@kieran between 1991 and 2011 there have been 13,950 peer reviewed scientific papers published on climate change. Of that only 24 disagreed that climate change was being caused by man. I suggest you look at ScienceDirect rather than Google!

…@Ki Mac…as a humble geography teacher absorbed with facts data and a realistic approach to the dementia that is being broadcast on this subject …AGREED…tis a hypothesis…predictions based upon IT must be erroneous as the parameters be so enormously complex …much being unknown …the computer programme is only as good as that which is put into it… That said …speculation must be healthy…. as long as it does not become dogma.

@Mason RJ your last sentence is the nub of the matter. The global warning (aka as climate change when the global warming title didn’t reflect facts on the ground) position is dogmatic.
I would like to be convinced, not converted, as I already possess faith.

I’ve studied much evidence both for and against, Wexford Joe, and I am positive that there are a lot of people getting rich on the back of the global warming movement, a lot of taxes being justified to “combat” climate change and a lot of “deniers” being pilloried by the virtually religious fervour of the believers.

To be fair, some of those who don’t buy into it are right wing maniacs.

Don’t forget to mention the left wing maniacs!

Kieran. I was actually directing my comment at Declan but nonetheless, I wondered could you direct me towards some of this evidence that suggests humans are not causing climate change. I have yet to see a peer reviewed scientific article that shares the opinion this problem is not manmade.

Not sure the people in charge want to fix it. No surprise to see the oil companies salivating at the mouth at the thought of the trillions of dollars of fossil fuels in the artic that will be soon available to plunder, plus i dont think millionaires and billionaires will be affected too much by climate change, its the poor that will bear the brunt of rising food prices and the effects of the weather.

@Declan left or right wing, 2 sides of the same coin. National Socialism gave the world Hitler and communism produced Stalin.
@Wexford Joe Google it. There’s plenty of argument for and against. I’m not against environmental responsibility, I am against being forced to believe in theory by consensus. The models are all, without exception, theoretical and unproven. Thats a fact.

Ill ask again Kieran. Can you show me or even direct me towards some peer reviewed article that disagrees with the consensus that climate change is manmade? You have said there is plenty of evidence. Where?

Sure Joe
Google the following: “peer reviewed articles denying global warming”
Take your pick.
When I was a child we were all told to fear the coming ice age, but we (or our parents) werent taxed on the strength of the (false) consensus the way we are today.

Wonderful directions Kieran. You are obviously a pillar of the scientific community. Amazing that after your extensive research you cannot name one reputable article or scientist who shares your view.

Hey Joe, I read all the crap and didn’t take notes. I do remember the lies and faking of data by the Brits.
I’m sure you have a stack of peer reviewed articles right there beside you, so convince us, Why oh why are you so convinced that my Toyota and your nintendo have heated up this globe? Where’s your proof? Or are you just a believer, Joe?

It’s a no brainer – if you need to consider the evidence then go to reputable sources and they will convince you (the Royal Society? NASA?). Here for a start is a riposte to some of the sceptical claims that are trotted out regularly as misinformation with breadcrumb trails usually leading back to oil-funded organisations: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

What reputable views would you put up against this lot Declan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_science_academies.27_statements

I’m a geologist, I personally know people who do climate research. There was only one geologists I met who doubted global warming, a PhD student. Well, I also knew an undergrad geology student who thought the moon landings were faked. Honestly, an Earth Scientist who doesn’t believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is as rare as a hen’s tooth.

Given its an established fact that 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and 2. humans have polluted the atmosphere with trillions if tons if CO2, 3. causing CO2 to rise to levels not seen in millions of years, … by what mechanism do you propose that human activities are not causing the observed warming and what’s causing it instead?? (Recall Prof. Muller, a former AGW skeptic, is now convinced the Earth is rapidly warming, he did the excellent Berkeley (BEST) temperature reconstruction).

