Global warming, an alternative view

[HatsOff]

Scientists, like farmers, aren't very good at marketing. They're not supposed to be, to be fair.

Oil companies have the money and incentive to pay people who are good at marketing to put enough doubt into peoples' minds. And their message is an easy one to sell - 'we can continue as normal', 'don't worry it'll be fine', 'we are cleverer than the scientists and we've spotted a scam/conspiracy'.

 

[Chieftain]

The following is just my opinion.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon, it's constantly changed for millions of years. We wouldn't exist if it wasn't for climate change. Global warming is an affect of climate change, after all the atmosphere has to be either heating or cooling.

I've no doubt that human activity over the last couple of centuries has helped accelerate the global warming that would have normally taken place, but I wouldn't personally think it has 'caused' it per say.

Relating back to the OP, volcanic activity certainly has a massive impact on the atmosphere which is almost always ignored by the media. I'm not sure about the scientific evidence around the more Co2 having less of a temperature impact though, doesn't seem to make much sense on a basic scientific level unless the atmosphere mainly constituted of Co2. It's pretty obvious that the UK in isolation though has little to no impact on the environment no matter what we change, sure we can put up a few more wind turbines but it will take serious adjustments in China/Russia/America/India to make a dent on the atmosphere.

I think the issue is overplayed, why wouldn't it be after all if there's money to be made somewhere the corrupt and rich will be making it. That isn't meaning to say taking action to reduce fossil fuels, for example, isn't important because it will limit the amount of more harmful gasses being produced such as sulfur trioxide. Deforestation also has great affect on local ecosystems regardless of it's larger impact on global warming.

For the future it's vital humanity harnesses energy better, and to me that is the use of hydrogen as prominent fuel source and nuclear fusion as a wide spread energy source.

But whatever anyone thinks doesn't matter because in reality we're going to have the government going to the summit in November promising to kill off the country's farming ecosystem in the best attempt to starve us while China are still building coal fired power stations. So really we best hope that everything we do isn't causing permanent damage to the climate.

 

[C.J]

This is the current Met office graph of Central England Temperatures - the longest continous (362 years) of actual measured data.The red line is 10 year running average.

So 310 years of warming since 1695 , but about 3/4 of that warming happened in the first 40 years between 1695 and 1735.