Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

[The Lone Gunman]

Hmm. What we've got here is a very small number of "scientists" (unspecified backgrounds or qualifications) who have decided to bicker about what is causing climate change.

I'm not saying that scientists should decide what to do about "what is going on", but that they should channel their energy into using science to find solutions to the problems we are going to face very shortly (or already are).

There are a lot of scientists already doing this of course. The other ones really need to stop pissing about like schoolkids, confusing ignorant people and get involved too.

Ha Ha Ha Ha HA. How does one find a solution if one does not know the cause? If it is not man made then fuel tax etc is pointless. Not only that, it will lead to a denial stage where a reduction in greenhouse gasses being produced will be seen as a result.
This would also mean that there is very little we can do to stop it an all we can do is deal with the consequences. Put measures into place to cope with the resutls. Something we should be doing no matter what.
THERE IS NO POINT SPENDING BILLIONS CARBON OFF SETTING IF IT IS GOING TO HAVE NO RESULTS.

Besides, fossil fuels are running out so it will sort itself out in a couple of generations.

So what if man kind dies out.

[Gonzo]

Ha Ha Ha Ha HA. How does one find a solution if one does not know the cause? If it is not man made then fuel tax etc is pointless. Not only that, it will lead to a denial stage where a reduction in greenhouse gasses being produced will be seen as a result.
This would also mean that there is very little we can do to stop it an all we can do is deal with the consequences. Put measures into place to cope with the resutls. Something we should be doing no matter what.
THERE IS NO POINT SPENDING BILLIONS CARBON OFF SETTING IF IT IS GOING TO HAVE NO RESULTS.

Besides, fossil fuels are running out so it will sort itself out in a couple of generations.

So what if man kind dies out.

The solution might not be to stop it, it might be to live with it.

That might mean that we have to abandon our sea-level cities like, er, London, but that is not beyond the bounds of reason.

[VectraMan]

To what end though? What is their rational and scientific goal in creating a petition which is totally irrelevent. I mean, whether human activity is contributing to climate change or is completely unrelated to it is really of no importance whatsoever at this stage. There are rather more important things to concentrate on right now.

All the focus is on reducing carbon emissions because of global warming, so I'd say it's very important to ascertain whether the two really are linked.

But if you're saying that we'd be better off working out how we deal with the effects of global warming rather than futile efforts to avoid it, then I don't disagree. However, first you have to silence all the politicians, ecomentalists and "consensus" of scientists who are telling us the opposite, which won't happen if nobody speaks out against them.

And that's assuming it is happening. The recent evidence suggests it may not be happening at all.

[miffy]

I'm just concerned about how far these green (sorry, "climate change") taxes are likely to go.

Lets not put the proceeds from these taxes back into research and technology, lets just use it to cover MP's legitimate expences (like new kitchens and second homes).

I stumbled on this book the other day, anybody read it?

Looks like a reasonable read from the reviews.

[dang65]

All the focus is on reducing carbon emissions because of global warming, so I'd say it's very important to ascertain whether the two really are linked.

It's true that the media always seems to link high taxation on fuel with "global warming", but it's really a tax on the unrestrained use of road vehicles.

Even if there is no link whatsoever between cars and climate change (or only a tiny link in comparison with coal fired power stations, marine and air travel), you're still making a disgusting mess of the environment around you if you drive a car - noise, smell, congestion, road damage, endangering children so they're scared to walk or cycle. Keep driving, expect to pay for it.

Don't think that removing a connection between cars and climate change would justify lower taxes on car use.

[sunnysan]

Fossil Fuels and Emissions

I am a bit undecided on this issue.

For one, we can see the local impact carbon emissions, and for that matter any kind of emissions make on the "local" environment.

Anybody who disputes that should go to Mexico City,Cairo or even London on a hot day when there is a temperature inversion and enjoy the air quality. I am not even going to go into major industrial regions of china and the damage to water supplies etc.

It does not take a scientific publication to work out that the by products and emissions of our activites affect the local environment, our health and our well being.

I agree with the drive to recycle, to tackle industrial waste and to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. What I do not accept is that global warming is caused by man, purely based on the fact that there is more historical evidence pointing to the fact that the climate of the earth is variable, and will change in spite of mans presence on the earth and not becuase of it.

Tackling the problem at national level or to use a relevent legislative bloc, EU level is not really going to solve the problem. If the demand for products and services that have waste byproducts remains constant, the problem will just be shifted to another geographic location.

I dont have an answer to this problem.

All I do know is that the politicians have created the perception that gw and emissions are effectively the same issue, possibly to create a conceptual vehicle whereby they can morally justify additional taxes and levys.

Possibly disproving the link will force them to concentrate on the real environmental issues. (I think Prescott is the man for the job!!!)

[The Lone Gunman]

The solution might not be to stop it, it might be to live with it.

That might mean that we have to abandon our sea-level cities like, er, London, but that is not beyond the bounds of reason.

I agree. That was part of what I was trying to say (and have been since we started arguing on this).

[VectraMan]

Even if there is no link whatsoever between cars and climate change (or only a tiny link in comparison with coal fired power stations, marine and air travel), you're still making a disgusting mess of the environment around you if you drive a car - noise, smell, congestion, road damage, endangering children so they're scared to walk or cycle. Keep driving, expect to pay for it.

And now we see the true agenda: It's nothing to do with the environment, it's just people like you hate cars. And it's not really about cars at all, it's about the car as a symbol of freedom and prosperity. Global warming really has replaced religion as a way of making people feel guilty for daring to enjoy the rewards of success.

[NotAllThere]

To what end though? What is their rational and scientific goal in creating a petition which is totally irrelevent. I mean, whether human activity is contributing to climate change or is completely unrelated to it is really of no importance whatsoever at this stage. There are rather more important things to concentrate on right now.

If global warming is happening, then work needs to be done to protect us against any negative impact.

If global warming is caused, or made worse by human activity, then those activities need to be identified and perhaps modified.

So it's not really irrelevant or of no importance.

[VectraMan]

For one, we can see the local impact carbon emissions, and for that matter any kind of emissions make on the "local" environment.

Anybody who disputes that should go to Mexico City,Cairo or even London on a hot day when there is a temperature inversion and enjoy the air quality. I am not even going to go into major industrial regions of china and the damage to water supplies etc.

One thing I think is a real shame is that the effect of the global warming hysteria now means that in the public's eye environmentalism is only about carbon emissions. And that means all the other genuine envionmental concerns, like air quality in cities, damage to water supplies, lakes, effects on wildlife etc. have been forgotten. I'm suprised nobody's claimed CO2 causes cancer yet.