BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Will reforms increase confidence in UN climate body?

16:34 UK time, Monday, 30 August 2010

A review has concluded that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) needs fundamental reforms to the way it is managed. What difference would this make?

The IPCC has faced mounting pressure over errors in its last major assessment of climate science in 2007.

The body admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The panel said this error had not changed the broad picture of climate change.

Speaking in New York, Harold Shapiro, who chaired the review, conceded that the controversy over errors in climate assessment had dented the credibility of the process.

The review recommends the IPCC appoint an executive director to handle day-to-day operations, and create an executive committee which could include people from outside the body.

Do you think mistakes made by the IPCC have hit the credibility of climate change science? Would changes to the panel make a difference? What are your thoughts on man-made climate change?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 7

  • Comment number 1.

    Nothing at all will happen until Politicians accept it. At the moment they cannot and the entire Human Races is like Lemmings running towards the cliff edge. Runaway Global warming will be next and very few of the Human race will survive that. It is simple arithmetic.

  • Comment number 2.

    Please,please,please.
    We have been free of this subject for a few Weeks.
    I'd hoped that the people with vested interests had gone to ground.
    It seems that everything is now back to normal.
    When will the BBC and its ilk will realise that the general public can see through this money making sham.
    I was educated in the 60s and my Teacher was wringing his hands about a Global cooling.
    The experts were wrong then, and chances are, the experts are wrong now.
    I await the people with Money to make,and power to gain, to slap my comments down!

  • Comment number 3.

    In science there is no such thing as certainty, only probability. All of the scientific evidence suggests a high degree of probability that we are starting to experience a fundamental change in climate. Man's role in this process is still, in my view, unclear.

    However, all of the arguments for reducing consumption of energy, increasing energy efficiency and thinking more carefully about using up non-renewable resources make sense in themselves, irrespective of the arguments for and against climate change.

    Climate change deniers would have us carry on regardless, increasing global consumption, as if our current lifestyles are sustainable for all eternity. They're not, and the sooner we all realise it the better.

  • Comment number 4.

    Will reforms increase confidence in UN climate body?

    No.

    It is impossible to increase confidence in the IPCC as they have not shown any real understanding that what has happened is not a failure of confidence it is the seeing through by the public of their errors and like virginity once it is gone it is gone forever.

    They must reformulate their 'science' to incorporate and acknowledge the correctness of much of the scientific criticism of their work. Their arrogant certainty that they are right must be acknowledged to be a fundamental error in itself. Where there is genuine doubt as to the scientific validity of their theories, they must listen.

    The tragedy for the World of the IPCC is that they have, by their folly and error, thrown out the baby with the bathwater the over-reliance on the CO2 explanation is simply wrong. They must acknowledge this if there is any realistic hope of resurrecting any good from their decade of error. They have single handedly put back the cause of saving the planet, the preservation of its finite resources and safeguarding of our rich and varied biological inheritance by many decades.

  • Comment number 5.

    Not a chance! 0.039%

  • Comment number 6.

    The climate scam is failing badly now, the fearmongering and propaganda has lost its teeth, people are gradually seeing through the biggest fraud in history.

    But still we have follies to contend with like windturbines, biofuel from crops that could actually feed the hungry, rare earths mining etc etc

    The biggest scams of all are still with us, CO2 is deemed deadly to human and earths existance and the carbon tax.

    No more propaganda from the MET Office, BBC, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and other organisations that have become so biased towards the ever changing climate.

    Some have made millions if not billions from these follies. But its not over yet. This coming harsh winter and the next will raise a few eyebrows even further.


  • Comment number 7.

    No one has any credibility for climate change, because they all ignore the real cause, too many people on the planet.
    World population control is the only way forward. Without this your wasting your time.
    Govts. have no credibility, especially in UK. because they only use climate change as a vehical to raise new taxes, to give in turn to certain sections on the community to produce even more population, to consume and pollute giving them free housing as a reward !
    They persecute the 'evil motorist', but if it wasn't for the 'rockstar' % levels of taxes they charge where else would the cash come from ?
    In the past we've had window taxes, Hat taxes and wig powder taxes and now we have 'climate change' taxes.
    Yes yes we can go on forever we've heard all the rant before, but what ever the UN does or says on this subject it will make no difference, like trying to stop the tide coming in. You can build all the waste of time windmills you like, unless you can start to contol the population levels your just counteracting any positive effort being done.
    Got to stop... wasting my time....

  • Comment number 8.

    Well may as well repeat what I said from last time - lets call it pollution control instead of carbon emissions. We are killing this planet with a whole multitude of poisons, we don't need any scientist to tell us that.

  • Comment number 9.

    Perhaps, they need to start from a neutral position and present conclusions based on the actual facts, rather than looking for facts that support / ‘sex up’ conclusions that they have already made.

    All they have achieved so far is to weaken the argument for climate change

  • Comment number 10.

    Will change make a difference?

    That is a loaded question which means, 'Will change make the electorate buy the climate scam and cough up more taxes to save the planet - or feed the rich'.

    Meanwhile journalists and supporters of the coalition are still pushing the deficit scam.

    One scam at a time please.

  • Comment number 11.

    This is a complete waste of time and money, the earth 3 billion years ago had an atmosphere of nearly 90% carbon until the algae ate it and passed out oxygen and trees have been doing the same since.
    Recycling of plastic causes even more harmful chemicals to be made in the process, the entire global warming climate change thing is a scam of monumental proportions.
    Yes sea levels will increase, and in the long term recede again Birmingham was once a sea bed!. The changes in climate are only a problem if stupid people insist on staying put as the water rises. Climate change is happening constantly weather patterns on this planet are cyclical they always have been our ancestors were not stupid enough to sit still when the ice came they moved south with the herds. We may well have caused the increase in speed of climate change but we are not the only cause there is no individual cause and selling carbon vouchers is just another money making scam and it does nothing to help those in areas that will be dramaticly affected.
    An adult tree holds between 40-100 litres of water and consumes vast amounts of carbon and emits substantial quantities of oxygen. From that single statement you can clearly see how large scale deforestation will have an impact on the Earth's climate.
    The issue is not what can be done to slow the process because there is nothing that man can do to slow the process,especially when you couple this with the fact that all those stores that are selling you the reusable bags are still ordering in the same amount of plastic bags that you used to get for free and they are now simply pocketing the extra cash.
    All we can do is learn to manage the effects better. Climate change in real terms means that crops will not grow efficiently in established growing zones for example look at Pakistan what crops can they grow under water!, and what are we to do when the peoples of seriously affected nations seek to emigrate somewhere more viable.


    JUST REMEMBER ZERO CARBON = ZERO OXYGEN without carbon dioxide in our atmosphere the trees and plants would all die and zero oxygen would be produced and all animal life would die.

  • Comment number 12.

    It will make no difference to the basic principles underlying the very existence of the IPCC - which are (1) that the world is warming (which was true until about 10 years ago but isn't now), (2)that warming is set to resume/continue and cause major disasters (which is based on very flimsy evidence) and (3) that mankind is both responsible (doubtful) and capable of changing the outcome (which is nonsense).
    The only thing the IPCC needs is to be abolished. Then maybe we can focus on the really big world problems: overpopulation and 'peak oil'. In a few years' time these will become so serious that the debate over climate change will seem irrelevant.

