MangoChutney

If black skin colour in humans was the original colour, wouldn't the "cure" need to be for white / red / yellow / blue with pink dots skin? We are the ones that have changed the colour of our skin.

I am not sure that is actually "diametrically opposed" in the sense that I meant You seem to be saying that freedom of speech is as important as a persons right to be gay, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but I think their is a world of a difference between having a politically incorrect laugh at somebody else's expense and wanting to hang people because of their sexuality as can happen in several Muslim countries

Accepted, although quoted out of context, and nature clearly didn't intend us to be vegetarians. What I actually said was: "I am not sure there is sufficient arable land in the world to support 6 billion vegetarians AND grow bio-everything" And I seriously doubt if there is enough arable land to support a vegetarian lifestyle, grow crops for fuel, energy etc etc

I am not sure there is sufficient arable land in the world to support 6 billion vegetarians AND grow bio-everything - there certainly isn't in the UK and I do believe humans are not intended to be vegetarians, although I concede we probably eat too much meat. I always wonder, in the mad rush to grow bio-everything, does it really make sense to cut down forests to grow sugar cane? For myself, I prefer fish with lots of fruit, veg and nuts and only eat red meat once, maybe twice a week

As long as you don't have your finger on the "button" it's ok isn't it?

I'm a live and let live kind of guy, although I lean to the right What I think will be interesting is when the ideological left have to choose between defending the right of gay people to have a civil ceremony to recognise their commitment to each other and the Muslim community (amongst others) right to denounce the gay lifestyle Is it possible to support diametrically opposed rights at the same time?

WOW! I thought I had registered solely with upstanding citizens not dangerous deviant sexual perverts - glad I came here now ;-) Seriously, I have to take issue with this and wonder if it is posted tongue-in-cheek The animal kingdom is generally dominated by predators, who kill, not for fun, but for food. The victims of preditors could hardly be described as consenting to be eaten, so killing animals, even when reared on farms, is hardly immoral, because it happens throughout the animal kingdom. You only have to look at our teeth to show we are natural meat eaters, although we are obviously omnivores rather than strict carnivores. I am not aware of any animals that choose to have sex with completely different species. I accept that some animals of closely related species do mate, but, another flaw in your argument, their offspring do survive, although they are unable to reproduce themselves. I wouldn't like to be caught under the offfspring of an eagle and a cow! lol Animals enjoy sex? Not that I am aware of. Animals get excited by the mating season not by enjoyment of sex, in the way that a human enjoys sex. The only species that I am aware of that engages in sex outside of the mating season is the chimp, but the chimp uses sex as a means of establishing a pecking order, not as enjoyment of sex as an end in itself. With your reasoning it would be possible to assume that sex with children was also acceptable, as even children are more intelligent than animals, but there can never be consent from a child, because children are far too easily influenced by adults, which is why paedophilia is thankfully illegal and always will be. I do actually believe that what happens between 2 consenting adults is strictly between them, but there can never be consent between a human and an animal, it is simply not possible.

It seems to me, we agree on quite a lot (conservation etc), just not what is at the root cause of this phenomena

Foodchain I do agree with the above, but what if there is nothing we can do about it? Wouldn't the vast sums of money being spent trying to find a "cure", be better spent on learning to adapt? Helping the millions of people world wide who have no access to clean water, would save more people world wide than combating global warming, although over population could be one of the causes Like I have said, recycling and not wasting the earths resources should, IMHO, be compulsory, because it it down right crazy to waste anything, but the world wide effort to combat something that may be natural seems to me to be as big a waste of resources, both financial and manpower. That is not to say that we shouldn't be looking into the causes of global warming. What we really need to blind funding away from big business and politics, to properly investigate and try to mitigate this phenomena