The fear of a coming ice age was due to primitive computer models that predicted global cooling due to soot pollution from coal combustion. In fact, soot did slow global warming especially in Asia where vast quantities of dirty coal was burnt, instead of oil, but soot did not prevent overall global warming by 0.7 C last century. In fact, the successful effort to clean up power stations reduced soot globally and allowed the Earth to warm at a faster pace in the last 30 years than before.

115 Scientists wrote an open letter to President Obama
http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/alternate_version.html
NZ organisation of Scientists who rebut the claims of AGW
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=876&Itemid=32
There are too many refuting scientists and scientific organisations to ignore.
Man caused Global warming is an unproven belief system. There is not enough information available to categorically state man has affected the temperature of the planet directly. Believers in AGW are like believers in religion. They have faith, they have hope. But they have not got sight.
Further down this comments section, a poster has called my position and that of those who agree with me a “lie”. That is a typical hysterical response to those who do not share the same faith as her.
Man-caused global warming is not a proven, empirical fact. It’s a theory

Don’t CATO receive funding from oil companies? And are the second lot not are a climate change denial group funded by the infamous US Heartland Institute – a group that fund climate change denial and are themselves funded by oil and coal companies? So what should we lean towards believing: that all the world’s reputable national scientific institutes and thousands of individual scientists with expertise in this area are lying about manmade climate change because they happen to get public funding, as opposed to the very few privately set up institutes that get funding from the coal and oil industries and deny the evidence? I know what I think.

Seriously Kieran, there have been 13,950 scientific peer reviewed articles published between 1991 and 2012 with only 24 rejecting the idea of global climate change being caused by man. One open letter does not refute the actual evidence. Saying that supporting the idea of global warming is like a religion is both infantile and ludicrous at the same time. That you have to believe in it to exist, and that its like a faith? I couldnt care less what sort of religion anyone practices, but equating understanding the scientific evidence of climate change to a religion is just plain simple idiocy!

You might want to read this instead of Google; http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

@Michelle
“dissent” is exploding since I last extensively researched this subject back in the middle of the last decade. I am not surprised that the religious fervour of AGW is being challenged.
The following is from the US Senate committee on environment and public works. According to global warming theory, however, every single one of the 700 scientists will be in the pocket of the oil and coal industries.
Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

@Conor I would think your definition of idiocy is seriously misapplied. This debate has been going on for a long time. There are no facts to support global warming caused by man, or climate change caused by man. None. Zero. Allegory and surmising, conjecture and man-made computer models in a million studies do not make for facts. There is no falsifiable, empirical evidence for AGW, and now that AGW is not an accurate description any more, there is similarly no proof for man-caused global climate change. None. Zero.
When some superpowers start chucking nuclear bombs around, and it would need to be many more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then you will see global climate change caused by man. Otherwise, don’t fret and don’t continue to believe in the idiotic but diverting religion of AGW/MCCC or whatever the latest and coolest acronym is

US Senate Minority Report = Republican Party Report = Big Oil Report!

Hardly much of a surprise they dont agree that climate change is happening. The reason they dont agree is their profit margin, not scientific evidence.

I can clearly see you just consider it some sort of conspiracy. So trying to scientifically reason with you would be futile. Am sure you and Jim Corr can go and set up a club about various conspiracies about 9/11 and the new world order or planet x. Make sure you do it while sitting on the arctic ice cap.

A yes, the dodgy Cato list of scientists, made up of retired cranky mechanical engineers and the Mexican pizza delivery boy who knocked at the door at the time.

Yes, the list is made up of anyone (and occasionally imaginary people too) who hold any degree, diploma, certificate or award for stupidity in any subject except climate science. The list is made up of anyone and everybody who signed their name on an the internet petition. It NOT a list of brilliant climate scientists.

