I started a thread for discussion in Environment Grendel. In the next week or so, I'll flesh out these headings. I just wanted to keep a thread with a simple explanation of the science behind Climate Change separate.

No censorship.

Please discuss in the thread provided, but I'd appreciate of you'd allow me to at least flesh out the headings before you respond. I'll probably be too busy writing up the explanation to be able to respond for the next week or so.

I have enormous respect for science but I believe it is incapable of encompassing such an enourmous topic as the entire climate of the planet in the context of the solar system. It would be possibly comparable to understanding how the brain functions - the variables and interpretations are endless.

I had a look at sunspots and within 5 minutes I found scientific reference to both of these:
1. there has been significantly greater sunspot activity in the second half of the last century than in the first.
2. Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. Astronimers are baffled.

Science, as I understand it, is a game of "disproof this hypothesis". This is its most admirable element and an obvious clue to its Enlightenment roots.

The political shrillness of climate change activists is an unmistakable sign of their anti-enlightenment reflexes and dictatorial, totalitarian heart. For this reason alone they cannot be right. They have the guiding principle of "don't dare disprove this hypothesis".

In my view, the sceptics are responding to this very obvious political propaganda.

So I think there is no argument about working towards clean and renewable energy for the self-evident reason that it is preferable to to dirty and finite energy (and would mean that we will be rid of OPEC). The rest is political more than it is anything else.

I don't think the so-called "denialists" are very shrill at all mantra.

How can they be when you hardly hear them at all above the din of the alarmists.

I have to be fair Grendel.

I was having a hunt around and stumbled on some more moderate views by scientists which made sense to me, although I'm sure this information has been put up here before.

As Muso explained - we find fossils, buried cities etc. because our platelets continue to shift around etc., and moderate scientists claim these cycles and events will create warming and cooling naturally because they overlap and change so continuously and have done for so many of thousands of years.

We've had two general cycles of warming and cooling in the last century and temperatures have also been taken on the ground instead of the atmosphere.  We know that urban planning etc has expanded rapidly over this time, which has affected the upward ground temperature - but it has made little difference to the atmospheric temperature which is where all temperature should be measured. I assume it's the atmosphere affecting our weather.

Temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data.

Temperatures should also be taken over a long period of time - not just for the last century, which is what scientists tend to do. Now the only question that needs solving is how was temperature measured 2000 years ago? I won't put the CO2 maps up yet, but there has only been a .28% CO2 increase by man (questionable), which means that if we all dropped dead tomorrow - it would make little difference to the weather.

   

Muso - I wasn't sure whether we were allowed to post on your new Climate Change thread.

LOL thanks for your alarmist summary BTW...  only problem is that it is wrong.  

Oh perhaps you'd like to quantify how much of your dire concern is actually due to man-made CO2  I mean you wouldn't be alarmed for no reason hence you must know..

Oh and I already posted the hadcrut temps which show a clear downward trend in temperatures since 1998.

Oh and it was so nice of you to totally ignore the 2nd graph but hey that's what alarmists do.  

Here's another just for you Darwin... since you are so adept at reading graphs.  LOL