In article .com,
wrote:
On 16 Mar, 18:49, (Nick Leverton) wrote:

Though I'm not a scientist I feel there is now very little doubt.

...Treat the media and Al "politician" Gore with the scepticism they deserve if you wish, but don't
assume there
is no evidence behind them.

This is the point though - science, real science, is about disproving
things. So to say "Hey, we've found a correlation" is pretty
meaningless, even if it appears to be really quite strong. Science
will then go through and rip things apart to see how robust these
ideas are.

It's been done, see the IPCC report. If you want to read science rather
than politics then dump the final report and read the original draft.
And remember that the research there is 5 years old - we know even
more now.

Yeah, OK, you may feel that the levels of CO2 are
responsible for something, but how robust is the idea that humans (the
all-powerful humans that is) are solely responsible for climate change
when it's known that the climate changes continually, and has done
forever?

Read the IPCC report, it summarises the evidence. If you want to read
science rather than politics then dump the final report and read the
original draft. And remember that the research there is 5 years old -
we know even more now.

We may be contributing in a small way, but as mammals, we
necessarily consume resources, cause pollution, etc, the point is how
much actual, real damage is being done by this? And are the
consequences of global warming actually damage to the earth? Or is it
just damage to humans?

That is a good point. The earth will survive, of course. Our species
probably will survive too. But as we enter the sixth great mass
extinction of life on Earth, our plant- and animal-based lifestyle won't,
since we've used up all the easily available fossil fuels and Governments
have wasted decades in failing to research anything better.

If you don't mind that then it's quite true, the earth will survive.
Read the IPCC report, nothing in there about "destruction of the earth".
The draft originally leaked out, but is in several places on the web now.

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself

In message , Nick Leverton
writes
But please don't rely on six year old documentaries, or on programs
made by companies who have already been sued for twisting words to mean
their opposite (there was one of each last week). Please go and read
the original research.
The six year old documentary was not about global warming it was about
the two problems of firstly being able to account for freezing in the
equatorial regions to freeze the entire earth, then once frozen how the
earth managed to thaw. I remain unconvinced about GW on simple
grounds. 1. The CO2 in the atmosphere is constantly being absorbed by
the body of water which covers our planet, indeed there's so much of it
that if the earth was a regular sphere it would be entirely covered by
2km of water. 2. You've already sighted the stories about an ice age
in the seventies, I remember it. 3. Remember the stories about CFCs
destroying the ozone layer, and that CFCs couldn't be destroyed and
would be the catalyst for 100s of years wiping out our protection from
X-rays and we would all die from skin cancer, but now the ozone layer is
recovering, seems like nature in action to me. 4. If I go back to the
60s the scare then was that not only would a nuclear war cause a
"nuclear winter" but the fear was that if enough material was exploded
it might start a nuclear chain reaction in which the entire world would
be engulfed. Finally, the best brains in science nearly all agree that
the most elegant solutions are usually the simplest, and the support for
GW isn't that. I have bought and watched the film "An Inconvenient
Truth", but I am agnostic. When the reason is beyond doubt (and I
don't believe it is) I will take a more assured stance.
--
Clive.

"Clive." wrote in message
...
In message , Nick Leverton
writes
But please don't rely on six year old documentaries, or on programs
made by companies who have already been sued for twisting words to mean
their opposite (there was one of each last week). Please go and read
the original research.
The six year old documentary was not about global warming it was about the
two problems of firstly being able to account for freezing in the
equatorial regions to freeze the entire earth, then once frozen how the
earth managed to thaw. I remain unconvinced about GW on simple grounds.
1. The CO2 in the atmosphere is constantly being absorbed by the body of
water which covers our planet, indeed there's so much of it that if the
earth was a regular sphere it would be entirely covered by 2km of water.
2. You've already sighted the stories about an ice age in the seventies, I
remember it. 3. Remember the stories about CFCs destroying the ozone
layer, and that CFCs couldn't be destroyed and would be the catalyst for
100s of years wiping out our protection from X-rays and we would all die
from skin cancer, but now the ozone layer is recovering, seems like nature
in action to me. 4. If I go back to the 60s the scare then was that not
only would a nuclear war cause a "nuclear winter" but the fear was that if
enough material was exploded it might start a nuclear chain reaction in
which the entire world would be engulfed. Finally, the best brains in
science nearly all agree that the most elegant solutions are usually the
simplest, and the support for GW isn't that. I have bought and watched
the film "An Inconvenient Truth", but I am agnostic. When the reason is
beyond doubt (and I don't believe it is) I will take a more assured
stance.

Hear, hear.