buctootim

Anyone who like Phil doubts the science without having read it can get a good pulling together of all data here. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1 (Its written by 833 research grant driven scientists from 186 socialist countries around the world).

You have a 1 bar electric fire in your house. The temperature inside varies throughout the year. Next year you add a lot of insulation. The temperature inside still varies but it is a lot warmer than before. You have no idea why it is warmer.

Global surface temperatures will rise by at least 2 degrees by 2100, maybe up to 5 degrees if we do nothing. You will struggle to finds a single credible natural scientist worldwide who disputes that. Yes its true no-one knows exactly how that will impact currents and wind patterns so the exact weather for each country is not known. It is known that gains in land temperatures will be higher than ocean surface temperatures and that the northern hemisphere will warm more than the south. Claiming something is bad science because no-one yet knows exactly what the weather will be like in Hampshire in July 2060 under every possible population growth / ghg emissions /gdp growth / deforestation scenario is weak posting imo.

Blame government cynicism and a credulous electorate. We have had fuel duty and road tax for decades and it has generally gone in one direction - up. Successive governments have used it for general expenditure. Trying to now pin the blame on 'saving the planet' so that voters wont kick up about another tax rise is just weak imo.

You are such a sad **** Dune. Even that pathetic attempt to wriggle out of being wrong again is a lie. All you did was to take the closing level for 19th November to try and make the increase look less. Maybe 19th November to 21st December is a month to you, not to anyone else.

Our climate doesnt vary randomly. Throughout time it has pretty much been affected by only two variables - concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and by particulates from volcanos or meteorite strikes. We need some CO2, without any temperatures would be around 20 degrees C lower than now. During the last ice age atmospheric CO2 was around 190ppm, during the pre industrial period around 280ppm and it is now 388ppm. Ultimately we need to manage atmospheric carbon to suit us - around 350ppm - whether it comes from natural events like volcanic eruptions, increases or decreases in forestation, or by people burning fossil fuels. Resource exhaustion is a huge issue. Access to freshwater is another. Much of our food is grown in places like Spain which rely heavily on irrigation using water pumped up from underground aquifers. Water that took thousands of years to accumulate is being pumped out so fast the water will be gone in 12 years. Some think the next war between Pakistan and India will be over water from the Indus and other rivers fed by Himalayan melt water - not a problem when global warming is increasing that flow, but a major problem when most of the ice has gone and the flows dry up in 30 years or so.

FTSE All share 21st Nov 2936 - 21st Dec 3082 - up 4.98% 22nd Nov 2885 - 21st Dec 3082 - up 6.82% FTSE 100. 21st November 5294 - 21st Dec 5952 - up 12.3% Either way you're wrong as usual, its just a question of by how much. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/indices/summary/summary-indices-chart.html?index=ASX

Better write to the FT then. Tell them their figures are wrong.

Oh dear, another inaccurate claim Dune. FTSE All Share is up 4.989% over the past month. Add in your big fat negative return on HMV and dealing charges and you might have just kept up. You're more cut out to be a socialist - not really equipped for capitalism.

Thems **** hot binoculars

I would never have an operation in a private hospital. The emergency medical and surgical cover at night is often a local GP on call - no cardiac crash team, no backup apart from a 999 phone call saying '**** please send help'. If you have private health care go for a private bed in an NHS hospital.

The bucks are in renewables research simply because the debate on 'is climate change man made' is over, and has been for several years. Seriously, Im not saying this as some blinkered activist. All kinds of vested interests funded research, including organisations like Exxon who tried very hard to come up data to prove anthropogenic climate change wasnt real, wasn't happening. They failed, their own commissioned research came up with the same findings. Climate change is happening and is almost certainly caused by human activity. The real area of debate is how far, how fast and how much do we need to do to manage it. It is true that there are a lot of alarmists out there. Al Gore was great at generating attention a few years ago, less good on veracity. We almost certainly wont see London or New York flooded in the next 50 years. We probably are locked into average temperature rises of 2 degrees over the next 100 years, but will only get 5 or 6 degree rises if we do nothing at all. If we act now in a measured way its a manageable problem. Atmospheric carbon is currently 388parts per million and needs to get back to around 350ppm (its currently increasing by 2-3ppm per year). Insulating my house properly cut the heating bills from £2,100pa (previous owner) to £600 and cost me £4,200 - a payback period of 2.5 years and cut its emissions by 70%. My current diesel car is faster and more powerful than my old petrol one but gets 30% better mileage. Whats not to like?