  • Comment number 13.

    every time a mammal exhales it expels carbon, as my grand pa used to say as soon as they figure out how to tax fresh air they will, well they have wake up !

  • Comment number 14.

    I think that mistakes made by the IPCC have definitely affected credibility of climate change science. I don’t believe that changes to the panel would make any difference because I feel that the weather is being manipulated and as long as this evil manipulation continues climate change science is about as useful as a wetsuit in the desert?
    Man-made climate change is the KEY factor, but I don’t mean CO2, etc.
    I mean WEATHER WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
    The public has been buffeted for decades with reams of reports that the Earth is cooling, no heating, no cooling, no heating...
    In November 2009, the “Climategate” scandal broke, revealing that the data put forth by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not consistently correct. The IPCC measurements were impossible for people with no knowledge of meteorology to read, far less understand, but dig this: NOAA was engaged in similar behavior. NOAA’s report, “State of the Earth’s Climate 2009”, prepared under the direction of the US National Climate Data Center, was as equally flawed, as equally deceptive as the IPCC.
    In both IPCC and NOAA reports, it is the stated that countless faulty weather stations, often placed near heat sources, and malfunctioning weather satellites make it virtually impossible to make any kind of accurate evaluation of short or long term climate change.
    In any case, we need to get passed the idea that humans have anything to do with the weather, except for those humans who are involved wuth weather weapons like HAARP, SURA and EISTAT.
    Changing the terms of reference:
    • Analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies
    • Review the use of non-peer reviewed sources, and quality control on data
    • Assess how procedures handle "the full range of scientific views"
    • Review how the IPCC communicates with the public and the media
    CHANGING THESE TERMS OF REFERENCE IS A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, and will make no difference.
    At the next IPCC's plenary session (South Korea in October) or sooner than that if possible, the United Nations needs to tackle:
    Weather Control - the action of manipulating or altering certain aspects of the environment to produce changes in the weather. Weather control can cause hurricanes or tornadoes, rainfall or drought; fire or floods, etc.
    Weather control, particularly hostile control, has been addressed by the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques". The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by THE US PRESIDENT December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.
    Time to dredge up this Resolution, put aside IPCC and NOAA (useless data) and deal with the evil-doer(s) who are manipulating our weather causing massive suffering, destruction and death. e.g. Haiti & Pakistan...

  • Comment number 15.

    I think the climate change scientists need to stop apologizing and retreating whenever they are attacked by the right wing. We all know climate change is here and we know it's been affecting our weather patterns for decades now. We also see evidence of it. They need to stand tough against their critics. This is a whole new area for us - of course they will make mistakes but that does not mean climate change is not happening.

  • Comment number 16.

    Have they got rid of the head who lectured Americans on giving up their cars while he jets to India for a weekend cricket match?

    He and Al Gore are part of the Do as I say not as I do, untill that changes why take the U.N seriously?

  • Comment number 17.

    1. At 7:45pm on 30 Aug 2010, Les Acres wrote:
    Nothing at all will happen until Politicians accept it. At the moment they cannot and the entire Human Races is like Lemmings running towards the cliff edge. Runaway Global warming will be next and very few of the Human race will survive that. It is simple arithmetic.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Politicians don't and won't act effectively on climate change because most people who vote for them are not convinced by the doomsayers. They see what I see: the science has been manipulated; the world has not been warming for several years now; last winter was the coldest for many years. You can't convince me. I believe what I see and experience, and don't trust politicians or 'scientists' to foresee the future. 'Runaway global warming' is science fiction. The biggest threat to the human race is runaway population growth - and that IS simple arithmetic.

  • Comment number 18.

    Nice to see some healthy scepticism and dare I say it cynicism on HYS! Keep up the good work and highlight reality to the uninformed!!!! ;-) And I suggest we all take a similar approach to every load of nonsense anyone in the establishment asks the public to believe in! Its mostly rubbish designed to destroy your reasoning ability and render you a guilty victim for someone to exploit or tax! ;-) stop feeding the wealthy parasites and leeches and they will cease to exist!

  • Comment number 19.

    This IPCC just sounds like another useless quango. Overpaid jobs for talentless morons with the right connections.

    Just shut it down. Who would notice ?

  • Comment number 20.

    16. At 8:35pm on 30 Aug 2010, MagicKirin wrote:
    ///Have they got rid of the head who lectured Americans on giving up their cars while he jets to India for a weekend cricket match?

    He and Al Gore are part of the Do as I say not as I do, untill that changes why take the U.N seriously?///

    Dr Rajendra Pachauri and AL Gore are the fake saints preaching a brand new version of the Doctrine of Sacrifice - And you will make the sacrifice while they fly round the world telling you how important it is that you do not! And if you ask them to explain, they will answer - well we are doing an important job and its complex and you don't understand....HoHoHo

  • Comment number 21.

    Deforestation is being done at the rate of 2.5 acres per second across the world. Forget oil, we have less than 40 years of trees. A forest takes over 100 years to recover to it's original state if allowed to but none are. Most renewable forest is for wood supply only not natural habitat, what's being destroyed is burnt to make way for farming. The forest are the lungs of the world, when they are gone so are we. Agreed that the oceans supply 50% of the worlds oxygen, not much use in the centre of China with 1 billion cars on the road surrounding them.

  • Comment number 22.

    World overpopulation combined with dimishing arable land is the real accident waiting to happen.

  • Comment number 23.

    It doesn't matter how they dress it up - it's still a load of rubbish. Look outside. What is actually wrong with the weather? But don't forget folks, the scientists on the climate change gravy train told us the Maldives were going to vanish - in 2005. Remember the Wilkins Ice shelf that was hanging by a thread in 2008? Still there. Funny, but temperatures in Antartica have remained constant since records began. Perhaps they don't get climate change down there. It only happens in places where the climate change psueds can massage the figures, tell us its getting hotter every year then refuse to let us look at the raw data. Like errr - the Met Office. Stand by for a barbeque winter.

  • Comment number 24.

    Heavens above, this is beginning to look like the formation of yet another quango that busies itself with worldwide travel, meetings, meetings and yet more meetings.

    It must be better to stifle this thing at birth, surely. It doesn't seem to matter what conclusions might be drawn from all the studies and research, governments will give them lip service whenever politics are deemed more important than the planet's future - and that, regrettably, is all the time.

    Far better to carry on as we are, which should see the end of the human race before the end of this century.

  • Comment number 25.

    Climate has changed throughout history. Our farm records show that in the last few hundred years this has been so and our records are a drop in the ocean in the terms of world climate. The government and world leaders are wasting billions on trying to brainwash the public because politicians are well aware that the real problem is not climate change but dwindling resources. These are finite and as such will become increasingly diificult to find. Those countries with these resources will become over powerful and shortages will cause wars. We should be pouring all this climate change research money into producing sustainable power, we will then be independent in the future fight for diminishing resources.
    It was decided to urge the public to be more economical,accept change and increasing prices by talking about climate change which was felt to be less controversial than drawing attention to the decrease in fossil fuels. However it has backfired because people can see for themselves that the climate fluctuates and as soon as there is a cold spell. be it here or in S America all cedibility for necessary change in life style disappears

  • Comment number 26.

