eat your hearts out, right wingers.

Noumenon,

You will find much more evidence of right wing politics among global warming nay sayers than you will find left wing politics among those are intelligent and open minded enough to accept the obvious truth that CO2 and methane emissions are warming the planet. Ninety-nine percent of global warming skeptics are very right wing - a la Republican party.

And please stop the pontificating about the 'scientific method'.

Of course, global warming will require political action. That is no way undermines its solid foundations in science. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

If you had a background in science, you would know global warming doesn't require any increase in CO2 emissions. There are other gases such as methane, produced in vast quantities by our livestock, that are far potent.

To jump on an article like this and claim it 'overthrows the global warming thesis' is a clear of a layman.

Somebody remembers Einstein's remark on "common sense" ("gesunder menschenverstand")?

what

guess under menscen understand?

It's a lot easier to notice it was 70 degrees in new york today than to understand stories about dark and light moths adapting to air pollution

Hooray for Ninderthana! It's about time people start realizing that the predominance of the lies and propaganda that they are being fed by non-scientific glory-hounding prima-dona Al-Gore and his radical anti-capitalist Leftwing global warming reactionaries.

The facts are that the empirical data does anything but support the notion that mankind & his industrial (capitalistic) activities is in any way, shape, or form the harbinger of destruction for the planet's natural climate. Science shows that CO2 emissions manmade or natural levels have nothing to do with raising temperatures on planet earth...
http://www.physor...550.html

The empirical evidence from science is all around us and planetary climate change has nothing to do with the propagation of capitalism and conservative, anti-socialistic political ideology.

peteone1: In relation to the article you just mentioned:
It does not disprove anything about climate change, simply states that the ratio of carbon in the air and absorbed in the soil has remained about the same.
This makes sense to anyone with even a slight backing in chemistry. The concentrations of gases in systems are generally proportionate to a certain ratio, even if one side of the reaction is ridiculous disproportionate to normalcy.

Furthermore, it talks about CO2 and CO2 only. As CO2 rises, so does the amount of CO2 in the soil, granted, but that does not eliminate its effects on the environment. Instead of being stored in sugars or fossil fuels, carbon is now in the form of CO2, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been clearly linked to global temperature variations.

If anything, this study only proves that climate change will not occur as rapidly as we believe, however it does not in any way disprove climate change. The headline is not the article.

Settle down Nostradamus (Neil). No one is saying there is "no greenhouse warming".

In the 22nd century I predict nobody but the rich will have videos of disaster movies.

peteone1: In relation to the article you just mentioned:
((It [the article I just mentioned]does not disprove anything about climate change, simply states that the ratio of carbon in the air and absorbed in the soil has remained about the same.))
Okay, you’re right…and I never said that NO climate change had occurred over the last 150 years, just that there’s no empirical evidence to support the otherwise vacuous notion that either gradually fluctuating CO2 levels can or have caused climate change, and if that were the case, that those fluctuating CO2 levels and ensuing alleged warming of the planet can be empirically attributed to human industrial (capitalistic) activities. I think the evidence bares out the fact that neither fluctuating CO2 levels nor human industrial (capitalistic) activities can be linked to purported climate change. Such changes are more attributable to naturally occurring planetary and interplanetary phenomenon (i.e. solar maxima and minima)

((This makes sense to anyone with even a slight backing in chemistry.))
Yes it does, especially when one considers that plants absorb CO2 as their exclusive inhalant for respiratory activities and that oceans absorb huge amounts of CO2, keeping CO2 levels virtually constant at .038% of the total atmospheric content… http://en.wikiped...mosphere …for 150 years.
“Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction (of CO2) since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero”
http://www.physor...550.html

((Furthermore, it talks about CO2 and CO2 only. As CO2 rises, so does the amount of CO2 in the soil, granted, but that does not eliminate its effects on the environment.))
And what adverse effects could that be pray-tell? If plants need CO2 to live isn’t logical to assume that the more CO2 is found in the atmosphere the healthier plants would be?

((Furthermore, it talks about CO2 and CO2 only. As CO2 rises, so does the amount of CO2 in the soil, granted, but that does not eliminate its effects on the environment.))
And what adverse effects could that be pray-tell? If plants need CO2 to live isn’t logical to assume that the more CO2 is found in the atmosphere the healthier plants would be?
((amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been clearly linked to global temperature variations.)
I trust being a person of science you’ve heard of the Milankovitch cycle? This naturally occurring phenomenon causes variations in eccentricity of the earth’s orbit every100 K years or so. This changing of the earth’s orbital geometry (circular to elliptical) causing temperatures to rise. CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007)…showing CO2 is not necessarily directly connected to *evil* rightwing capitalistic activities.
http://www.skepti...ture.htm

((If anything, this study only proves that climate change will not occur as rapidly as we believe, however it does not in any way disprove climate change.))
It does indeed disprove that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming.

