First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Aren't you just a walking hypocritical oxymoron. I was asking you not them, and that was the best you could come up with that we should put it to the scientists and "their assertion that there is no evidence" then to my utter amazement you turn right back around and say that you have to "go by what the scientist say and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal". Now maybe I missed something here but are you trying to sidestep the question with a rhetorical answer...because at this point I am asking you not them and if you can't give more to the discussion then "I have to believe the scientists, but I'm not going to believe everything that a crackpot scientist puts into a journal" then you are just polluting the thread with rhetoric. Ok... sure, if that doesn't scream oxymoron I don't know what does. Now I'm gonna ask you another question...in your infinite wisdom how exactly do "you" make the determination of which scientist are "crackpots" and which are not? Because at this point I think that is important information in this discussion.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

So far you're powers or logic are lost on me o'master of rhetorical statements, and this is where I have an issue, because logic does not dictate reality, and since you have invoked religion into this now tell us what you think personally not what someone else thinks. In the world of religion they call this blind faith, and I really would like to hear your thoughts not pre canned rhetoric, because after all God did give you a brain and you state you are using it to which I state there is no conclusive proof yet but we'll wait ten years and see. So please indulge me because I'm truly fascinated now.

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

I never claimed to know it all and I certainly am not hiding behind the scientists on this one. I do however find it amazing that you say you don't deny what has conclusively been shown to be the major causes of global warming but you also don't admit that humans are to blame for it. Here's an original thought lets stop trying to hide in a hole on this one and start changing as a species and really work on the things that are causing the pollution and if it turns out "10 years from now" that the "crackpot scientists" are wrong then what have we actually lost in this world....nothing I say if anything we have a cleaner planet with cleaner air. This is exactly the reason that people are telling you that you have your head in the sand, because it's this mentality to deny what you see and admit is an issue but because someone tells you it may not be "the issue" you want to bury your head without working on an obvious problems that will better the earth and nature as a whole.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth which has happened many times over millions of years?

You know you may be right but then again you may not I think the growing consensus is to not "wait for ten years and see". Just remember none of us were around millions of years ago so we really truly don't know unless you have proof?

You should learn to read mac. You are attributing crap to me that belongs elsewhere else and basically talking crap. I don't give a damn about Climate Change; find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

I read and write very well...thanks for noticing. I'm certainly not attributing "crap" to you as you so eloquently stated, but rather calling a spade a spade. Remember it's you that doesn't care about Climate Change so remind me again why are you still posting?

find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

Hey if the shoe fits wear it. Don't get me wrong take a stand speak you mind but be prepared to defend your position lest you become just another cautionary tale...for it's apathy that kills...

Apathy? I have crunched 250,000 credits for BBC Climate Change Experiment, and some for CPDN, and I'm apathetic? In truth I am disappointed and feel misled because I don't see any evidence after being conned into making this effort. But I still suspect there is something in it, which is why I keep chanting "show me the evidence". "Don't spend a fortune on fixing Climate Change if you have no evidence to prop up your dubious conclusions." ("Use the fortune to build more hospitals and schools etc".)

I worry the tipping point might be real and is coming any time now...

Shouldn't we all be worried about impending catastrophes to this planet?

Well it would be a good start...

I like how you put this...

In truth I am disappointed and feel misled because I don't see any evidence after being conned into making this effort. But I still suspect there is something in it, which is why I keep chanting "show me the evidence".

The above is brought to you by the letter "W" and supported by a generous grant from the West Texas Bushco Academy of Communication...

What you thought 250,000 credits and EUREKA they'd solve it and hand you conclusive proof. Wow...I hope when you get the next 5,000 credits and make it to 250,000 SETI credits you don't start asking for conclusive proof of aliens, because you're gonna feel really let down and conned then. Not to say that it isn't possible at some point in the future.

Some people can't see the forest through the trees, but what happens when there are no trees...will they then see the forest...somehow I doubt it. -Dark Angel-

---

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shall publish its 4th assessment report on February 2. See:
IPCC
Tullio

---

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shall publish its 4th assessment report on February 2. See:
IPCC
Tullio

Fixed the URL above (you forgot to add the "http:"). As to the IPCC, if they will release raw data, analysis methods, etc., I will be pleased to review their research. I am willing to be convinced, but have not found any research that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the climate change we see is man made.