    So they want to overhaul this highly paid bunch of scientists do they? We all make mistakes but this lot need to be scrapped, not overhauled. Maybe with new blood they might just get some of their findings right, albeit second time around!

  • Comment number 27.

    Here we go again. Another chance for the bigoted and ignorant to call climate scientists liars and cheats. The detractors usually led by Lord somebody or other - the title awarded either for political failure or accident of birth. Understanding the complex interactions of the components of the climate system requires years of study to master. The intelligent layperson, however, knows that catastrophic climate events have been happening for decades and that they are probably on the increase and more severe than in the past. Linking this to anthropogenic global warming is the job of science, and regularly summarising the science is the job of IPCC - done by thousands of scientists worldwide in their "spare" time for no extra pay. It is no surprise that this ridiculous process produces a few errors in reports thousands of pages long. Yet, there is no attempt to hide errors, and they are corrected publicly. What is so dishonest about that?

  • Comment number 28.

    Another UN report, with old, current and new forms of regurgitated information, always welcome to keep jobs at the UN in a recession?

    Sadly, what the UN fails to point out, as usual, is that it truly doesn't matter, as an individual, whether you believe in climate change, or not?

    In fact, what remains is, the chances are, that in spite of the wasted $billions spent by the UN, on this 'latest' report, is that the majority of people and their symbiotic relationship with their environments most at risk, may not have access to UN informarion able to post here?

    If your own country's government attitudes to preservation of your forests, woodlands; clean drinking water and food security for you and your children's future is at risk, then you must focus on that?

    The so-called 'developING nations', have very a fragile ECOLOGY - as do so-called 'developED nations'?

    We don't need the UN to spend $billions on ANOTHER climate change report - what we all nations need is: clean drinking water, food and energy security?

    Essential forests are being felled, globally, for gems to adorn withering fingers. What is wrong with us as a species?


  • Comment number 29.

    The IPCC has a vested interest in mainting a level of fear about 'global warming/climate change' as it gives them an important role in political life and a lucrative career, however they have not provided sound evidence about the case or the causes, which is why there are so many sceptics. None of the experts seem to agree on the cause and therefore solutions have no credibility.

    The weather is changing but so it has over the lifetime of the world. Is it due to sun-spots or too much pollution (what kind of pollution?). If it is sun-spots, we cannot do a lot about it, however pollution can have many sources including industrial emissions and/or overpopulation.

    However hard developed countries' governments tax their citizens it will not solve the problem (if it is man-made) while the world population is out of control. In 1700 the world population was 750 million, now we are hitting 7 billion and rising at an exponential rate but the earth is not expanding - if we all stop driving our cars tomorrow, it will not make any difference to the level of carbon emissions (if that is the cause), we will run out of space for windmills and run out of water.

    If the problem is so serious why do government leaders travel so frequently to 'climate change summits' (usually at very expensive resorts) with huge enterages (Copenhagen had 22+ thousand representatives)rather than use Videoconferencing? That is why most intelligent people are not convinced that the various causes and solutions are reliable and increased taxes are certainly suspect. There may well be a problem but the current propositions are confused and unreliable.

    How much is the IPCC costing to run and what is THEIR carbon emission per annum? What have they contributed to managing the problem? Answers please!

  • Comment number 30.

    More jobs for the boys - very large incomes - little or no knowledge, never ending talk without action, avoid the real issues eventually it will be too late to do anything about global warming or whatever you want to call all the strange weather systems and natural habitat being destroyed. Intead of pouring billions into researching other planets why don't all the scientists should be working flat out and putting the money into making sure earth and all it's people survive and can be fed & watered.

  • Comment number 31.

    Come on the Ghost .... have seen attacks on your posts ... not pleasant to view, even though I may not agree with you.

    All are wounded - but never slain.

    Best advice is never to rise to the bay of the trained hounds?

  • Comment number 32.

    International Con Job, when I see Al Gore in a Prison cell my confidence will be restored.
    Let us have a public debate we will take Lord Mockton and you can choose anyone you like to represent this flawed theory.

  • Comment number 33.

    Climate change if you want to. Another £billion report from the UN?

    There is too much tax based on climate change and trading.

    Protect and get involved to protect your own local ECOLOGY. Focus on your own water, food and basic energy and healthcare? Ask - who owns all of the above basic needs that you pay for that you may already own - in one way or another?

  • Comment number 34.

    Firstly, there are two mutually inclusive paradigms of climate change, metrology and then meteorology and that's about it!

  • Comment number 35.

    So in hundreds of pages the climate change deniers managed to find one error and for that they need 'fundamental changes'?

    Let's be honest. Nothing will increase 'confidence' in the climate body because it's enemies will continue to launch attack after attack against anything they think they can spin in the media as wrong. That they manage to be right once in a hundred times doesn't change the fact that all their falsehood and spin are reported without question by journalists and the facts, once they come out, rarely get mentioned.

    The only fundamental changes needed is in how our media report science. Employing people who actually understand science and how it works would be a good start.

  • Comment number 36.

    If everything else remained constant then yes, I accept man-made CO2 entering the atmosphere would cause a slow, steady rise in temperature. But nothing else does remain the same, and it would now seem that randomly unpredictable factors are more than capable of swamping this effect: volcanic dust, SO2, ionospheric changes caused by sunspot activity, cosmic ray remnants varying cloud cover dependent on same, etc. etc....

    Perhaps we should be asking what exactly is it we can do, if anything, to prolong this apparently brief warm period between probably much colder times.

    So what the organisational form might be, of the body trying to make sense of all this, would not seem to have much bearing on what actually happens, it seems to me.

    A more urgent problem appears to be how we keep a global economy, dependent upon fossil fuels working when that energy supply is running low.


  • Comment number 37.

    A UN body to study climate change? Sounds like a cushy little number for the delegates to me - I've no idea how much it costs but whatever it is, it's a complete waste of money.

    The Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years, nothing new there then. Humans are far too puny and insignificant to influence it either way, so let's stop pretending we're important shall we? The planet doesn't need saving, it'll be just fine, but human life will eventually die; after a period of regeneration the whole cycle will start over again, with something different in place of humans. It sounds scary, but it's actually very simple; we'll be here for as long as the planet allows us to be.

    Sadly, the whole subject has become an industry where lots of people make lots of money from it, so for obvious reasons they'll keep on banging the 'Climate Change' drum and the gravy train will keep on rolling.

  • Comment number 38.

    31. At 9:28pm on 30 Aug 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
    Come on the Ghost .... have seen attacks on your posts ... not pleasant to view, even though I may not agree with you.

    All are wounded - but never slain.

    Best advice is never to rise to the bay of the trained hounds?

    But they know not what they do!

  • Comment number 39.

    Why does HYS continue to print contributions from people who deny climate change on the basis of what the weather was like last winter in their street or some other fatuous opinion. Science is about observation, measurement and prediction, if you don't trust the scientists involved with climate change then I can only assume your scientific-scepticism prevents you using electricity or visiting the doctor. Climate change is universally accepted by scientists - the only doubt is how quickly temperatures will rise and how high they will go; they all agree it is happening.

  • Comment number 40.

