MangoChutney

Perhaps blind funding would help, like they do when testing drugs, although there would still be the biase of the researcher as outlined above?

Exactly. I just want the man to declare a vested interest in promoting MMGW

my 2c: there are 2 "cents"

Al Gore is chairman and co-founder of a company (Generation Investment Management) that is making millions of dollars out of investing in "green" technology

Hi guys Apologies for not replying sooner - I've been very busy over the summer period. Thank you both for the information The reason I am helping is because she lives in Poland and it is very difficult for her to contact people in the UK, but you are, of course, correct, that it would look much better if she was to find her own job. As for America, I don't mean any disrespect to the Americans, but, unfortunately, America would let her anywhere near their country without going through the hoops, especially as I am English! Any other advice would be grateful received

We may have to disagree on Al Gores motives, but when nearly everybody is holding up Al Gores movie as the last word in climate change, personally I think he should declare his financial interests in advance of releasing the movie I haven't questioned your facts, I think that may have been somebody else. I think there is no denying facts from reputable sources, but even the most pro-mmgw believer must accept that facts are open to agendas from either the scientists involved or more likely the politician who presents them. I am sceptical of MMGW, although I do think we must be partly responsible - pumping pollution into the air for decades and not causing problems can only last so long before mother nature says "enough already", but I read many things that makes me think there is more to this than just CO2 being pumped into the air. I accept that I am no expert in this field and have to rely on media reports, which are generally based on which ever way the wind happens to be blowing that day - much the same as any politician nearing election day, and reports that I can find on the internet. I try to check out these reports, but it's not easy for a layman I think I am open minded enough to be persueded into believing GW is man made, but I have many questions and is the reason I joined SFN, because I thought there would be answers to these questions We agree the earths electromagnetism has decreased significantly over the last century at the same time that the earths temperature rises and the climate changes. Could there be a link? We know the electromagnetism helps deflect cosmic rays, so the decrease in the earths field must allow more through. We also know cosmic rays help cause the formation of cloud cover (Edward Ney, 1959, Marsh and Svensmark, 2000), which helps to keep the earth warm. I believe CERN are currently doing an experiment to see if the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation, which should test this idea. Apologies if the link didn't work, not sure why, must have been a typo Again, I am not arguing against the facts you shared, what I am saying is many archeologists believe the North Sea flooded very quickly (the same that many scientists believe GW is MM). The water likely came from melting ice caps. For the ice caps to melt so quickly, there must have been a rapid temperature rise. Whether or not this was caused by sun activity, CO2 or a change in the earths magnetism, I don't know, but I can't see how it could be MMGW Natural events can cause very rapid changes in temperature My point here is the scientists release data that is used to convince others that global warming has reached a tipping point sparking the usual headlines from the media. This data was based on a single survey that proves to be totally wrong only a few years later. Facts can sometimes be wrong Finally, INow, I accept that I am no expert in these things and I am grateful for peoples time on this forum to point out where I am going wrong or have my facts / ideas wrong. I have a genuine desire to understand and a genuine need not to see my tax money spent on everything "green", especially when I hear about millions of people dying throughout the world, because they don't have clean water - something we could fix now at minimal cost, if we had the political will. I drive a small 2 seater, economical car, started recycling before it became fashionable and I don't waste water, electricity or heating. I don't think I am the typical sceptic, but I accept I could be wrong

Sorry, still new to this type of thing Generation Investment Management - http://www.generationim.com/ Magnetic field - http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm Doggerland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(prehistoric) (type 1 flood - "Very flat land being steadily flooded over a long time as the sea rises, sometimes fast enough to be easily noticed in a human's lifetime." ) North Atlantic Driftv - http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12494&feedId=climate-change_rss20

I agree with much of what you say, Jackson I am not against investigating the phenomena and do believe that man may be partially responsible, as well as believing we should take care of our environment regardless of whether or not it is us. What irks me is Al Gore making a fortune through MMGW through his company Generation Investment Management, while preaching the MMGW message. I think a man making millions of dollars per annum out of MMGW is a little biased. There is so much we don't know about the climate such as does the 6% decrease in the earths electromagnetism over the last 100 years, account for any of the global warming we are experiencing, what caused the North Sea to flood 8000 years ago? I think it was in 2005 that the North Atlantic Drift was reported as slowing down by 30% and this could plunge Europe into an ice-age, but now the same people who did the original survey are saying that their "evidence" was based on a single survey in 2003 and the Drift happens naturally and is VERY variable If these scientists can get it so wrong, what about the rest of us JHMO

I read that cosmic rays are deflected by the earths electromagnetism, but electromagnetism has decreased over the last 100 years by around 6%, which means more cosmic rays are reaching the earths surface. Is this true?