It is a matter of emphasis on where the money is to be spent. Do not demand money for spending on prevention when preparation is what is required.

Fixed the URL above (you forgot to add the "http:"). As to the IPCC, if they will release raw data, analysis methods, etc., I will be pleased to review their research. I am willing to be convinced, but have not found any research that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the climate change we see is man made.

It is a matter of emphasis on where the money is to be spent. Do not demand money for spending on prevention when preparation is what is required.

Thanks for your correction. My Firefox browser did not mind. But are you saying
that climate change is man made or not?
Tullio

---

First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal.

Aren't you just a walking hypocritical oxymoron. I was asking you not them, and that was the best you could come up with that we should put it to the scientists and "their assertion that there is no evidence" then to my utter amazement you turn right back around and say that you have to "go by what the scientist say and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal". Now maybe I missed something here but are you trying to sidestep the question with a rhetorical answer...because at this point I am asking you not them and if you can't give more to the discussion then "I have to believe the scientists, but I'm not going to believe everything that a crackpot scientist puts into a journal" then you are just polluting the thread with rhetoric. Ok... sure, if that doesn't scream oxymoron I don't know what does. Now I'm gonna ask you another question...in your infinite wisdom how exactly do "you" make the determination of which scientist are "crackpots" and which are not? Because at this point I think that is important information in this discussion.

Skipping to your last statement "Stop listening to lobbyists and start thinking for yourself. REALLY!". That is EXACTLY what I am doing my friend Dark Angel. It is what God gave me a brain for ;)

So far you're powers or logic are lost on me o'master of rhetorical statements, and this is where I have an issue, because logic does not dictate reality, and since you have invoked religion into this now tell us what you think personally not what someone else thinks. In the world of religion they call this blind faith, and I really would like to hear your thoughts not pre canned rhetoric, because after all God did give you a brain and you state you are using it to which I state there is no conclusive proof yet but we'll wait ten years and see. So please indulge me because I'm truly fascinated now.

As for the rest of what you say, it's the same old thing; nobody is denying that there is a problem, nobody is denying that pollution is a problem, especially on a vast scale. But jumping to conclusions because your thought processes work in a certain way is not the same as proof of evidence of cause. Yes, you can deduce what 'may' be <part> of the cause. But don't try to say you know it all, when you simply don't.

I never claimed to know it all and I certainly am not hiding behind the scientists on this one. I do however find it amazing that you say you don't deny what has conclusively been shown to be the major causes of global warming but you also don't admit that humans are to blame for it. Here's an original thought lets stop trying to hide in a hole on this one and start changing as a species and really work on the things that are causing the pollution and if it turns out "10 years from now" that the "crackpot scientists" are wrong then what have we actually lost in this world....nothing I say if anything we have a cleaner planet with cleaner air. This is exactly the reason that people are telling you that you have your head in the sand, because it's this mentality to deny what you see and admit is an issue but because someone tells you it may not be "the issue" you want to bury your head without working on an obvious problems that will better the earth and nature as a whole.

It is quite possible that this is just one of nature's regular changes to the Earth which has happened many times over millions of years?

You know you may be right but then again you may not I think the growing consensus is to not "wait for ten years and see". Just remember none of us were around millions of years ago so we really truly don't know unless you have proof?

You should learn to read mac. You are attributing crap to me that belongs elsewhere else and basically talking crap. I don't give a damn about Climate Change; find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

I read and write very well...thanks for noticing. I'm certainly not attributing "crap" to you as you so eloquently stated, but rather calling a spade a spade. Remember it's you that doesn't care about Climate Change so remind me again why are you still posting?

find some other hypocritical oxymoron to vent your frustration on.

Hey if the shoe fits wear it. Don't get me wrong take a stand speak you mind but be prepared to defend your position lest you become just another cautionary tale...for it's apathy that kills...

Apathy? I have crunched 250,000 credits for BBC Climate Change Experiment, and some for CPDN, and I'm apathetic? In truth I am disappointed and feel misled because I don't see any evidence after being conned into making this effort. But I still suspect there is something in it, which is why I keep chanting "show me the evidence". "Don't spend a fortune on fixing Climate Change if you have no evidence to prop up your dubious conclusions." ("Use the fortune to build more hospitals and schools etc".)

