I take nothing on face value Gav, otherwise I would not have forwarded the question. I would simply have accepted the overwhelmingly popular veiw repeated by 99%+ of people, 99% of whom are not climate scientists either. In other words, most people are simply taking what they hear on the subject on face value. I appreciate that you have taken the time to dig up some more info on this, my main focus has been elsewhere. Which means I will have to put that aside so I can go searching for and ploughing through as much climate change literature as possible.
If I come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence that current climate change is largely or entirely man-made, I will cheerfully admit it and come back to the fold on this one.
But right now all I have is: climates have swung wildly many, many times in the past without any help from us - but this time it's different. It's definately us.
If the data had shown a long term history of climatic stability, I would have little doubt that carbon emissions were behind it all. But I still need a bit more convincing yet.
It is possible to reach your own conclusions rapidly by reading the references above. I commend you to do so - and please do let us know how you go.
Gee, I'm very impressed with all the midnight oil that Gav has burned to try and help you out. - My only complaint is that he may have drowned out the info that I sent you about four posts up, about the exact cause of the "natural" cycles, and why we're sure that the current warming is not "natural".. ;-)
I've personally known about the Greenhouse Effect for 33 years, (in fact the first recognition of anthropomorphic warming was back before WW2 by Guy Stewart Callendar) and I've constantly been amazed at the lack of political action about a problem that's been staring us in the face. But there are many people who've put short-term profit before the long-term viability of their own planet - like David Evans.
I take nothing on face value Gav, otherwise I would not have forwarded the question. I would simply have accepted the overwhelmingly popular veiw repeated by 99%+ of people, 99% of whom are not climate scientists either. In other words, most people are simply taking what they hear on the subject on face value. I appreciate that you have taken the time to dig up some more info on this, my main focus has been elsewhere. Which means I will have to put that aside so I can go searching for and ploughing through as much climate change literature as possible.
If I come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence that current climate change is largely or entirely man-made, I will cheerfully admit it and come back to the fold on this one.
But right now all I have is: climates have swung wildly many, many times in the past without any help from us - but this time it's different. It's definately us.
If the data had shown a long term history of climatic stability, I would have little doubt that carbon emissions were behind it all. But I still need a bit more convincing yet.
Lefty,
It is possible to reach your own conclusions rapidly by reading the references above. I commend you to do so - and please do let us know how you go.
Gee, I'm very impressed with all the midnight oil that Gav has burned to try and help you out. - My only complaint is that he may have drowned out the info that I sent you about four posts up, about the exact cause of the "natural" cycles, and why we're sure that the current warming is not "natural".. ;-)
I've personally known about the Greenhouse Effect for 33 years, (in fact the first recognition of anthropomorphic warming was back before WW2 by Guy Stewart Callendar) and I've constantly been amazed at the lack of political action about a problem that's been staring us in the face. But there are many people who've put short-term profit before the long-term viability of their own planet - like David Evans.