CORRECTION:
"It does indeed disprove that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming."
...should have read...
"It does indeed PROVE that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming."

Man made CO2 only represents 3-4% of all the CO2 generated in the world, if we cut the man made CO2 by 100% the earth will still get 96-97% of earth made CO2. That 100% reduction would probably result in a 0.01C reduction in 100 years, by then we'll all be dead, and whatever was going to happen will have happened unless you can figure out how to stop the 96-97% of CO2 that isn't man made!

People have been adding about 3% of the total amount of CO2 generated since 1850 or so. That Adds up to double the CO2 levels of that era-
300 parts per million, now.

Surprise to see that the population of the U.K. is that ignorant. Sad to see that the U.K. does not have a literacy enough anymore to lead europe as it use to. Seems to be following the U.S. in their decadence.

peteone1

Sounds like the usual denier confusion

"I trust being a person of science you’ve heard of the Milankovitch cycle? "

The series of videos at

http://www.youtub...3610#p/u

covers the Milankovitch cycles and the Caillon paper and how the denier groups have distorted or misrepresented the meaning of the results usually by cherry picking the bits that they agree with and cutting out the bits that don't fit.

If you learn something that's great, if you feel these videos are wrong, you can explain to me and the world of AGW believers why they are wrong.

Well the interest in science and esp in physics education has declined greatly since I was educated there in the 60-70s. As a teen, physics was widely taught to most scientifically interested children up to A level.

I hear today that kids would rather opt for softer sciences than the hard stuff so that reflects pretty much the decline in the standing of science. Physics graduates have dropped off the proverbial cliff.

I also expect the vast majority of scientifically disinterested would rather just watch Eastenders, read the Sun/Star than worry about doom & gloom. The UK went through lots of that in the 70s with post punk world movies, global winters etc, I remember loads of that, don't blame them.

"And what adverse effects could that be pray-tell? If plants need CO2 to live isn’t logical to assume that the more CO2 is found in the atmosphere the healthier plants would be?"
Life only exists in a small and confined spectrum. While CO2 is converted by plants to make sugar, this doe sin no ways mean that more CO2 is better fro plants. First off, the plants need large amounts of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous to build the cellular structure needed to process the carbon dioxide. These are being depleted from the soils rather quickly by overfarming. At the same time, higher sugar does not mean the plants will be in any way healthier. In response, plants as of late are very high in sugars, but much lower in protein mass. While plants survive this fairly well, it's been found that most herbivore insect young are not maturing fast enough, since they do not get enough protein in their diet. I.e., the effect trickles down the food web.

"It does indeed prove that CO2 fluctuations have virtually nothing to do with planetary climate change, especially human-induced global warming."
Again, the study does not talk about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but the ratio of CO2 that is in air versus amount absorbed. And again, simple chemical logic dictates that this ratio will move towards equilibrium no matter the concentrations one either side. And again, fossil fuels and sugars are NOT CO2, so this does in no way represent the amount of CO2 that has been released. It only says that the earth is better at absorbing it than previously thought, which does NOT diminish the amount of CO2 that has been released by any significant margin. The .7 +-.7 % margin applies to the ratio, not the amount of CO2 released into the air, which, again, is only natural and has NOTHING to do with the amount of CO2 that is being released.

"I trust being a person of science you’ve heard of the Milankovitch cycle? "
Being a man of science I not only know of the Milankovitch cycle, but also know we have deviated from it vastly. Yes. we are at a stage when Carbon levels in the atmosphere should be higher, but by a factor about ten times smaller than they are now. Current trends in the atmosphere are anything but natural.

((peteone1...Sounds like the usual denier confusion))
*Denier*? If you mean by that do I deny the Leftwing anti-capitalist propaganda that's being churned by Al-Gore's radical Leftist GW Alarmists...the answer would be a resounding "YES!"

I don't know what you mean about *confusion* other than to amplify that state which is personified by those who wish to propagate the lie of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

((the Milankovitch cycles and the Caillon paper and how the denier groups have distorted or misrepresented ))
How does one *misrepresent* empirical data when that data clearly shows that human industrial (capitalistic) activities absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2 levels and with climate change over a 100K year period? Please feel free to elaborate!

((If you learn something that's great))
My friend, we all learn something everyday of our lives. Isn't that what life is, a virtually unbounded learning curve? What gets me is that many folks don't admit that fact.