I worry the tipping point might be real and is coming any time now...

Shouldn't we all be worried about impending catastrophes to this planet?

Well it would be a good start...

I like how you put this...

In truth I am disappointed and feel misled because I don't see any evidence after being conned into making this effort. But I still suspect there is something in it, which is why I keep chanting "show me the evidence".

The above is brought to you by the letter "W" and supported by a generous grant from the West Texas Bushco Academy of Communication...

What you thought 250,000 credits and EUREKA they'd solve it and hand you conclusive proof. Wow...I hope when you get the next 5,000 credits and make it to 250,000 SETI credits you don't start asking for conclusive proof of aliens, because you're gonna feel really let down and conned then. Not to say that it isn't possible at some point in the future.

Some people can't see the forest through the trees, but what happens when there are no trees...will they then see the forest...somehow I doubt it. -Dark Angel-

I'm not sure who the W you are referring to, but not 'everything' is America outside of America you know. I thought to mention this just in case you didn't know this 'fact'. And no, I wasn't hoping that 250,000 useless, worthless BOINC credits would buy me 'the' answer, just 'a' answer, a smidgen of a hint of some 'tiny' bit of evidence. As for aliens? I don't believe in them. It's all total rubbish to think they might exist. Yet...... who can dare challenge what God decides to create..... ? So what does my belief matter but to show that the brain I was born with has weaknesses and gives me useless thoughts and beliefs. So, I err on caution. Show me the evidence! Show me an alien, show me God, show me Climate Change Causation!

I am, actually, openly visioned and hopeful to see the evidence.

---

flaming balloons

I wasn't hoping that 250,000 useless, worthless BOINC credits would buy me 'the' answer, just 'a' answer, a smidgen of a hint of some 'tiny' bit of evidence. As for aliens? I don't believe in them. It's all total rubbish to think they might exist. Yet...... who can dare challenge what God decides to create..... ? So what does my belief matter but to show that the brain I was born with has weaknesses and gives me useless thoughts and beliefs. So, I err on caution. Show me the evidence! Show me an alien, show me God, show me Climate Change Causation!

I am, actually, openly visioned and hopeful to see the evidence.

Isn't imagination grand?

Having been a SETI cruncher almost exclusively (by choice) I never really looked at CPDN closely but find it interesting that even after the above discussion in previous posts on PROOF of cause by humans...it isn't even what the CPDN project is about.

From their website:

"The aim of climateprediction.net is to investigate the approximations that have to be made in state-of-the-art climate models (read more about this). By running the model thousands of times (a 'large ensemble') we hope to find out how the model responds to slight tweaks to these approximations - slight enough to not make the approximations any less realistic. This will allow us to improve our understanding of how sensitive our models are to small changes and also to things like changes in carbon dioxide and the sulphur cycle. This will allow us to explore how climate may change in the next century under a wide range of different scenarios. In the past estimates of climate change have had to be made using one or, at best, a very small ensemble (tens rather than thousands!) of model runs. By using your computers, we will be able to improve our understanding of, and confidence in, climate change predictions more than would ever be possible using the supercomputers currently available to scientists."

It looks to me that they are simply trying to produce the most accurate climate prediction models that they can. That's it...they aren't looking for conclusive proof of human cause, but rather they are looking for more accuracy in what ultimately is used to determine in advance what your weather man tells you in their forecast. I don't think you would find anything truly earth shattering doing that project, but it is nobel research and I have nothing against nobel research.

I would say that if you are feeling let down and conned just remember that feeling the next time you are told it will rain on a given day, you prepare, and when you find yourself in the rain and prepared for it then you can look at the 250,000+ credits that you amassed and with a smile on your face you can say I helped with the system that advised me to prepare for the rain. If you are looking for "the" evidence or "a" piece of evidence you are looking in the wrong place with CPDN. However if you are looking for evidence of ET then SETI is where it's at.