@Conor buggy I note that you are getting progressively ruder, now tying me in to conspiracy theories referring to 9/11, NWO etc.
Building a straw man case about an opponent’s perceived beliefs is a classic losing move in a debate. Not, I’m sure, that you would concede defeat on the ISSUES. However,
I’m sure you’re a lovely fella, and that you’d never curse in front of your Mammy, and I have no intention of getting personal unless it’s to say something kind, so lets leave it at that.

@David it seems everyone who disagrees with your model either has an agenda or is an imbecile. The absoluteness of your position does not allow for contrary opinion from any source. Dogma and science are not good bedfellows, yet in the climate change world they are inseparable. Is that how scientific opinions are arrived at these days? Your points have some merit, but I am not convinced you are correct.

Thank you for mistaking me as the one scientist who “invented” AGW, I assure you Im not that important. My opinions only reflect current climate science accumulated via peer reviewed research. If any new data arrives to dissuade the scientific community of AGW then I will change my mind.

Given you, I presumably, are not a trained Earth Scientist, not skilled at critical thinking or basic knowledge of Earth surface and systems, by what prior ability or original skill can you call upon to correctly assess the veracity of the random material you read in the Internet? How can you be sure you have not misled yourself.

As Oliver Cromwell once lamented, “I beseech thee, think it that you may be mistaken”.

David, there is a fallacious and arrogant belief that only those trained in critical thinking or possessing PhDs may opine on certain subjects. Perhaps some people are educated beyond their ability too. I have looked at and listened to both sides of the argument on climate change, and firmly believe that mankind has not overreached himself and set in motion the destruction of our climate. We have too little data accumulated over too short a time to come up with such a magnificent position. Ice core samples, lakebed samples and other means of measuring co2 over millennia are simply not enough. I don’t go with a conspiracy theory either. I know some climatologists conspired to input false data and to mislead the public but I don’t believe such practices are condoned by the majority of your peers. There is a lot of arrogance & posturing in the Kyoto mindset. Global warming was a popular theory until it became climate change. The climate changes? Duh! There has always been climate change. The soot theory you postulated above is indicative of the truly limited amount of information available even today to compose a statistically significant chart of man’s effect on his climate over even as short a period of time as 1000 years, or 500 years, or even 250 years. The computers used to try and falsify data are programmed by fallible men. they cannot predict weather accurately, neither can they tell us what the climate was like in the past with the degree of accuracy that climatologists would lead us to believe.
You still have a faith based model, because you cannot say with 100% certainty that man has altered the climate.

@kieran There is fairly good reason to believe that climate change is anthropomorphic I would say – what do you think of this rebuttal of the assertion that the rise in CO2 is natural:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-co2-rise-is-natural/

And this one (How do we know the Co2 is ours?) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Kieran if you think me calling you a conspiracy theorist is rude, you must live a pretty sheltered existence.
I found your assertion that understanding the existence of man made climate change equates as a religion to be idiotic. So if you want to call me rude for something, use that.

I have to teach climate change skeptics all the time and I have heard your arguments all before. I have no problem with you believing what you read, but what I do have a problem with is people who refute the facts on the exponential release of greenhouse gasses, the accelerated warming of the planet and the alterations of the planets cycles at a much much faster rate than natural changes.

I will never ever say that the earths climate does not change of its own accord and go through cycles, nor that the cycles of solar activity do not play a part, nor the altering cycles in our magnetosphere, but the facts of the last century indicate that the change is significantly faster than anything in recorded history apart from the previous six global extinction level events.

Anyone who looks at those facts and still denies it, in my opinion is an idiot. I have respect for you that you are trying to read both sides of the argument. All good scientists have to look at both sides of the argument. But the fact that you are reading the republican biased senate report (which I have read aswell – absolutely atrocious writing by the way) and that you made no reply to my statistic about peer reviewed publications indicates to me that you only want to hear the skeptics side.

Climate change is a massively complex problem, it will never be fully understood (much like the nature of the universe itself), but we are all contributing to it, and we must all try and slow it as much as we can, before we end up with climate change refugees fleeing across continents in search of food and water.