((Being a man of science I not only know of the Milankovitch cycle, but also know we have deviated from it vastly))
Good for you, however your assertion is quite vacuous in terms of factual content. If the Milankovitch cycle is actually true (there's good reason to think it is due to the empirical evidence even though we weren't technical enough over most of the past 100K yrs ago to absolutely see this cycle) we can see from it that earth by virtue of its own celestial mechanics naturally controls the dynamics of climate change which have fluctuated so many times in the 4.6 billion yr history of our planet without ANY interference from the *evil* rightwing/fascist, Christian-fundamentalist/imperialistic, capitalistic engine of human industrial progress. So in light of that fact, may I say that the empirically derived facts clearly show a considerable measure of absurdity on ther part of GW Alarmists (who tend to be anti-capitalistic socialists) to continue to sputter their nonsense.

The time has come for AGW proponents to realize they can still further their cause (renewable energy, energy independence) without the AGW rhetoric. If in fact that was their actual cause, of course. Those pure goals will be achieved quicker and with less impact on the People through focusing on the reality of the need for achieving those goals, and not carbon control. The jig is up AGW, pick your side, time to show your true colors. Is it actual eco-friendly ways you seek, or was it socio-political control all along?

People need to remember though that it's not just the political AGW movement that must be defeated, but any socio-political area where the top tiers of government are over-reaching their bounds.

If it's anything other than national defense, the People need to ask themselves, "is federal government control/involvement really the best way to handle this, for the People and Their individual freedoms?".

I believe greenhouse warming is taking place now. New York is warmer than ever. A runaway greenhouse effect is a real possibility that has to be discussed.

peteone: ad homonims aside, there is a difference between a natural cycle that moves between 220-280 ppm of CO2 and a sudden deviation of up to 380 ppm. That is not a natural cycle. That is far beyond regular deviation. It is also far beyond anything the cycle predicts. And it coincides completely with the industrial revolution and increased CO2 outputs, and with no natural processes whatsoever. So don't dare try telling me that's natural, or that it's not happening at all. The ice caps ARE melting, to extents that they have not in millions of years. Saying this is natural is plain and simple denial.

peteone: ad homonims aside, there is a difference between a natural cycle that moves between 220-280 ppm of CO2 and a sudden deviation of up to 380 ppm. That is not a natural cycle. That is far beyond regular deviation. It is also far beyond anything the cycle predicts. And it coincides completely with the industrial revolution and increased CO2 outputs, and with no natural processes whatsoever. So don't dare try telling me that's natural, or that it's not happening at all. The ice caps ARE melting, to extents that they have not in millions of years. Saying this is natural is plain and simple denial.

I agree 100%.
After the ice caps melt from greenhouse warming, huge tracts of permafrost will be exposed and the summertime heat will cause frozen marshes and peat bogs to to support growth of flora and bacteria that release methane by the gigaton. The methane is a potent greenhouse gas that will cause accelerated warming- runaway greenhouse warming.

peteone: ad homonims aside, there is a difference between a natural cycle that moves between 220-280 ppm of CO2 and a sudden deviation of up to 380 ppm. That is not a natural cycle. That is far beyond regular deviation. It is also far beyond anything the cycle predicts. And it coincides completely with the industrial revolution and increased CO2 outputs, and with no natural processes whatsoever. So don't dare try telling me that's natural, or that it's not happening at all. The ice caps ARE melting, to extents that they have not in millions of years. Saying this is natural is plain and simple denial.

I agree 100%.
After the ice caps melt from greenhouse warming, huge tracts of permafrost will be exposed and the summertime heat will cause frozen marshes and peat bogs to to support growth of flora and bacteria that release methane by the gigaton. A new group about this is http://groups.goo...ng?hl=en

((ad homonims aside))
Ad hominem attacks is what Leftwing radicals (like the GW Alarmists) always use when they attempt to shout down the opposition.

((there is a difference between a natural cycle that moves between 220-280 ppm of CO2 and a sudden deviation of up to 380 ppm))
The amount of CO2 in the atm today is .038% (.038/100)...that's a pitifully small sliver yet just enough to enrich and give life to the plants which in turn help to sustain animal and human life. There is no one-to-one correlation between human (capitalistic) industrial output and massive increases in CO2.
((And it coincides completely with the industrial revolution and increased CO2 outputs, and with no natural processes whatsoever))
"Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth"
http://en.wikiped...ariation

Not really :-)

"Ad hominem attacks is what Leftwing radicals (like the GW Alarmists) always use when they attempt to shout down the opposition. "
Ironic, since I've only seen you do it on these boards.

"The amount of CO2 in the atm today is .038% (.038/100)...that's a pitifully small sliver yet just enough to enrich and give life to the plants which in turn help to sustain animal and human life."
That is complete biological fallacy. Life only exists in a small spectrum of variation. Something that on paper seems like a tiny difference is hugely significant when it comes to the entire biosphere.