Any idea how that translates to Gt CO2 used in the chart?

Sorry, to sound naive, but why is CO2 a pollutant? CO2 is a major building block of most natural food chains, starting with plants and working it's way up through the food chain to meat eating predators including us. Without CO2 almost all current life on earth would simply die There are also arguments that increased CO2 would be beneficial for plant growth CO2 a pollutant? Seems a strange pollutant that encourages beneficial growth Although, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't control other pollutants and reduce CO2 emissions

Icemelt's chart is from the IPCC AR4 document The UK government used this type of information to impose additional taxes on air travellers The camp at Heathrow includes protestors from other countries. I'm pretty sure they didn't get to Heathrow on their bicycles What would be interesting is natural CO2 emissions were overlaid, so we could see exactly where all the CO2 was coming from and how it compared with man made emissions

Never Child pornography is not a victimless crime, even when the porn is old porn and you have to realise that most child abuse is by a member of the childs family or immediate friends of the family. I know this appears to be a knee jerk reaction, but I strongly believe that child pornography can never be justified

In the UK at least, I am sure the majority of the politicians do not share my view, but see GW as a way of extracting even more taxes. If GW isn't a way of extracting even more taxes, why don't they allow renewables and energy saving measures to be VAT free? VAT is charged on everything at 17.5%. Why are they bulldozing whole neighbourhoods and rebuilding them, when bringing the existing housing up to modern standards is much more energy efficient and cheaper? Why is VAT charged on bringing these houses uptodate and not on new build houses? Why is a possible (part) solution to GW ignored? The use of intensive and extensive roof gardens could help to reduce temperatures by 4C, attenuate rain water flooding and freshen the air But as the temperature rises so does the capacity for the atmosphere to retain more water vapour. Give me a chance to re-read and I will try to remember to come back to you on this one The BBC is a very left wing organisation and tends to be a little biased on it's reporting these days. Gone are the days when the BBC presented balanced reporting. Refer to the following, which indicate rapid flooding of the North Sea http://www.arch-ant.bham.ac.uk/research/fieldwork_research_themes/projects/North_Sea_Palaeolandscapes/project_outline/01_Introduction.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(prehistoric) In part, yes. I don't want my money being spent on trying to solve a crisis that may not exist. In the UK, we are already one of the most taxed nations in the world. We pay petrol duty and VAT at around 90%, we pay green tax on flights, they are looking at pay-as-you-drive schemes on top of road tax and petrol taxes, the list will become endless as they come up with more schemes to tax us. But the other part is, we have to accept that global warming is happening, because we can measure the rise in temperature. We know this will effect the poorest people in the world, who already suffer from the effects on dirty water etc. If I am going to have punitive taxes forced on me, I want the money spent on providing clean water, sanitation etc for the millions affected, not on some climatic event that may be natural. I drive a small 2 seater car that is economically good, although because I work from home, I don't use the car often, choosing to walk most places, I have recycled long before it became fashionable, and I do try to be as environmentally aware as I can be. The reason I started this thread is because I genuinely want to try to find both sides and understand what is happening. I find it shocking that an EU conference on GW hosted by Lord Lawson, former chancellor in the UK, to give a voice to the climate, and other, scientists who did not believe GW was MM, received very little or no media reporting - not even to laugh at their theories. Thanks for all contributions, I am trying to look at the websites and understand more about this phenomena, so please keep suggestions coming in You mean this didn't happen? Damn! Thanks for the links, I will look at them, although a brief look does mention that abrupt climate change can happen naturally http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html#rates

Sorry john, the rules say no going under or over I think the only solution is as i've drawn, although not strictly in accordance with the rules, the rules don't explicitly exclude my solution