@Michele this is from New Scientist, strong believers in AGW. It epitomises the excuses made to justify the AGW beliefs. We pollute and heat the globe up. We pollute some more and cool it down. We get a little sunspot activity here, a little less sun spot activity there, up it goes and down it goes blah blah blah. No matter which direction the chart goes, man is responsible.
Man holds the environment in trust for his descendants, but my coal fire tonight will not rob my grandchildren of their greens nor will it cause climate refugees to arrive at their doorstep because Skerries has flooded or Hong Kong has sunk.

Why global temperatures held steady for 10 years
20:00 4 July 2011
Environment
Physics & Math
Science In Society
Michael Marshall, environment reporter

Global warming temporarily ground to a halt over the last 10 years, thanks to increased pollution from China, the El Niño system in the Pacific, and a slight drop in the energy Earth gets from the sun.
“Global warming stopped in 1998″ is one of the most common reasons people offer for not believing in climate change. It certainly looks like a problem for anyone claiming that humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet: after all, we kept on pumping out carbon dioxide faster than ever, yet nothing happened to the temperature.
But according to the new analysis, various short-term factors can account for the slowdown. Most of those variables are going to change direction soon. So the halt in warming may be only temporary.
To find out if the slowdown could be explained, Robert Kaufmann of Boston University in Massachusetts and colleagues used a statistical model of the climate.
They took data collected between 1998 and 2008 on several factors that can affect the climate, including greenhouse gas emissions, incoming radiation from the sun, and sulphur pollution from burning coal and other industrial activities.
Then they plugged the information into their model, ran it for the 1998-2008 period, and asked: does it replicate what global temperatures actually did?
The short answer is yes. In the model, global temperatures held steady, showing no significant rise over the study period.
A major reason for this is the rise in coal use in China. This produces a lot of sulphur particles, which cool the global climate. This more-or-less cancelled out the warming effect of the greenhouse gas emissions.
That shouldn’t come as a surprise. It’s well-established that aerosol particles can have a major impact on the climate. In south-east Asia, particularly China and India, there is often a “brown haze” of pollution that has an overall cooling effect on the planet.
With the two human-produced effects cancelling each other out, natural variation in the climate took hold. As it happened, two of the natural trends were towards cooling.
The first was the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a cyclic change in the behaviour of the Pacific Ocean. 1998 saw the system in an extreme state, so the Pacific dumped a lot of heat into the atmosphere and surface temperatures spiked as a result. Since then ENSO has gone in the other direction, so the Pacific has taken heat from the atmosphere.
And the second shift came from the sun, which goes through a regular 11-year cycle of changing activity. From a peak in 2000, solar activity fell steadily to a low in 2007, so it sent less radiation our way.
It’s possible – though by no means certain – that the sun will stay quiet for the next few decades. Unfortunately any cooling effect is likely to be small, and would stop as soon as the sun perked up again.
But while the sun might keep putting the brakes on global warming – slightly – the other variables won’t be so obliging. ENSO will swing back in the other direction and warm the surface again. And China is planning to cut the pollution from its coal power plants, because it is so harmful to human health.
So there are two key messages we can take from the research. The first is that the brief halt in global warming doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a problem with climate science: known factors can account for it. And the second is that the reprieve may be only temporary.

Kieran, yes the paper…

Kaufmann, R.K., Kauppi, H., Mann, M.L. & Stock, J.H. 2011. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(29), 11790–11793.

You really should read the original paper, like I have. Here’s a quote from the conclusions.

“The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”

Keiran, read Santer et al. (2011)

1. “Models run with human forcing can produce 10-year periods with little warming”

2. “Trends >17 yrs are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temp”

Meaning … short term natural and anthropogenic forcing of climate, on 10-year times scale, causes climate variability as large as the overall warming trend. A 17 year period of measurement is needed to see the long term warming.