Foodchain Agreed and I accept what you say about Venus etc, but CO2 makes up a tiny amount of the earth's atmosphere. I accept man is contributing to global warming, just not the extent that the politicians would have us believe. A far more likely contribution to climate change is land use and deforestation, which, as I have said before, is being exasperated by the mad rush towards bio-everything. I seriously question if there is sufficient arable land in the world to satisfy the need for food and bio-everything. Cutting down forests to plant sugar cane to supple "green" energy seems madness to me. But water vapour is a more potent GHG and we know very little about cloud formation, although hopefully the CERN experiment based on Svensmark's theory will spread some light on this. CO2 is not a pollutant, but is essential to plant growth, but then it is far easier to tax CO2 than clouds! Incidentally, I have a "cure" for global warming that would have lots of other benefits too, such as cleaner air, less flooding and a nicer environment! Roof gardens, both intensive and extensive, have the ability to soak up CO2, attenuate rainwater, clean the air and look pretty. Add to all of this the ability for the soft landscape to absorb more of the heat from the sun (as opposed to hard landscape and roof tiling, which reflects the heat) and we are on a winning streak! One study suggests a green roof can reduce temperatures by as much as 4C in towns and cities. The problem in the UK is public perception of flat roofs and contractors perceived problems with leaks and costs. Planners like them but the public want little boxes with pitched roofs and tiles, so planners generally don't approve them. Contractors have a resistance to anything remotely innovative, so won't even go down that route. The other thing I wanted to say was I am seriously concerned that reporting of the reasons for global warning is very one sided. In April 2007, Lord Lawson chaired a forum for GW sceptics in the European parliament, which was attended by many noted climate scientists I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but as far as I know, there was no media reports of this event, not even reports to scoff at their discussion and conclusions. Of course, I could be wrong, I don't read everything, but if anybody has a report on this I would like to read it

1veedo True, but it does prove rapid climate change occurs without human intervention. Biblical stories of flooding seem to be true. I believe it is the latest news, but it's always difficult for laymen to know if there is anything later or if it has been refuted. With climate models, Climate models struggle to "predict" past climate correctly and yet we believe they can predict the future. Given the chaotic nature of the atmosphere and the shear number of variables, how can they possible be correct, especially when the climate modellers introduce fudge factors to get the answers they want? The whole cloud process is practically impossible to model, but, I think you will agree, clouds have a very important effect on our climate. How do you model The Butterfly Effect? My understanding is there is less agreement on changes in precipitation and atmospheric circulation than agreement on temperature changes. It seems to me that MMGW believers claim the reliability of models by selecting the most alarming bits to suit their argument. The other thing I never understand is the obsession with CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. Surely more CO2 in the air means more plant growth, which is just the thing we need to tackle climate change, especially with all the nitrates we are pumping out? I strongly believe we should not waste earths resources, because I think waste of anything is simply crazy. I recycled before it was trendy and I drive a small 2 seater car, so I am not exactly the 4 x 4 driving, I'm all right jack sceptic.

Just curious Robert, what is it you are making with potassium?

1veedo I know gravity varies across the planet - the lower you are, the greater the pull of gravity, so at sea level gravity is stronger than stood on a mountain top. I think also there is a difference between the poles and the equator, but I can't remember which way round it is. Canadians are actually lighter than Americans and I'm not trying to be facetious here. In answer to your question, do I have a mechanism for climate change based on the weakening gravitational field - no. Like I said, I am just an interested bystander, but it seems to me that changes in gravity must have an effect on the planet, as it is a big reason why we are here and not floating around in space. When I say the North Sea flooded around 8000 years ago and the time it took was within a human lifespan, I was merely pointing out that climate change can occur within a very short space of time without human intervention. I wasn't saying the flooding of the North Sea, the land was called Doggerland btw, caused climate change. The flooding was more than likely caused by melting of glaciers / ice caps (the Scottish tsunami would have brought a rapid flood and draining rather than the persistent flood). On the subject of glaciers / ice caps, I read that Greenland wasn't losing ice mass and may be gaining mass, although it is losing ice at the margins the interior is actually gaining ice mass. http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/sealevelgreenland.jsp I also read a similar thing was happening in Antarctica, where the west peninsular was losing mass, but the interior and east were actually gaining mass. (No link - sorry) On the subject of Antarctica, the continents average temperature is something like -50C, if the planet warmed by 10C, accepting the poles warmed more than the rest of the planet, would a warming of 20C in Antarctica cause the ice to melt, because it would still be -30C on average? If that much ice was to melt, would it really raise sea level, because the ice that is subject to most melt actually floats on the sea and therefore displaces it's own weight? Assuming, as has been reported that when the ice melts, sea level will rise by anything up to 5 metres according to Hansen (although we should bear in mind he is not a glaciologist and therefore this is just his opinion), surely introducing that much cold water into the sea would have a net effect of counteracting sea level rise caused by rising temperatures causing expansion of the sea? As far as statistics are concerned I'm in the same camp as SkepticLance - I simply don't know enough to comment, but I do believe that in the right hands statistics are important, but the moment somebody wants to make a point to support their particular argument, they have a tendency to be fudged - I mean this on both sides of the argument btw. I do accept btw that the planet is warming