I do want to note that just a few hundred years ago society persecuted many "crackpot" scientists for their ideas that the world was round or that the sun didn't actually revolve around the earth but rather the earth revolved around the sun. In their time that was cutting edge science. I find the same issues with persecuting scientist today who say that humans are responsible for climate change. Well why not when we have the power to change the world as we see fit. (i.e...dams, deforestation, draining wetlands, overfishing, our extensive use of fossil fuels, use of DDT and and many other pesticides, and our use of GMO's to name but a few) What I'm simply saying is it's a little too late to say that humans have not had a MAJOR impact on the earth and nature, and if that can be seen then why is it so hard for society and government to wrap their heads around accepting that we as humans are the cause, and move to balance what we have upset. I know that the polar bear isn't responsible for it's loss of habitat, and many other extinctions likely wouldn't have happened if humans weren't responsible for messing up the delicate balance of nature like a bull in a china shop. To deny that we are the cause is short sighted at best!

---

Isn't imagination grand?

What I'm simply saying is it's a little too late to say that humans have not had a MAJOR impact on the earth and nature, and if that can be seen then why is it so hard for society and government to wrap their heads around accepting that we as humans are the cause, and move to balance what we have upset. I know that the polar bear isn't responsible for it's loss of habitat, and many other extinctions likely wouldn't have happened if humans weren't responsible for messing up the delicate balance of nature like a bull in a china shop. To deny that we are the cause is short sighted at best!

It is simple to imagine, and it can be simple to state the obvious.

But let's cut to the chase, for the sake of argument. Let's just say that Man has been ripping out Earth's resources, particularly in the last 200 years or so, to give us all such wonderful lives; 2 cars each family, a nice house with decent PCs and toasters, and money in the bank. And then suddenly we find in doing the ripping we have caused serious problems to this planet, that Mankind could be in serious jeopardy.

We have to do something. Do what? Every 'what' means spending lots of money - LOTS of it. Spending it means we have to do without. Only one car each family, a smaller house, half a toaster and no money in the bank to buy a new PC every 6 months.

Sorry, don't want to know. Lets muddle the arguments, lets blame America for not signing up to Kyoto, lets argue and procrastinate - let's do anything but seriously try to work out what is going on and seriously do something about it fast, before Gods' investment in Man has to be written off and he has to start again.

What use is there in crunching for Climate or Aliens but to advance science, and what better thing can there be for Man than science, unless he doesn't use it?

[edit] Your web link doesn't work Dark Angel

---

flaming balloons

Isn't imagination grand?

What I'm simply saying is it's a little too late to say that humans have not had a MAJOR impact on the earth and nature, and if that can be seen then why is it so hard for society and government to wrap their heads around accepting that we as humans are the cause, and move to balance what we have upset. I know that the polar bear isn't responsible for it's loss of habitat, and many other extinctions likely wouldn't have happened if humans weren't responsible for messing up the delicate balance of nature like a bull in a china shop. To deny that we are the cause is short sighted at best!

It is simple to imagine, and it can be simple to state the obvious.

But let's cut to the chase, for the sake of argument. Let's just say that Man has been ripping out Earth's resources, particularly in the last 200 years or so, to give us all such wonderful lives; 2 cars each family, a nice house with decent PCs and toasters, and money in the bank. And then suddenly we find in doing the ripping we have caused serious problems to this planet, that Mankind could be in serious jeopardy.

We have to do something. Do what? Every 'what' means spending lots of money - LOTS of it. Spending it means we have to do without. Only one car each family, a smaller house, half a toaster and no money in the back to buy a new PC every 6 months.

Now we come full circle with my earlier statement that APATHY KILLS! So I'm sensing about now that your preferred course of action is "inaction". Remember that all the stuff that you speak of was unthought of many years ago. Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying roll society and human life back to the stone age, but what I am saying is cut the fat. Cut out the big fuel sucking engines (i.e....the Hummer) nobody needs an engine that produces over 200 horse power yet today manufactures continue to channel advances into engine efficiency in the internal combustion engine into gains in horse power. We can invest in better technology that is more energy efficient i.e. smart cars in Europe and hybrids in the US. Which sends major signals to big business to change. Let's face it people like luxury, but what I'm saying is luxury with social responsibility and, and better choices that are more energy efficient may have more cost on the front end but the savings over the long run more then makes up for it not to mention that it creates a better environment. Besides if we could all say that our way of life is making less of a negative impact globally then as a whole we are headed in the right direction. Society it's akin to a large ship in that it doesn't turn on a dime but with course corrections it can change over the long run and the damage that we cause can be corrected. The problem is social responsibility or lack of.

