Quote:
Originally Posted by birding dave  It's all nonsense. The planet changes, the climate goes up and down, it's all there in the ice cores. |
Sorry I have to come back on this despite wanting to leave this thread behind.
Yes, the climate does change over thousands of years, as a result of long term changes in the orbit of the earth around the sun. These are called Milankovitch cycles (
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The point that pretty much all climate change scientists are trying to make is that the
pace of change is abnormally fast, hence the famous "hockey stick" graph that appeared in the journal nature Nature many years ago. It's been challenged, and found to be broadly accurate in as much as it demonstrates that the earth's temperature is warming faster than at any point in the last 1000 years, and that that warming is unusual in the context of where the current glacial-interglacial cycle ought to be (
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate 'hockey stick' is revived) and (
Access : Academy affirms hockey-stick graph : Nature).
Now, don't get me wrong, I would love it, absolutely love it (best Kevin Keegan accent) if someone could find me a journal article in a good publication like Nature or Science, that disproves any of the founding arguments of the climate change movement. It'd help me sleep a little more soundly at night.
As a scientist myself I refute the accusation that we're all in the pay of the funding bodies and wouldn't get funding if we disproved a popularly held belief. More often than not it's the paradigm-breaking papers that get the highest publicity - but the science has to be solid as a rock before anyone will believe you (witness the Andrew Wakefield MMR debarcle). Telling then that nothing has yet appeared from the anti-climate change lobby of any great note.
Interestingly the world seems to be reluctantly changing from an "it's not our fault" attitude to one of "who really cares?". I suspect that the fact that Mr Clarkson's (I'm such a fan, can you tell?) books, TV programmes and no-doubt views, are always top of the various 'favourites' lists resonates with a large degree of public opinion in this country. He was famously quoted as saying "let's just stop and think for a moment what the consequences [of global warming] might be. Switzerland loses its skiing resorts? The beach in Miami is washed away? North Carolina gets knocked over by a hurricane? Anything bothering you yet?" I would hazard a guess that many people think this too, but wouldn't want to utter such a non-PC view in public.
I'd urge anyone who feels the same as me to try and get as educated as possible to allow you to come-back at those who throw lines at you that could be straight out of Clarkson's mouth. Lord knows I've had to go back to my A-level Geography text books recently! Pigheaded selfishness on his scale can't be rationalised with but ignorance just might be. Challenging this ignorance might be the best option that we have at an individual level. I've learnt through experience not to be too preachy too (present thread excepted!), trying to always point out the economical advantages of being a bit greener (more fuel efficient cars, increased house insulation, holidaying in the UK etc etc). Small stuff but as I say, it's probably the best we can convince others to do.