    Well, well, well. Look what we have here. Did it ever occur to you that there is too much going on in too little time? Makes you want to slow down, right? Well, let me ask you one thing- will you? Could you just shy away from a lifestyle that you know is impacting the Earth, not only physically, but socially? Are you willing to not be on that Blackberry network 24/7? Correction. Will you not fire up your computer for a day? Can you? I know I can't.

    A recent study is showing that plants are migrating farther up north. TO those farmers in Argentina, you'll need to go find something else to do. Your crops aren't here to stay. Coming to the point, it means the US will have a huge farming industry. However, does it have the place to? The Grand Canyon might as well as become the Grand Canyon of Agriculture. Besides that and Alaska, there's no place to grow them. So, they will die out.

    You realize what that means? It means less oxygen, and even lesser food production. It also means smaller eco-systems. It means less life.

  • Comment number 41.

    "28. At 9:07pm on 30 Aug 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
    Another UN report, with old, current and new forms of regurgitated information, always welcome to keep jobs at the UN in a recession?

    Sadly, what the UN fails to point out, as usual, is that it truly doesn't matter, as an individual, whether you believe in climate change, or not?

    In fact, what remains is, the chances are, that in spite of the wasted $billions spent by the UN, on this 'latest' report, is that the majority of people and their symbiotic relationship with their environments most at risk, may not have access to UN informarion able to post here?

    If your own country's government attitudes to preservation of your forests, woodlands; clean drinking water and food security for you and your children's future is at risk, then you must focus on that?

    The so-called 'developING nations', have very a fragile ECOLOGY - as do so-called 'developED nations'?

    We don't need the UN to spend $billions on ANOTHER climate change report - what we all nations need is: clean drinking water, food and energy security?

    Essential forests are being felled, globally, for gems to adorn withering fingers. What is wrong with us as a species?"


    As with many things which are potentially dangerous, we are probably programmed to self-destruct.

    You remember the aliens interview on Bremner Bird & Fortune when the aliens could decide the fate of the earth, they saw the planet explode - "they seem to have done it themselves".

  • Comment number 42.

    1. At 7:45pm on 30 Aug 2010, Les Acres wrote:

    Nothing at all will happen until Politicians accept it. At the moment they cannot and the entire Human Races is like Lemmings running towards the cliff edge. Runaway Global warming will be next and very few of the Human race will survive that. It is simple arithmetic.


    Lemmings don't actually run towards the edge of cliffs - that was a myth made popular by a Disney film. But isn't it surprising that many people still believe that it is true?

  • Comment number 43.

    There is no way science can say for certain that climate change will have this or that effect.What it can say for certain is that mankind is slowly but surely destroying the enviroment which includes wildlife,forests,oceans etc;Mankind is like an infection spreading unchecked.
    This alone should be enough for every person on this planet to stop and think before they destroy yet more of the planets resources and continue to produce more and more for humans to consumme along with more humans to ensure it carries on.Its not new as the destruction has been going on for the last 200 years at least.The trouble with this scientific body or that UN body yapping on about it has no effect whatsoever,its saying what the most sensible people in the world already know. What is needed is for the governments of the world to act,not in a few weeks,months or years but NOW! Failure to do so will be so severe for the next generation that life on this planet will become extinct and that includes humans!
    To counteract the massive devistation we all must consumme less and act together to undo the damage already done. That means putting aside nationality,profit and selfishness to get the planet back in a habitable condition.Will it happen? NO!

  • Comment number 44.

    lol

    The globul warming propaganda machine gets caught napping then "forms a committee" to "fix" things.

    I bet the Soviet Union was like this.

    I wonder how many tractors we're going to build next year under the latest 5 year plan to save the planet.

    Let's push forward together to climate victory comrades!

    Meanwhile the reverend Kim Jong Al Gore glides around the planet in his Jumbo Jet...

    A Sceptic? Moi? Surely not!

  • Comment number 45.

    42. At 10:30pm on 30 Aug 2010, you wrote:

    1. At 7:45pm on 30 Aug 2010, Les Acres wrote:

    Nothing at all will happen until Politicians accept it. At the moment they cannot and the entire Human Races is like Lemmings running towards the cliff edge. Runaway Global warming will be next and very few of the Human race will survive that. It is simple arithmetic.

    Lemmings don't actually run towards the edge of cliffs - that was a myth made popular by a Disney film. But isn't it surprising that many people still believe that it is true?


    I suppose that makes me a "lemming suicide denier".

  • Comment number 46.

    The bottom line is globul warming is an excuse by our ruling elite to tax us to death.

    The High Priests of climate change want the fruits of our labour, in hard cash, and anyone who is an unbeliever is a heretic.

    Just like the church 500 years ago.
    Your all Sinners!
    Give us your money and we'll save you from eternal climate damnation!

    woooooooooo...

  • Comment number 47.

    3. At 7:51pm on 30 Aug 2010, RadialSymmetry wrote: "Climate change deniers would have us carry on regardless, increasing global consumption, as if our current lifestyles are sustainable for all eternity. They're not, and the sooner we all realise it the better."

    First, there are very few "deniers". Many people like myself are sceptical of some very incomplete science used to justify "man-made global warming" and the tendancy of pro-MMGW people to exclude the voicing of any opposing view. The essence of science is to question the current explanation.

    Second, we are not against recycling and sustainability but are against the hysteria used by some politicians to impose taxes and restrict economic development without well-researched reasons, thus uneccessarily reducing the living standards of British citizens.

  • Comment number 48.

    31. At 9:28pm on 30 Aug 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:
    ///Come on the Ghost .... have seen attacks on your posts ... not pleasant to view, even though I may not agree with you.///

    Would you agree that Jeremy Hunt MP might employ the global warming argument to privatise the BBC? As the BBC organisation produces excessive levels of CO2 by flying journalist around the world to report on Global Warming! (Oh look over there - some falling ice - in the late spring - OH shock horror - better send another half dozen journalists to investigate....is their ice melting in spring anywhere else on the planet - better go check it out)???

    I am sure the West Minster thugs can find a 'Think Tank' (self contradictory term) of well qualified 'experts' (preachers of the Doctrine of Sacrifice) to provide some mystified evidence of a causal link between the BBC travel arrangements and glaciers melting!

    I think our boy Jeremy will be making an announcement quite soon! Maybe they will sell BBC four to Murdock - I hear he like kultcha..... ;-)

  • Comment number 49.

    RadialSymmetry wrote: “In science there is no such thing as certainty, only probability.”

    That is just plain wrong. Science provides oodles of certainty. Newton for example allows us to calculate gravitational forces ad infinitum with moon landing precision and no ‘probabilities’ are involved. Vast amounts of chemistry and even biology are also mathematically certain, as are many many other branches of science. Probability plays a very limited role and largely only in chaotic systems like weather, stock markets and evolutionary biology etc. Please do not try to downgrade science as a whole because of a few dodgy weathermen or the ‘back to mother earth’ fringe element.

    Climate change is a symptom of overpopulation and it’s a waste of time and resources to tackle it in isolation.

  • Comment number 50.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 51.