Sorry, don't want to know. Lets muddle the arguments, lets blame America for not signing up to Kyoto, lets argue and procrastinate - let's do anything but seriously try to work out what is going on and seriously do something about it fast, before Gods' investment in Man has to be written off and he has to start again.

Wow...now there is good point used as a lackluster and misguided argument..."lets blame America for not signing up to Kyoto"...hey I am an American and I do blame the American government for not signing up to Kyoto but you're again trying to play the blame game of it's America's fault solely for the purpose of not having to look into the mirror and admit to yourself that as you put it earlier "I don't care about climate change". Now your argument doesn't show much credence to self responsibility which is simply lacking in this world period. Hey America may not have it together yet but there is real progress being made here, and I expect and demand to see more in the future. Politics is politics regardless of where you go, but change doesn't have to come from government to be effective. Change can start with you, me, or anyone, and if enough people change then society will change and government along with it. So sit up on your pedestal and blame the next guy or come down to ground level and take action...remember apathy kills!

What use is there in crunching for Climate or Aliens but to advance science, and what better thing can there be for Man than science, unless he doesn't use it?

I couldn't have said that last part better myself.

I do know it's easy for the people of the world to look at America and see a monster but remember America is a nation for the people by the people and of the people and as such it is important to note that the people just seized control of the balances key to reigning in the monster that everyone sees. While people see that monster as being America you have to look deeper to the currently flawed state of affairs when it comes to big business and government being in bed together...if we as the people can fix that then we as the the people can slay the monster that everyone sees and who knows maybe then Kyoto will be signed, and we can take the further steps necessary to advance change. However don't use that as an excuse for not changing because the individual is empowered with choice and it is the choices that we make that will make a difference in the world.

"Think globally act locally" ring any bells?

---

Fixed the URL above (you forgot to add the "http:"). As to the IPCC, if they will release raw data, analysis methods, etc., I will be pleased to review their research. I am willing to be convinced, but have not found any research that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the climate change we see is man made.

It is a matter of emphasis on where the money is to be spent. Do not demand money for spending on prevention when preparation is what is required.

Thanks for your correction. My Firefox browser did not mind. But are you saying
that climate change is man made or not?
Tullio

I am saying that there is no convinving evidence that the climate change we are seeing has been effected in any but the most miniscule part by mankind's agency.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. My point is that current efforts to affect the climate, such as Kyoto, are idiotic because they are are not addressing the need to plan and execute provisions to mitigate the effects of a warming climate.

removed duplicate post

I am saying that there is no convinving evidence that the climate change we are seeing has been effected in any but the most miniscule part by mankind's agency.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. My point is that current efforts to affect the climate, such as Kyoto, are idiotic because they are are not addressing the need to plan and execute provisions to mitigate the effects of a warming climate.

Others may differ. See this:
Climatic change
Tullio

---

Bill,

Have you looked at the wiki for Milankovitch Theory? Surely you can't have read it. I say this purely from a quote from the page...."Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years."

So let me see. You are placing all your ideas on a theory that says we should be experiencing long term cooling for the next 23,000 years and yet we are experiencing global warming.

I have to agree that either insolation theory or orbital inclination theory explain the variations we see in this graph (23k, 41k and 100k years).


But they in no way explain what has happened recently. The "natural" cycle peaks at 280 to 300ppm CO2. There have been no sustained volcanic eruptions to cause a steady increase in CO2 levels. With volcanic activity we expect one off peaks.

Have you done the calculations that show that with approx 15 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted by man annually into the atmosphere that the CO2 levels would increase by 6ppm annually if none was absorbed by vegitation. But since we have the Amazon rainforest which absorbs around 1.7ppm per year and reducing as it is cut down, and the northern hemisphere forests that absorb upto 3ppm per year and reducing as they are cut down we get to the below graph.

So if we have a bad year for forest fires around the world that add more CO2 into the atmosphere the CO2 levels can only increase further.

This all looks pretty cut and dry to me. Yes astronomical cycles account for natural variation in the worlds climate, but in the last 100 to 150 years we have broken out of that cycle and man is now influencing the worlds CO2 levels and it has been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This can only mean that the world's temperature is going to go up.

Live long and BOINC.

Paul.

400th POST!

