Whitey Grandad

Have a look at the results of the experiment. I was particularly referencing the introduction which shows climate variations in historical times. Remember, this is a scientist who is seeking to justify funding for his research.

The natural events that occurred previously far outweigh the influence of man. One big meteor strike, one or long-term volcanic event, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps CO2 is the finest natural fertiliser that exists so the increased levels in the atmosphere increase plant growth. http://www.ibtimes.com/deserts-are-greening-carbon-dioxide-fertilization-satellite-imagery-saw-arid-regions-bloom-photo You will find arguments on both sides as to how significant this is. Let's not forget that if CO2 levels are reduced (some chance!) then crop yields will also suffer. Replacing a CRT TV by an LED one will save some energy in their use but you also need to look at the energy used in their construction. And don't forget that during the winter the CRT TVs will also be heating the house so it's not all wasted.

Lets take a few monuments to think about this 'vote'. A figure of 97% is plucked out if the air. Who's going to vote? Is it a case of 'we asked 100 leading climate scientists and...'? Is it one man, one vote? What if one organisation has ten scientists and another only one, does the former have ten times the influence? Should it be a weighted vote, by money spent, time spent, reputation...? But more importantly, are the Chinese involved, because without them it's all rather pointless. I maintain the pragmatic approach, if the climate is changing then we should be looking at ways to deal with it, not looking at who to blame.

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/ If you've got a spare few minutes the first ten or fifteen are worth watching:

Indeed I do. I just put up a couple of examples to show that there is a debate on this. The comments are worth following up.

I'm not denying it, just the degree to which it affects the climate. There are other factors, such as solar high-energy activity (I'm not talking about solar irradiation) that are quite possibly/probably more significant and that also explain the variations in global temperatures over previous centuries. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/new-paper-demonstrates-temperature.html Some discussion here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

There is an argument that CO2 levels follow a rise in temperatures. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader because we're getting away from my contention that scientific opinion is not something that you can put to a vote.

Almost everything that you might read on an Internet forum

This is alarmist claptrap. If the world were that unstable it would have fried a long time ago. There are other explanations for the recent perceived increase.

My point exactly. At least some people could stop feeling guilty about it.

What do you mean? What has changed in the last ten years? (I know the Earth's temperature hasn't).

That was the consensus at the time.

Due to man or not there is absolutely nothing we can do that will change anything. The earth's weather is determined by forces far more powerful than anything we do. The climate will stabilise at a new status and we must adapt to it.

Stream came back just in time for the final whistle.

You can call it what you like, all I'm saying is that you cannot take a vote on this kind of matter. The consensus has been wrong many, many times before.

And Luke Shaw is Luxio

A sizeable number who are equally as clever and study the same things disagree.

Back again now it's half time.

My stream has stopped.

It doesn't mean that the majority is right.

It's not something you can take a vote on.

That is right wicked, innit.

I though Dexter was on some Youth Employment Scheme, just there to watch and learn from others.

I seem to remember seeing him scoring a goal once.

Looks to me more like Gallego than Spanish. TVG2 is a tv channel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TvG2