    This went quiet for weeks as the poor evidence supporting MMCC was being trashed by physical evidence. The IPCC is ignored by countries because it is unreliable and producing lies. The climategate event occured and suffered an embarrassing bashing for the rigged investigation which followed. As the countries plowed ahead on data models the germans and russians have made great strides in real proof (contradicting MMCC) and the investment into windfarms has proven that the govs dont beleive either (windfarms add more to all problems).

    With facts being presented and data models getting it wrong often there is no surprise that MMCC is being ignored. The last time I saw a survey of public opinion there were a lot less believers in the 'event'.

    I look forward to govs getting rid of the various commitments to reducing air and look forward to the money being diverted to removing real pollution which is factual and proven to the world.

  • Comment number 52.

    39. At 10:15pm on 30 Aug 2010, edna teevee wrote:
    "Why does HYS continue to print contributions from people who deny climate change. etc"

    Unfortunately Edna, the scientific data is manupulated, omitted and bent to a pre-required outcome. Fantastic computer models are run and re-run with selective codes designed to prove global warming exists, and not to prove otherwise. They are manipulated for that purpose only.
    ___________________________________________________________

    But most importantly Edna because at the moment the UK isn't North Korea so at this moment in time I'm sorry to say, I can have an individual opinion to yours.


  • Comment number 53.

    Until the IPCC adopt a similar approach to the make up their "council" as the PCC then they will fail all credibilty tests.

    Noone beleived the Police Complaints Commission until they altered their make up. You know, a few police "sceptics" to moderate the overall outcome. Similarly, noone believed the cancer "nay sayers" who worked for the Tobacco companies.

    I'd bet the long list of scientists who agree with the fact that man is largely to blame for the speed of global warning are mostly employed within the "Global Warming Industry".

    Peer review is everything, but not necessarily by your immediate peers.

  • Comment number 54.

    Then there's more practical examples, especially the state of our seas.

    Fish stocks have been annihilated in recent decades and the seabed has being ploughed into an underwater desert.

    So now there's nowt left to make a buck from, the golden goose is dead, and suddenly our government starts to play at "getting tough".
    lol

    Sceptical? Moi? surely not!

  • Comment number 55.

    In the early 1970's as a child, I remember being promised an ice age with year round snow. The winters were as bad/good as last years. Great as a kid. In the 1980,s there was an ozone hole discovered over the Antarctic, CFCs and refrigerators where to blame. Everyone replace their old ones with new ones, mini-consumerism experiment 1. What happened to the Ozone hole? Is it still there? Is it getting bigger or smaller? In the 1990's and 2000's we have been told about Global warming. They are now making us change our cars major-consumerism experiment 2. The IPCC have cherry picked their data to suit. The Green party are pseudo 1960 left wingers suppose to be against consumerism but they are trying to influence society to change there cars i.e. consumerism.
    IPCC receive data from satellites which have sensors which are known to be faulty and have not been fixed because it gives the IPCC the "evidence" they need to give credence to their high profile position.
    The rising sea levels measurements are again only taken where the IPCC can use for most publicity.
    IPCC also do not give out their data which they base their findings out, saying that people do not have qualification to understand it.
    IPCC are just an excuse to justify a global tax.
    The recent volcano eruption in the south east Asia will put more CO2 in the air than about 5 years of UK Car pollution. So is there a Carbon tax on Volcanoes?

  • Comment number 56.

    35. At 9:50pm on 30 Aug 2010, SpacedOne wrote:

    So in hundreds of pages the climate change deniers managed to find one error and for that they need 'fundamental changes'?

    Let's be honest. Nothing will increase 'confidence' in the climate body because it's enemies will continue to launch attack after attack against anything they think they can spin in the media as wrong. That they manage to be right once in a hundred times doesn't change the fact that all their falsehood and spin are reported without question by journalists and the facts, once they come out, rarely get mentioned.

    The only fundamental changes needed is in how our media report science. Employing people who actually understand science and how it works would be a good start.

    ----------------------

    If that happened the IPCC would be shut down. Multiple errors and the fact that they listened to the WWF (known to create lies to blame humans) shows their lack of credability. Not forgetting the dodgy science and lack of proof to go with it.

    The IPCC has got many things wrong. And they have no proof of anything. only mistakes and lies. Also there is a lot of evidence and data they just ignore. This was swept under the carpet but became more of a problem as evidence was found and the data models failed.

    The MMCC debate went quiet for a while as overwhelming evidence showed forgery, fraud and a lack of science

  • Comment number 57.

    Man made climate change is just a political message that has been given some respectability by some scientists who rely on politicians for their income. Wind turbines will never produce enough electricity to power the country and the small amount they do produce is so expensive that all economic activity to generate wealth is impossible.

  • Comment number 58.


    Even though they were entirely predictable, I find many of the rants in the postings so far quite surprising. Why are people so angry, and why are they so anti-science?

    Only careful scientific enquiry, gathering a huge mass of data and analysing it with the best statistical methods will answer the question - "is human activity causing damaging climate change?"

    Such enquiry must be globally supported and reported openly after objective peer review. It must not be interefered with by the lobbying of big business or political short-termism. The scientists are under such continuous harsh criticism and hostile scrutiny by those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, that it is no wonder that errors and poor judgement about emails have happened.

    We may well get a statistically significant answer in the coming decade, but in the meantime, the precautionary principle must apply; we should act as if the answer is a certain 'Yes', and reduce our use of fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gases. Reduction of carbon footprints at all levels of society from the individual to the nation state is desirable for all sorts of reasons, as is research into renewable energy sources.

    Give the scientists a break and let them do their job! If you don't agree with their findings, then go to University, get a degree and a PhD and then do the research to prove them wrong!

  • Comment number 59.

    At 8:07pm on 30 Aug 2010, BLACK_PEARL wrote:
    No one has any credibility for climate change, because they all ignore the real cause, too many people on the planet.
    World population control is the only way forward.
    ___________________________________________________________________-

    Please explain your notion of world population control.

    I would like to remind you that even during the stone-age when the Earth was largely empty of humans climate change was still occurring.

    Are you going to wipe out billions of people on a disputed theory?

  • Comment number 60.

    49. At 10:47pm on 30 Aug 2010, Paul J Weighell wrote:

    ...

    Climate change is a symptom of overpopulation and it’s a waste of time and resources to tackle it in isolation.


    If this is true then surely climate change is nature's way of correcting the problem and therefore should be left to run it's course.

  • Comment number 61.

    The bogus science remains bogus no matter how it is reviewed. The science is based on computer models that give the same result even if fed with New York telephone data. It was a tax scam to fund the new world Bank ( IMF ) diverting even more wealth to the international bankers. There was a white wash of Anglia University Climate body. now comes the white wash of the IPCC. Neither of the august institutions have any credibility left!

  • Comment number 62.

    This is just rearranging the deckchairs. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of scientific data point to global warming. The overwhelming majority of scientists who have looked into this issue concur that global warming is real and that carbon emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels is a primary cause. The warming effect of increasing the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be demonstrated on a kitchen table with very simple equipment.

    The objections to climate change are not scientific, they are social, economic and political. We like our cars and our planes. Oil companies are some of the biggest in the world. Politicians don't like upsetting either the electorate or big businesses.