Checking director dealing is just basics Dune. It shows that on yet another subject you havent got a scooby. The whole market is up by 450 points in the past month, so you have about matched the market, go you.

Yep thats the one - a certain Sastry Karra, a non executive director sold £4.5million worth. However with Dune's ability to clearly analyse situations - Im sure he was on top of this and knows better than a Hardy's director.

Exactly - who would stifle debate and why. Its possible to argue that some orthodoxy of belief might settle amongst climate scientists working in the temperate regions, so that anyone who disputed that orthodoxy would have their career damaged - highly unlikely but possible. But why would Canadian and Russian scientists go along with it - two nations with massive areas of unproductive frozen tundra which would benefit hugely from global warming - and are also major oil and gas exporters? Why would professional bodies such as the Royal Society and American Physical Society stifle debate when they have their reputations to uphold and most of their members have nothing to do with climate change and receive no funding on the issue? Why would Swiss Re and Munich Re - two of the biggest reinsurers demand to know what strategies their insured companies have for reducing carbon intensity? Why would almost all governments, scientists and companies get together worldwide to formulate some kind of global hoax? - joined by even those countries and companies who would gain from a warmer world and lose out from reduced demand for oil gas and coal.

Harold Lewis is an 87 year old retired Nuclear physicist. He worked on anti ship missiles and nuclear reactors and never on any form of natural sciences, let alone climate change. He may or may not be right about the way the American Physical Society is run - I have no idea.

Congratulations Dune. You must be the thickest person on the forum. You've beaten off some stiff competition. Excuse me for not taking up the opportunity to explain the differences between climate control, air conditioning and opening the window.

Thanks Deppo. Having you alongside is like having Nigel Farage and Maggie in my team.

Actually I dont care Dune. you arent the kind of person who responds to reasoned argument backed by evidence. You go off happy knowing you've won the argument. Next time you put the climate control on in your car, since climate varies every day, dont be surprised if it chucks out different temperatures every trip.

Right there is why you cant understand climate change. They arent the same. Weather is what you have at the moment. Climate is what happens over time.

You're fat and old and your arteries have hardened. Plus the window is open.

Get out and walk the last 200 yards cheapskate!

I think most believe the link is stronger than 'may'. However even accepting your analysis Adair Turner - Chairman of the FSA, former Director General of the CBI made a good speech a few years ago. He basically said that faced with a risk of a potentially devasting occurrence, you take steps to protect yourself. The whole insurance industry is based on that premise. The costs to GDP of adopting a low carbon economy are about 0.7% over the next 40 years. ie the world will reach the same standard of living by August 2050 that it would otherwise have reached by March 2050 if it had done nothing at all to protect itself from the risk. A single payment of 0.7% of one years income, and given 40 years to pay seems to me to be a pretty good deal. A lot cheaper than house, car or life insurance.

No. I said "Climate change is almost totally universally accepted now by anyone who has read the data and understands the issues". That is a statement of fact. You could do your own research to verify that. Instead what you've done is to post a link to one mans personal website as if that somehow balances out the findings of NASA, the Met Office, the UN, the G20 and almost any other credible body you care to mention. Even Exxon, who for years funded the climate sceptic lobby have accepted man made climate change now.

Lolz. You misrepresent a simple article, when somebody points that out you call them a ****ing patronising **** - and we are the intolerant ones. And, no, scientists arent split on it. Climate change is almost totally universally accepted now by anyone who has read the data and understands the issues.