---

me@rescam.org

Fixed the URL above (you forgot to add the "http:"). As to the IPCC, if they will release raw data, analysis methods, etc., I will be pleased to review their research. I am willing to be convinced, but have not found any research that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that the climate change we see is man made.

It is a matter of emphasis on where the money is to be spent. Do not demand money for spending on prevention when preparation is what is required.

Thanks for your correction. My Firefox browser did not mind. But are you saying
that climate change is man made or not?
Tullio

I am saying that there is no convinving evidence that the climate change we are seeing has been effected in any but the most miniscule part by mankind's agency.

It is my belief, absent convincing evidence to the contrary, that the current climate change is well within the boundries of established planetary cycles involving solar energy input, the factors mentioned in the Milankovich Theory and the effects of volcanic activity.

I do not dispute evidence of climate change or the necessity to address the effects of same. My point is that current efforts to affect the climate, such as Kyoto, are idiotic because they are are not addressing the need to plan and execute provisions to mitigate the effects of a warming climate.

Well believe what you want but Kyoto was not intended to deal with the effects it was intended to deal with the potential causes, call it preventative medicine or reactive medicine. I don't believe that there is a silver bullet that will fix it all, and I do see that a climate shift is coming (it's already started). While I may not agree with you on your points I respect that you are taking a position without the double talk. On the other hand I do think that the evidence is clear that we are outside of the normal cycle in that the current spike in temperature has happened over the period of a few decades rather then over a few centuries. It is easy to look at the past cycles and see that in planetary terms each spike is but a blink of an eye but in human time it is happening much quicker then ever before. If we are to look at the possible causes of this and nothing is amiss with nature (i.e. volcanic activity) then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that human action is the cause, because we are the only species that has not naturally reached an equilibrium with nature.

---

Every living breathing creature on this planet contribute to Global Warming. And there are more now than EVER.

---

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)

Every living breathing creature on this planet contribute to Global Warming. And there are more now than EVER.

Yes, while I agree in general principle with what you stated; we as humans are the only species capable directing change, and we are certainly the species that pollutes the planet the most and consumes the most natural resources; therefor by default we are the species to which the most blame goes. Again this is due to the fact that we are the only species that does not naturally reach an equilibrium with nature.

---

As scientists, "expert" scientists, in the field of Climate Change I asked them for evidence, and they said there was none. As in nothing; as in "no evidence at all".

It's not me looking at graphs and making my own interpretation, it is asking scientists whether there is any evidence, and the scientists saying no.

That is not true acording to what you can find her...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

and here
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/debate.aspx?did=1&pg=26

---

Every living breathing creature on this planet contribute to Global Warming. And there are more now than EVER.

Yes, while I agree in general principle with what you stated; we as humans are the only species capable directing change, and we are certainly the species that pollutes the planet the most and consumes the most natural resources; therefor by default we are the species to which the most blame goes. Again this is due to the fact that we are the only species that does not naturally reach an equilibrium with nature.

Quite often people will state overpopulation as a major reason for climate change, directly or indirectly.

I often sit in a car, or in a train, or on a motorcycle, and even looked out of an aeroplane recently and saw such open spaces, miles and 10s of miles or 100s of miles with no buildings or sight of people. Bags of room for plenty more as far as I can see.

---

flaming balloons

As scientists, "expert" scientists, in the field of Climate Change I asked them for evidence, and they said there was none. As in nothing; as in "no evidence at all".

It's not me looking at graphs and making my own interpretation, it is asking scientists whether there is any evidence, and the scientists saying no.

That is not true acording to what you can find her...

I am telling you that I asked them, and what their reply was.

Why can't we just have a conversation and ask someone in the know, without muddling everything with "go and read that library, read all those websites, and all those journals while you’re at it.".

They are scientists. Ask them a simple question. Is there any evidence? Yes or No?

A squad full of bumph on a website is not evidence!

---

flaming balloons

I am telling you that I asked them, and what their reply was.

Then you need to read it again, aperanly you did not se this...

"
The current rise in CO2 levels is anthropogenic and isn't one of the changes that have occurred since the Earth was formed.

When the recent anthropogenic rises in CO2 levels are included in climate models, the hindcasts provide reasonable approximations of the real climate that occurred. When anthropogenic CO2 is excluded from the models, the hindcasts are no longer accurate and produce lower temperatures than actually occurred.
____________
"

---