  • Comment number 63.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 64.

    ref #50

    Notice to posters disputing climate change as settled science or the knowledge of Al gore is now verbotten by the moderators

  • Comment number 65.

    Whatever happens, the planet goes through events and changes all on it's own, mini hot period, growing vines in the Borders, a few hundred years ago. The mini "cold period" with ice fairs on the frozen thames. I am sure that dinosaurs farted a lot more methane than extremists would have us believe that we all have to go veggie and not eat meat.
    With the current rate of population increase, living longer and survival, via modern medicine, of people that would have a death sentence, 20 years ago.
    The planet will do what it wants to and our arrogance on insisting it is man made, is insane.
    I am into these debates and civilized conversation...BUT.....
    When politicians use this as a election pledge, or to justify lost jobs, to increase taxation to the extent that low incomes have to chose to eat or heat.
    Before the election, all of the leaders individually (elected or not) appeared in front of selected audiences. I don't mean the 3 TV debates.
    Brown was in Doncaster in front of an audience of about 60 - 70 people. Firstly you could see in his face when asked a difficult question, he would spout a stock answer .. then roll his eyes and turn away from the questioner.
    So to climate.... Doncaster is a high redundancy, factory closing and job queues area.
    When asked his plans for manufacturing industries in the midlands, "We intend to bring new low carbon industries to this area"
    Unfortunately no-one asked the idiot "What is a lo carbon industry, name ONE". I was shouting at the TV during this.
    I am glad that his highness has gone, but have we just changed names, with the same illusions, lies and misleading info.
    We are being fleeced in the name of global warming, the ideal excuse for governments across the world to blame more taxes, VAT, train ticket rises. I think the word is CONFIDENCE TRICK, to make them, now the coalition, look responsible and Green.
    The biggest con trick since religion.
    If i can see straight thru it, so can you.


  • Comment number 66.

    #2 toycollector wrote:
    "Please,please,please.
    We have been free of this subject for a few Weeks.
    I'd hoped that the people with vested interests had gone to ground.
    It seems that everything is now back to normal.
    When will the BBC and its ilk will realise that the general public can see through this money making sham.
    I was educated in the 60s and my Teacher was wringing his hands about a Global cooling.
    The experts were wrong then, and chances are, the experts are wrong now.
    I await the people with Money to make,and power to gain, to slap my comments down!"

    I wouldn't call my response a slap-down, but I'm going to take issue with you. Nor do I have anything to gain: I won't make a single penny or gain any power by saying this.

    The science for climate change is overwhelming. You only have to research what is happening to the polar ice caps and to the temperature rise, especially in the last 10 to 15 years, as well as a mass of other evidence. It may be true that it is not solely caused by human activity, but we are clearly contributing to it.

    My teacher, by the way, in the 60s and 70s, was warning about rising sea levels, the very thing that is clearly beginning to happen now. So it is far from being true that science has done a 180 since then.

    I find it interesting, by the way, that science is presented as infallible when it can be used against religion, but both wrong and corrupt when it doesn't suit the climate change deniers.

    Still, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that climate change is wrong. So we can all just continue our greedy, consumerist lifestyles without worrying, right? Well, no actually. Oil and other fossil fuels are still going to run out some day, and pollution is still a problem. Plus the fact that the West consumes far more than its share of the world's resources, and the rest of the world is already showing signs that it's not going to tolerate that much longer. The planet is going to be a very different place in a couple of generations, and probably mostly not for the better.

  • Comment number 67.

    1. At 7:45pm on 30 Aug 2010, Les Acres wrote:

    Nothing at all will happen until Politicians accept it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Politicians are falling over themselves to show how they have 'seen the light' so to speak, and fully embraces the environmentalism religion. It is the religion that has help push food prices up, which in turn has had devastating effects on poorer nations. If environmentalists were really committed to the causes they would be supporting more nuclear power stations, but instead they are more concerned with bringing down capitalism, or reducing the world population through starvation.

  • Comment number 68.

    Were this topic a discussion between lofty acadedemics in their ivory towers, I doubt anyone would give a fig. What we really have is a discussion about money, and the impact on the future economic prosperity of those whose talent is making money at any cost, especially if it a cost that does not impact them.

    Frontier science, by definition, never has all the answers for any given problem. One constructs theories and models based on empirical data and attempts to offer a prognosis of how a particular system (in this case the global climate) will evolve. If one wants to get a grip on how complex a problem this, factor in the the reality that meterologists know (and admit) that predicting future weather patterns with ANY real degree of accuracy beyond 5 days is unrealistic, and anybody who says otherwise is a fantasist.

    So, climate scientists interpreting a complex set of data now believe that the possible outcomes over a given timeframe may be slightly different. Nevertheless, the overall trend is still believed to be accurate, and the end result for humanity disasterous. A difference of 50 or 100 years in the future of the planet, as measured in geological time scales, is but a fleeting moment - however, the end result is still catastrpohic for hummankind. Re-casting the theory such that it might not be our children, but our grandchildren that are facing global catastophe doesn't change the end result.

    What do we get by way of a reasoned response to a group of scientists willing to revisit their own predictions, and who have the integrity to recast their theories to better fit avilable data but a wholesale trashing of the underlying premise - namely that the planet is warming up, and will lead to a dramatic change in our global environment.

    And who are those people and bodies that are making the most noise when it comes to attacking the science, why it is those who stand to have their lucrative money making enterprises challenged, and possibly regualted in future. The objective of the naysayers is to maintain the status quo for as long as it is relevant to them and their inflated lifestyles - what will they care if the planet goes to hell in a hand cart in 50 to 100 years from now, they'll have earned their 30 pieces of silver, spent it, and moved on to whatever awaits them in the hereafter.

    The pursuit of science is predicated on the pursuit of truth and integrity; the pursuit of business, as so aptly put by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, is self-interest. Who would you most trust, under these circumstances, to have your best interests, and those of future generations, at heart?

  • Comment number 69.

    No matter what the UN Climatologist do, if the politicans who get paid by offending industries don't agree with their summations, nothing will change.

    I look at the summer we are having in Iowa and it just does not feel right. The climate has shifted. What was suppose to be happening here in the Midwest is happening on the East Coast. We have had the wettest winter and summer on record. Soon we may catch up with Pakistan if the rain keeps on.

    Climate change is more than a change in weather. It is a shift in the weather, and that is what is worrying.

  • Comment number 70.

    Someone remind me once again of Al Gore's degree in climate science?

  • Comment number 71.

    We are trying to hide from the truth by putting such procedural issues at the forefront rather than the real issue.
    The western consumers who cannot control their lust for more and more dont want to confront the reality.... third world is oblivious to what is happening...
    We are in violent times... Look at the epic floods in Pakistan, heat in Russia, floods in China, Niger earth quakes everywhere... dormant volcanos spewing ash.
    What we are doing to the earth and at the speed we are doing it neither nature nor ourselves can cope with it.
    This notion that human race will survive is nothing but wishful thinking. We are not able to manage the disastar faced today and if this is the moment when such occurrences show a spike then I am certain we will not be able to respond and then we will have to confront a situation wishing we had prepared outselves earlier.
    We have done the same when dot com bubble was expanding, we did the same with free credits of the 21st century and we are doing it now. Sometimes it is better to listen to skeptic and prepare than to listen to people who are giving positive low risk options.....WILL WE.... NO!!!