The fact of the mater is that those extra 5% are, quite literally, extra. They are not reabsorbed into the cycle again quickly, and indeed, they poison the environment.
It seems to me your entire premise for denying AGW is based off some serious misinformation and an inability to understand that even small changes in CO2 have massive repercussions on a global scale.

((Ironic, since I've only seen you do it (Ad hominem attacks) on these boards))
Such as what? If you mean tagging Far-Left-leaning environmentalist anti-capitalists as to what their real aspirations are, I don't really think one can say that calling a spade "a spade" is anything but giving an accurate description. To be honest there is a lot more "heat" being generated than "light" on the facts of this debate over the myth of AGW. But to be honest, it's those of you (maybe not you) AGW Alarmists who usually call people like me who deny the AGW myth from empirical data as "rightwing extremist", or "fascist", or "nazi", or "Imperialist" or other such braindead vacuous ad-hominems. And it's all simply because we haven't drinken from non-scientist buffoon Al-Gore's magic AGW potion.
((That is complete biological fallacy. Life only exists in a small spectrum of variation.))
Um I don't think so. Life's variations are in the tens if not hundreds of millions. CO2 helps to sustains it! ;-)

one mans meat is another mans poison. was it Vladimar Putin said of Russia, what do we have to fear from global warming? I guess all that frozen tundra would become the new breadbasket of the world.

((The fact of the mater is that those extra 5% are, quite literally, extra))
Ok, and the planet has endured higher levels of CO2 than even the combined natural (95%) and the anthropogenic (~5%) experienced today in its deep past as the sedimentary and ice core records reveal. So tell me, how did life *survive* when natural levels fluctuated over the billions of yrs of earth history, before we had such an *evil rightwing extremist scourge* as industry (capitalism) to supposedly generate these *toxic* levels of CO2?

((They are not reabsorbed into the cycle again quickly, and indeed, they poison the environment))
Not so! The oceans and plant-dominated land biosphere absorb enough CO2 to keep any pruported deadly levels in check on a global, even more localized scale. CO2 is only 038/100% of the total atmosphere, hardly a deadly percentage for animal life (which includes us), and certainly not a toxic level for plants, who love the stuff like candy!

"Um I don't think so. Life's variations are in the tens if not hundreds of millions. CO2 helps to sustains it! ;-)" You really don't understand biology too well, do you? All organisms are interwoven in very complex food groups. Alter any keystone species, and the entire system shifts. Will global warming kill off life entirely? Heavens no. But will it do catastrophic amounts of ecological damage, especially to organisms that we depend on for our way of life? Yes, yes, and yes.
"Ok, and the planet has endured higher levels of CO2 than even the combined natural (95%) and the anthropogenic (~5%) experienced today in its deep past as the sedimentary and ice core records reveal."
First of all, not really, and second of all, life does not adapt nearly as fast as you seem to imagine. 20% over a million years is not the same as 5% in a few centuries.
"038/100%"
since regular carbon levels have been approximately .28% for hundreds and thousands of years, a rise of .1% is quite alarming indeed

((You really don't understand biology too well, do you?))
Of course you're attempting to be condescending aren't you?

((All organisms are interwoven in very complex food groups. Alter any keystone species, and the entire system shifts))
To some degree, yet nature has a way of shifting things around. If one species becomes depleted or extinct, then another fills the available niche. Such has been the way of the world since before humans generally, and rightwing extremist fascist Christian-nazi capitalists in specific were here to pollute mother earth, right?

((Will global warming kill off life entirely? Heavens no))
Well you might ask some of the prehistoric megafauna that died out after the last ice age, the last time global warming occurred, which by anyone's calculations was about 10,000 years before Al-Gore and his GW Alarmist disciples cooked up this myth of AGW. ;-)

It won't kill off all life on earth but it might destroy modern civilization and start a new dark age. The russians wont have customers to sell their goods to if the rest of the world is in a deep depression and famine and floods are toppling nations everywhere. Stuff they don't make domestically that they are dependent on wont be available. You yourself probably wont make it through the fall of modern civilization.

The existence of the coal seams records the fact that the Carboniferous era was a time of high CO2 atmospheric concentration (diminishing as the coal got laid down) and successive catastrophic flooding.

Good news: Nothing humans can do will destroy the dominant forms of life on Earth.
Bad news: The dominant forms of life on Earth are now, and (almost) always were, single celled and microscopic.

There is a poison gas in large quantity in the atmosphere. Oxygen. When some organism invented photosynthesis, it started to pollute the atmosphere with a chemical that kills anaerobic organisms (like, say, Clostridium botulinum) which were then the dominant life-forms.

If we are not THE cause of the warming, which we are not.

This is just a categorical claim, but it's proven, that people are affecting climate on week period basis - so I'm in doubt, human activity couldn't have long term effect.

http://www.greend...an-made/

http://www.scienc...ys.shtml

http://www.nature...335.html