But are you sure that warming of the climate system is unequivocal?
Whether I'm sure or not is not relevant - the United Nations, WMO, IPCC, NASA, NAS, The Royal Society, at least 113 governments, 40 contributing authors to the IPCC report referenced earlier and 620 reviewers to same are sure. In direct answer - yes I'm as sure as a layperson can reasonably be expected to be.
How did a 0.72 degree drop happen last year
I have already said I would be happy to look at evidence for any of the statements you make Gill. I'm calling you for evidence here please. Notwithstanding, I have tried to find evidence for you and <no surprise> it seems that NASA disagree with you.
The top right black dot represents 2007 and shows a small rise in temperature from 2006. The red line shows a smoothed 5 year average. Come on - even FreeWilly conceds 'unequivocal' is the right word to use for global warming :-) Incidentally a .72 degree rise or drop from one year to the next would be the biggest fluctuation in recorded history - note the scale to the left.
why does it seem that it will be even colder this coming winter?
Sorry can't help with localised speculation - like I said before it may just be North Yorkshire :-) NASA are somewhat more forthcoming here:
At what point will you say, perhaps something else is happening, after all, we haven't stopped producing CO2, so what is making the world temperature fall?
Simple - when the scientific consensus is 'unequivocal'. Note that you haven't demonstrated any evidence for this cooling as yet on this thread.
What is interesting is that there is not LESS ice as we have been told, but MORE and also it was reported by scientists in the Independent Newspaper, ( I can't find it but will continue to search) that the melting of the ice in the Arctic is due to underground volcanic activity.
Sorry Gill - this is why I need links from you - is it MORE ice or are volcanoes melting it making it LESS ice? Incidentally I haven't come across any climate scientists attributing 100% of climate change to manmade causes. Things like volcanic activity melting polar ice would unfortunately amplify other causes of climate change.
At what point will you turn round and say 'Has someone been yanking my chain? Is someone trying to make a monkey out of me? To what purpose has that been happening? And when you do, will you be a little 'cross' that you have been being robbed and lied to or will you just shrug and say, 'It was all for the greater good!' ?
Never - I'm happy to look in the mirror any time I need to see who's to blame for my thought process and decisions. Personal responsibility. I may not agree with all tax allocation decisions eg obscene levels of military spending but the current system is what live with.
When you realise that biofuel is starving your fellow humans, but you don't care because it's not affecting you, what will your feelings be then?
I strongly agree with Oxfam and the World Bank that corn based ethanol heavily subsidised due to 'sum of all lobbyist' lawmaking is completely the wrong thing to do. The Brazilian ethanol industry provides 1 million jobs, reduces their import of oil and doesn't affect their food production. It is also energy efficient and is getting increasingly environmentally friendly. But America learn from Brazil - not likely.
See my earlier post on this here: (in fact the 51c subsidy figure I noted is only one component - see here for more details that show a figure of $1.05 - $1.38 is more likely).......
Cane based ethanol returns 8.2 times the energy required for its production. Corn based ethanol returns 1.5 times.
The Brazilian ethanol industry is mature and is working on new types of cane that produce up to 80% more sucrose or another varietal that can survice 45 days without water. New cane processing techniques can actually return a surplus of water for further irrigation.
The US import tariff on Brazilian ethanol is 45c/gallon and the subsidy for US corn ethanol is 51c/gallon.
Down with the lobbyistas I say.
Bearing in mind that dropping an ice cube into a already full glass of waster will make the water OVERFLOW, will you realise then that water EXPANDS when it is frozen?
You'll need to expand a little on the point you are trying to make please.
Could other scenarios be the answer to the climate change we face such as greater extremes in temperature ie even hotter where it's hot and even colder where it's cold, or less sun spot activity as mentioned to start with?
The NASA link referenced above also addresses solar variance and explains that even should the solar activity remain low in this cycle the rising amount of GHG's will offset any 'gains'. It also suggests that solar activity is on the rise again from January 2008 with a link to NOAA. NASA reference an Independent article - perhaps the one you were trying to find in your original post...
Or like someone who likes to be punished, do you prefer to be taxed heavily, just to make you 'feel better' about something that is probably out of your control anyway.
Erm - no. (I do look at other websites where 'punishment' is a theme, but lets not go there.)
There is no doubt that humans are responsible for much pollution, but can we change the planet on our own.....I doubt it very much....but some people would like you to think YOU are to blame and so YOU must pay.
Again I'd like to see evidence of a tax raising authority blaming individuals for climate change and taxing them accordingly. I don't doubt that in time the true total cost of abusing the planets resources will be levied, either in our lifetime or on subsequent generations. Children have been asking us for almost 20 years to stop breaking and destroying things we can't restore. When will we listen?
The next few years will prove, one way or another if global warming was a big con and lie.
Interesting that the timescale you refer to is years, not decades, centuries or millenia. Perhaps you have some repressed denial in there?:-)
This Earth is not human centric even if we want to believe it is.
I agree the earth should not be human-centric - but it is. That's the hand natural selection has dealt us. We should be more appreciative of our place in the order of things, but we wouldn't be the first species to cause our own demise. Unfortunately in the meantime we are wreaking havoc on biodiversity and now the supporting climate we all depend on.
So, apart from the evidence you are going to provide for your claims, I will also ask for your considered response to my other questions:
Of course this requires investment. Do you equate investment with cost? Do you equate costs with downside? Example - the most recent review on the potential for Enhanced Geothermal Systems suggests that $1B would be required to develop a commerical model over the next 10 years. Is there a downside to doing this? Is the $1B a cost or an investment? What are the potential upsides of widely available sustainable clean energy from EGS? Is that worth $1B to verify?
The global energy system is struggling to cope with the 1 billion people that designed it - America + the westernized nations.
What future for the 2 billion people that are striving to achieve this living standard today? India + China. Malaysia etc
What future for the other 3 billion in absolute poverty? How can we deliver reliable sustainable grid energy to the 1.6 billion people who have a blackout every night?
What future for the 3 billion people as yet unborn who will be on this planet by 2050, mainly in countries who can least cope with them?
Even if you are not yet believers in climate change, have a think about global energy poverty.
So far the silence has been deafening.