  • Comment number 72.

    70 thelma wrote:
    "Someone remind me once again of Al Gore's degree in climate science?"

    That is what's called the "ad hominem" logical fallacy: you rubbish the person whose view you oppose, and that's supposed to prove that everything they say or stand for is wrong. Only, of course, it doesn't. I wouldn't call myself Al Gore's biggest fan, but you can't dismiss climate change that easily.

    Also, in post 59 you seem to have an odd concept of population control. To most of us it doesn't mean wiping out billions of people, but rather encouraging the use of birth control to reduce the number of babies born. Given the way the world population is expanding, can you really argue that's a bad thing?

  • Comment number 73.

    Get out! Get out! If you're in the UN distance yourself immediately. Folks, these "international", and therefore non-local, un-representational, un-elected regulators are not the solution to anything. However if you do want money to be deducted from your next paycheque such that some nameless, faceless, welfare-seeking non-descript third-world state that is not democratic puts it to the account of its nameless socialist bureaucracy - GREAT! If you don't - well get rid of your government and kick the bums out. By the way, this has not now, or has ever been about the "environment" - it's about power and the redistribution of your wealth. That you earned. That is used for political capital and points on the world stage.

  • Comment number 74.

    At 10:22pm on 30 Aug 2010, Nikki J wrote:
    A recent study is showing that plants are migrating farther up north. TO those farmers in Argentina, you'll need to go find something else to do. Your crops aren't here to stay.

    ____________________________________________________________
    The triffids are coming. The triffids are coming. More seriously, if we don't start behaving in a responsible manner, should it prove that climate change is not a scam after all, great is our sin indeed. Of course, what is seen as responsible is likely to be always open for discussion.

  • Comment number 75.

    Mistakes made by the IPCC is a way of saying we are, perhaps, a little wiser today than we were yesterday, and by extrapolation, possibly even wiser tomorrow.

  • Comment number 76.

    The climate change committees etc are such a money spinner for people without a proper job to do that it won't fail. What is the carbon footprint of all this guff they produce, of all the different companies who preach to us about saving the planet then produce reams of paper to support their theories and all the travel they do? Anyone who has any knowledge of history will know that the world hs always gone through these phases. England was tropical at one point with elephants and hippos wading in the Thames. Then ice covered in ice sheets. At the start of the 13th century grapes were grown in England even in the Midlands, then in those hundred years the temperature dropped by 1 degree so no more vineyards, then years of rain. In Tudor times the Thames froze over so often that they had fairs on it. Temperature of the planet changes so stop these little dictators shouting at us because we don't agree with them.

  • Comment number 77.

    Whether the climate is changing or not, politicians etc. can actually do very little even if they had the will. What do you think this is, a democracy?

  • Comment number 78.

    Anyone, or any body, that manipulates the "science" to fit their preferred, some say "political", conclusion, cannot possibly be called a scientist. With our crushing loss of confidence in those people and indeed their argument for "Global Warming", they have no place in the scientific or political communities. As to the subject itself, I do not doubt there are cyclic variations in the Earth's climate, some long term, but will they cause me to change my lifestyle ? Absolutely not, but if we are all destined to return to the caves, I'll be driving there in my 4 X 4.

  • Comment number 79.

    While the, so called, Man made golbal warming, is a political football used by the likes of Labour and the EU to boost tax revenues I for one will never belive anything that these psuedo scientists print.

    The World has been warming up continually since the last ice age, and I suppose that the chance then was MAN MADE as well.

    The whole thing is just a political football to boost tax revenues for left wing governments and the EU.

  • Comment number 80.

    Let's not forget the roll the BBC World Service played in developing this scam. A reporter was sent to see how the poor little polar bears were coping with the intense heat at the north pole. Other world services, CNN, Fox etc did not constantly repeat the same message.
    Was the BBC, how can I say this, asked to broadcast this information by certain politicians I wonder?
    To conclude: The Greens are a commercially sponsored group of people who have a number of politicians and broadcasters in tow.
    If this scam is rising from the dead an impartial enquiry should be held to identify who the interested parties are, and then, legal action taken against them.

  • Comment number 81.

    Its amazing how many dismiss Climate change as a money making scam.
    The trouble is big industries who are doing the polluting don't want to make changes as their profits are affected, the consumer doesn't want to foot the bill either, everybody is just worried about cash as per usual.
    Lets assume that they are correct and the change either does not exisit or cannot be stopped - The worst we end up with is a cleaner planet with a better eco system if we try to cut our emmisions.
    However if the change can be stopped and we make no effort we are condemning the planet and future generations to horrendous change.
    I prefer to err on the side of safety.

  • Comment number 82.

    It seems like Ben Elton may have been a prophet when he wrote "Stark" things don't seem so funny now !

  • Comment number 83.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 84.

    Unfortunately this whole climate change fiasco has blown up in the faces of those who 'manufactured' evidence of human involvment. It cannot sit well with a species arrogant enough to believe in its intellectual superiority over everything to have something as simple as nature calling the shots.

    Once we had 'gods', 'priests', 'witch doctors', 'shaman', 'alchemists', to name but a few. "Now, ladies and gentlemen please give your very rapturous applause for the wonderful climate scientists of the IPCC"....

  • Comment number 85.

    "69. At 01:32am on 31 Aug 2010, mary gravitt wrote:"

    Hello Mary - I seem to notice similar weather changes in south east England.

    Having been lucky enough to have owned a boat a few years ago, and been at the mercy of the weather where holidays were concerned, I know that we now have much windier weather, and the winds are considerably stronger.

    When it rains it is often torrential - something which would have been unusual a few years back.

    When the weather is hot in summer it is well above the hot summer days of 20 years ago on a regular basis.

    Anyone remember the summers when you never went to work without an umbrella, regardless of how benign the morning looked, and ladies never went out without a cardigan or jacket because things invariably got a bit chilly?

    If the change in climate is man-made, whether there is still time to do anything about it is debatable.

    In England we are on the edge of the polar front. It is why our weather is so changeable. So when we have static high pressure in the summer for long periods of time on a regular basis it does suggest things have changed.

    The Gulf Stream is considerably weaker due to ice melt. Without it, we will have a similar climate to Canada. And our buildings and infrastructure are not designed to deal with that (even in Scotland).

    But as we don't believe it is happening/need proof it is our fault, we'll just carry on until there's no one left to affect the climate.

  • Comment number 86.

    Whether or not climate change is man made, and whether or not it is able to slowed down, the general message of using less oil and producing fewer polutants is still relevant. Oil isn't going to last forever, and I'd rather have the technology to continue with life when it does than have to rapidly think up a quick fix. I do admit that the hippy people, such as those who spend their time protesting outside RBS over oil should get a real job and contribute to society. They complained about RBS helping to fund oil companies, yet were shouting through a plastic megaphone. Plastic comes from, oh yeah, oil. People who make a show of being environmentally friendly without understanding the science (such as those who buy a Prius to be green, despite the damage that producing this car does) are one of the reasons why the critics won't make an effort. Environmentalism shouldn't be a religion, but some people are turning it into one.

  • Comment number 87.