Santer, B.D., Mears, C., Doutriaux, C., Caldwell, P., Gleckler, P.J., Wigley, T.M.L., Solomon, S., Gillett, N.P., Ivanova, D., Karl, T.R., Lanzante, J.R., Meehl, G.A., Stott, P.A., Taylor, K.E., Thorne, P.W., Wehner, M.F. & Wentz, F.J. 2011. Separating signal and noise in atmospheric temperature changes: The importance of timescale. J. Geophys. Res. 116(D22), D22105.

@matthew

So are you seriously saying Co2 is pollution?

Bear in mind that all life on earth is carbon based, and when I process carbs I exhale Co2
As do you and all animal life. It is a fundamental component of life, calling it pollution is ridiculous……

Arguing a position to maintain certain arbitrary airborne levels again is only as strong as the assumptions.

Do you want to artificially try and maintain a climate static over time????? Climate has never ever been consistent and is always in flux….
Your base assumption seems to be that if humans did not exist then climate would never change.

There is no doubt that we are contributing somewhat, the scale is the question. But remember life adapts, and what should focus on is being adaptable.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Everything we do to pollute involves converting matter from our planet from one thing to another. We don’t significantly alter it’s composition at all. So whatever we do, the Planet will be juuuust fine.

We won’t be fine however.

Hellogoogle are you suggesting theres no pollution or problem with the environment.

@ Mjhint
Nope i’m not suggesting the, I agree pollution exists and is a problem, polluting ground waters and rivers is disgraceful. I was distinguishing between pollution (usually industrial byproducts, solvents, chemicals etc), and Co2….which is ridiculous to describe as pollution.

@Matthew
Pollution is artificial chemicals which are poisonous, and do not occur in nature. Expanding it to include Co2 would logically result in concluding breathing is polluting, every breath you take is pollution. And that all plant life lives on pollution and always has. Silly right?

The Carbon cycle however is completely separate, excessive carbon is theorised to have warming effects (which I agree with in theory). The theory seems sound, but suffers from a lack of direct proof or evidence. I would never deny human influence on atmospheric Co2 levels, and possible effects on temp (assuming all other factors remain constant). However Co2 is the direct food source of any life that uses photosynthesis, and with an increase in temp and Co2 you would expect huge spurts in plant growth. Co2 is a fertiliser after all….
Your comment that Co2 is pollution isn’t accurate. Thats my only point

Ok then, seeing as you’re so adamant about semantics, I redact my previous comment and wish for it to read as follows:

So are you saying that changes in atmospheric composition have no effect on our habitat and how it affects us?

zat better?

By the end of thcentury try, CO2 levels will be so high to cause susceptible people to feel tired and fatigued, like in a stuffy classroom. At 600-800 ppm people feel uncomfortable and want to open a window, indoor air quality standard is 1000 ppm, above 1000ppm people feel tired / drowsy.

It’s nearing 400 ppm now and heading up. Modern Animal, and indeed plant life, never evolved with such high CO2 levels, the last time CO2 exceeded 1000 ppm was millions of years ago.

Many natural substances and elements are only polluting when they exceed an acceptable threshold, Lead and Arsenic are natural and ubiquitous, but are polluting at high levels e.g. at old mine sites.

….@googletracking…your well founded words bring a sweet breath of fresh air sir/madam….your statements should be emblazoned on this site in pulsating neon…low amps of course….take it in people…. humanity is totally insignificant compared to the ageless dynamism of our living planet….

@Michele the documentary was partially debunked. One contributor claimed he was misrepresented, another claimed his material was quoted out of context. Not a serious rip job, I assure you.

Natural climatic variations since the beginning. Why would we think it will stay still for us?

…..All will be familiar with lag time in a system…?…when yer man were a boy..world powers were detonating nuclear explosions high in our upper atmosphere …”to see what would happen”…Grief…Perhaps it might be of some value to consider..”It” …be now happening!?…Google…High Altitude Nuclear Events/Explosions…