SkepticLance Good point and one with which I agree 1veedo Surely the IPCC admitting that there is little evidence of how large scale temperatures have changed over the last few thousands years is a salient point that cannot be dismissed in a couple of paragraphs tucked away in a weighty document that is intended to commit the world to very high expenditure and potentially condemn the third world to more poverty? I'm not a lawyer, but I think in a court of law, the sceptics would have a field day with these lines. That's a very confident answer. Have you considered the weakening of the magnetic field by 10% since Roman times, the natural flooding of the North Sea 8000 years ago within a human lifespan, Canada having less gravity than the rest of the world, which is still on the rebound from the last ice age, the orbit of the earth around the sun which is not perfect? Sorry, if that sounds combative, but I'm a sceptic who is willing to admit I am wrong, because I do have doubts and believe that we are a little to blame, mostly through population, change of land, deforestation (which ironically will be made worse by the rush to bio-everything), etc I agree, but think about how many bureaucrats would be out of work if they all packed up and went home I seem to recall that eugenics was very popular amongst politicians and scientists during the early 20th century throughout the world and it was only after Hitler used it as an excuse to wage war that people started to change their minds. Seems to me that the great and the good get it wrong sometimes and the lone voice gets it right Bacsule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics I am willing to be converted to the new faith, but at the moment I remain sceptical, although I am pleased to have found a debate that offers argument and not shouting thanks guys

The GGWS broadcast by C4 in the UK really should be treated with extreme caution, mostly because it's director / producer was Martin Durkin, who is an ex-member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and is also the author of other such programs, which have selectively edited contributors statements to give the view that the director wishes to express and not the original view of the contributor. Google his name and you will see Al Gore's film should also be treated with extreme caution, because of Al Gore's role in Generation Investment Management and the considerable sums of money he is earning off the back of GW What we really need is Horizon to do an in-depth investigation into the causes, presenting both sides of the discussion and balanced, not sensational, reporting in the press JMHO

Not sure if this is a legitimate question on these forums My fiancee is studying chemical and process engineering in Poland and will move here next summer, after we marry and she graduates She will then need to look for her first job, but there are few places in Dorset where she will be able to work, so it looks like we will have to move Her main interest is in polymers and brewing beer, but I am trying to push her towards pharmaceuticals or cosmetics, because I think she will always have a job making face creams for women (and men!), but (and don't tell her this) also she can then brew beer at home as a hobby Not even knowing anything about her studies, can anybody suggest the best places to find work - websites, companies in Dorset , anything really, because I have no idea where to start looking Any help greatly appreciated

What do you need them for?

Hi guys I'm new, so apologies if you have covered these questions before. I should also declare that I am sceptical of MMGW, GW - yes, MMGW - no, although I hopefully have an open mind. I'm not a scientist or climate change expert, just an interested passer by, who believes in conserving the earth's resources 1 Quotes from Chapter 6 of IPCC AR4 pages 436 / 474 respectively: "There are markedly fewer well-dated proxy records for the SH compared to the NH, and consequently little evidence of how large-scale average surface temperatures have changed over the past few thousand years.." "Knowledge of climate variability over the last 1 kyr in the Southern Hemisphere and tropics is very limited by the low density of paleoclimatic records." The IPCC offers various levels of (high) confidence for MMCC and they say they are 90% sure GW is MM, but they only have less than 50% of the data supported by temperatures records. I think this is like saying in a court of law "Yes, M'lud, I am sure it was the accused, because I saw him from behind, although I wasn't wearing my glasses at the time" How can the IPCC be 90% sure with less than 50% of the data from the world? 2 Dramatic climate change can occur in the space of a human life time, although 8000 years ago a human lifetime was considerably less than today. 8000 years ago, Britain was not an island, but part of Europe. The north sea did not exist. This has been shown to be true by archaeologists. They have also shown in a very short period of time, temperature rose by 7C and melt water flooded the land and formed the north sea. They consider the time taken to be a human lifetime or 30 - 50 years. Is it possible that GW could be natural? 3 Do you accept the findings of Prof. Dennis Bray that, of 530 leading climate scientists, 30% were sceptical of and 10% strongly disagreed with the IPCC report 4 Do you accept that as chairman of GIM, Al Gore has a vested interest in promoting MMGW? Perhaps if Al Gore wasn't making so much money out of GW with his company Generation Investment Management, I would be more inclined to listen to his "documentary". Dents his credibility IMHO an inconvenient truth for Al Gore 5 Could the weakened of the magnetic field (10% since roman times) amongst other natural phenomena influence climate and cause temperature rises? Perhaps I would be less sceptical if the IPCC's remit wasn't: “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." A body who's purpose is to report on "human-induced climate change" is unlikely to report that it isn't us after all, are they? Like I said at the start, I am willing to be converted, but when I see the vast amounts of money being made by big business and vested interests and the number of new taxes invented, it pushes me further down the sceptical route