    "79. At 07:10am on 31 Aug 2010, SnoddersB wrote:
    While the, so called, Man made golbal warming, is a political football used by the likes of Labour and the EU to boost tax revenues I for one will never belive anything that these psuedo scientists print.

    The World has been warming up continually since the last ice age, and I suppose that the chance then was MAN MADE as well."


    Is it not the issue that the climate is changing faster than it has done in the past?


  • Comment number 88.

    Light touch paper and stand well back, watch the usual tripe explode onto the HYS screen, even The Ghosts of John Galt shrugs his shoulders on this one and joins the sceptics. There is no doubt about climate change; the argument is about whether it is natural or manmade. Either way scientists mainly ignore that argument and crack on trying to figure it out, that’s what scientists do! People need to understand about science before commenting; it will take many years to understand climate change. It was not that long ago that scientists could only publish work after their deaths for fear of being burnt alive!
    ……………………………………
    70. At 01:51am on 31 Aug 2010, thelma wrote:
    Someone remind me once again of Al Gore's degree in climate science?
    …………………………………….
    So all of you are scientists and qualified to comment huh! There is no doubt that the climate is changing, if you can be bothered have a read about Copepods, ever heard of them! The debate about climate change on HYS is always the same, ignoramuses spouting nonsense.

  • Comment number 89.

    No.."Man" will not control the planet ...Further it only matter to "Man",if man disappears. It makes very little no difference to the planet,
    BUT if man want to stay around just that little bit longer so the he can "Planet Hop" ,then he should live within his Means and in the balance with the planet.

    the planet is a "finite" ecosystem that will only support so much Life ,Activity changes and RATE of changes.

    Such activities include population growth,the expansion of Land space and use of resourses associated with that expansion .

    Given the Numerous variety of differing politic and religious ideologies
    there is little chance of lasting agreement on climate control.
    The UN is made up of politicians Who think they speak and act for all on the planet .Clear they don't. policitians will never resolve the problem .



  • Comment number 90.

    Climate change. Yes. Well a start would be acknowledging that sceince does not back up the theory. Admit the sceptical have valid arguments and stop taking people for fools. Most have woke up to the climate change deceit.

  • Comment number 91.

    66. At 00:56am on 31 Aug 2010, Mitchell Inman wrote:

    Still, for the sake of argument, let's imagine that climate change is wrong. So we can all just continue our greedy, consumerist lifestyles without worrying, right? Well, no actually. Oil and other fossil fuels are still going to run out some day, and pollution is still a problem. Plus the fact that the West consumes far more than its share of the world's resources, and the rest of the world is already showing signs that it's not going to tolerate that much longer. The planet is going to be a very different place in a couple of generations, and probably mostly not for the better.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    That, to me, is the crux of the argument. Climate change is the least of our worries, sheer numbers of people is the big problem. This leads to increased pressure on all resources, with land and non-renewables being the prime targets, though water supplies will also be a big issue, see Mekong river for one example.

    Unfortunately, the powers that be, be they religious or governmental, understand that more people means more power, so they continue to encourage people to breed.

  • Comment number 92.

    It doesn't matter how they dress it up - it's still a load of rubbish. Look outside. What is actually wrong with the weather?
    -------------
    Bet you wouldn't have said that if you lived in Russia this summer!

    People need to understand there is a difference between the weather and climate.
    Comment number 3 says all that needs to be said on this topic.

  • Comment number 93.

    I think doleboy is just bitter that scepticism towards climate change is growing and widespread.

  • Comment number 94.

    It's not a climate change body. It's the church of the global warming believers.

  • Comment number 95.

    How can anyone look at short range climate data going back a few decades and trust computer models which struggle to produce even an accurate weekly weather forecast and conclude climate change is real? In 500 years we could look back and see if climate change occurred or not.

  • Comment number 96.

    The IPCC's best way to build credibility is to clearly demonstrate (and find universal agreement on) how man-made CO2 is measured and then make predictions as to how the climate will be in 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 years from now based on those man-made CO2 measurements.

    Science needs to be explicit and falsifiable, not vague and subjective.

    If the cause/effect link is there (rather than just coincidence) they should be able to do that. If they can then confirm their predictions in 5, 10, 20 years etc. it will be difficult to dispute.

    If politicians want us to take their climate taxes a bit less cynically then they should be tackling the biggest cause of just about every environmental problem: overpopulation. A government genuinely concerned that per-capita CO2 levels are destroying the planet would surely be at least offering incentives to those who have no or fewer children in order to stem the population explosion.

    I remain extremely cautious about man-made climate change and cannot commit one way or the other at the moment. Whilst I'm aware of things like 'tipping points' in chemical reactions I am not yet fully convinced that the tiny contribution man makes to CO2 levels is that relevant. Yet on the other side of the coin, we are part of the eco-system and it's difficult to imagine that 6 billion people don't have some effect on it.

    Credibility isn't helped when every climate 'event' that supports the IPCC's agenda seems to be immediately played up, yet when something happens that doesn't fit their agenda it's 'El Nino' or 'short-term weather systems' or somesuch. If MMGW is true then that may actually be the case but it does just seem a bit like cherry-picking in terms of finding climate events that fit. These things need to be considered in advance and factored into the IPCC's predictions, not simply reacted to when they occur.

  • Comment number 97.

    92. At 08:27am on 31 Aug 2010, steve wrote:

    [...]Comment number 3 says all that needs to be said on this topic.

    That being the comment that says: "We're losing the argument over AGW so now we need to find another excuse to attack freedom"?

    Out lifestyles always have and always will change and they will change in response to shortages of various replaceable resources, but never in the way priests and politicians want us to, and that is the core of the AGW scam; it is not that we can't live as we wish, it is that the unpleasantly puritan element that is so depressingly powerful don't approve and will sieze any excuse, regardless of how flimsy, to try to blackmail us into sharing their hair shirt masocism.

  • Comment number 98.

    39. At 10:15pm on 30 Aug 2010, edna teevee wrote:
    "Why does HYS continue to print contributions from people who deny climate change. etc"

    ********

    This attitude also pervades the scientific publishing community, where any research casting doubt on climate change can't get published. Combine this with the fact that no-one ever got research funding to say 'everything is fine', and things get a little biased.

    The attitude which tries to silence 'climate change denyers' is verging on semi-religious, and introduces susupicion that there's a conspiracy going on.

  • Comment number 99.

    Nothing will change things will not improve in fact why have still got a UN?
    Seems toi me it costs an absolute fortune to keep and does nothing, America certainly takes no notice of it and neither does Israel so whats the use?

  • Comment number 100.

    "I am. I think. I will.
    My hands . . . My spirit . . . My sky . . . My forest . . . This earth of mine. . . . What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer.
    I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this
    is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant
    for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.
    It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the
    hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgement of my mind is
    the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only
    edict I must respect.

    Many words have been granted me, and some are wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: "I will it!"
    Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the loadstone which point the way.
    They point in but one direction. They point to me. It is its own purpose.
    Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a
    servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.
    I am a Sovereign Rational Human Being. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!
    I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown away and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of spirit and mind. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my
    freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.
    I owe nothing to strangers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any
    others. I covet no other's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet." I am Freedom! source Project Gutenberg.

 

Page 1 of 7

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.