Global warming: Undeniable evidence

The unwillingness of scientists at the University of East Anglia to release climate data to people who choose not to believe in climate change was a mistake. Science advances through openness, through the ability of others to replicate the same findings or demonstrate error in discovery and interpretation. Reluctance to disclose – revealed last week in the wake of the release of private email exchanges between climate researchers – invites suspicion. The hacked email exchanges were an embarrassment, and the refusal to disclose data was a bad call, but neither episode casts much doubt upon the science of global warming. The ­evidence for climate change driven by man-made discharges of greenhouse gases is now decades old, has been independently confirmed by researchers all over the world, and is – as the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said yesterday – overwhelming.

There is plenty of room for argument about the rate at which the world is warming, the degree to which humans are culpable, the likely outcomes and the most effective steps to be taken. But there is not much argument about the big picture. The climate researchers at East Anglia were early in the field, but they were not alone. Their conclusions have been backed by scientists at the Met Office, from other British universities, and from the British Antarctic Survey; by oceanographers from Germany, California and Massachusetts; by planetary scientists from Nasa and the European Space Agency; by naturalists in a Europe-wide network of botanical gardens; and by climate historians, foresters, zoologists, palaeontologists, glaciologists and geographers on six continents. Scientists from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have repeatedly released findings that broadly confirm the same big picture, and for eight of the past nine years those researchers were funded by a Republican administration that would have much preferred to hear a different story. In 2001, the national science academies of 17 nations – including Britain's Royal Society – urged governments to avert future calamity by agreeing to limit greenhouse gas emissions; within three weeks, the US National Academy of Sciences had joined the chorus, and begun to sing from the same hymnal. Although any single piece of evidence is open to reinterpretation, the mass of data assembled all seems to point in one direction: towards a warmer and increasingly uncomfortable world.

Global average temperatures have gone on rising. Nine of the 10 warmest years ever recorded have occurred in the past decade. In the past three decades, glaciers have receded at alarming rates in Alpine Europe, tropical Africa and sub-Arctic Alaska. The Greenland icecap has begun to melt and the north polar sea ice has become both smaller and thinner. The northern hemisphere growing season has been extended by 11 days. For reasons connected with human pressure, but also possibly with global warming, arid regions have become more arid, floods more catastrophic, hurricanes and cyclones more destructive. Millions of very poor people have been forced to abandon their homes, to kill their cattle, to walk away from their farms. Oceans have become more acidic, and coral reefs have been bleached. Forests have burned; rivers in the drier regions have slowed to a trickle, or dried up altogether.

Some events may be considered as consequences of natural variation in a climate cycle, but the intensity and frequency of such extreme events is expected to grow as the world warms. The lesson to be drawn from the latest round of questions about climate science is not that scientists make mistakes, and could get the future wrong. It is that we still don't know enough about our own planet, and should be spending more on research, instead of cutting science budgets. Knowledge is expensive, but wilful ignorance could cost immeasurably more.


Your IP address will be logged

Global warming: Undeniable evidence

This article appeared on p28 of the Editorials & reply section of the Guardian on Monday 1 February 2010. It was published on guardian.co.uk at 00.05 GMT on Monday 1 February 2010.

Comments in chronological order (Total 84 comments)

Post a comment
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

  • LucAstro LucAstro

    1 Feb 2010, 12:13AM

    This secrecy attitude at east Anglia is bizarre, to say the least. Fortunately, there are alternative sources of reliable data that are freely available or available under request. Research groups within NASA are amongs them. One of the scientist even had to go public under the Bush presidency (Dr. Jim Hansen) for the right to make his results public! Different continents, opposite problems.

  • chiefwiley chiefwiley

    1 Feb 2010, 12:21AM

    So, from time to time the climate actually changes, after all.

    And people who are unable to improvise, adapt, and overcome a few degrees change (up or down) might be inconvienced. Stop the world! Enough money, and somebody can make it all better again.

    Sure. Sure.

  • fairer fairer

    1 Feb 2010, 12:28AM

    This is an imposible subject in many ways.
    If you research Google for "next ice age overdue" it gets interesting.
    Our planet was a lot warmer in the 1930's than it is now.

  • richardoxford richardoxford

    1 Feb 2010, 12:34AM

    It appears there is a warming of about 1 degree in the last hundred years
    But the evidence that that is not the natural climate change cycle which is unceasing is non existent.
    The evidence that climate change scientists are fanatics who try to fiddle the data and conceal it is now clear

  • TheNeoconGuardian TheNeoconGuardian

    1 Feb 2010, 12:44AM

    Let us be blunt. The Guardian was paid by Shell to promote global warming up to Copenhagen. I assume it still does, despite the absence of adverts. AGW is a multi trillion dollar carbon trading scam, dreamed up by Enron in 1997/98.

    The biggest lobby supporting a global climate deal represented the oil companies and banks

    The International Emissions Trading Association was created to promote carbon trading more than ten years ago.

    Its members include :-

    BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON AG (coal power stations owner, EDF (one of the largest participants in the global coal market), Gazprom (Russian oil and gas), Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley..

    http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249

    Their aim

    The objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and ultimately climate protection; the establishment of effective market-based trading systems for greenhouse gas emissions by businesses that are demonstrably fair, open, efficient, accountable and consistent across national boundaries; and maintaining societal equity and environmental integrity while establishing these systems.

    http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1248

    This is a detailed condemnation of IETA from Friends of the Earth and partners

    http://www.angrymermaid.org/ieta

  • Fentonchem Fentonchem

    1 Feb 2010, 12:45AM

    We know that Phil Jones of the CRU breached the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.
    The UK's Information Commissioner?s Office (ICO) decided that the UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.
    It now turns out that they were wrong about the act; Jones could face the far more serious offenses for false representation (section 2) and failing to disclose information (section 3) under the Fraud Act (2006).

    Fraud by false representation (section 2)

    A fraudulent representation is an assertion which is untrue or misleading and which the person making it knows is, or might be, untrue or misleading. ( s2(2) ).Subsection (4) provides that a representation may be express or implied. There are no restrictions or limitations in the way in which a representation is communicated. It may be written or spoken and may be transmitted by email or by way of website.

    Fraud by failing to disclose information (section 3)

    This form of the offense applies where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information that he is under a legal duty to disclose. The ICO admits Jones is guilty of failing to disclose climate data. The question whether a legal duty exists is a matter of the general law. A legal duty may arise by virtue of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties).

    The evidence:-

    CRU email 1074277559
    Jones to Penn State University climatologist, Michael Mann.

    Subject: Climatic Change needs your advice?YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!

    Mike,

    This is for YOUR EYES ONLY. Delete after reading?please! I?m trying to redress the balance. One reply from Christian Pfister said you should make all available!! Pot calling the kettle black?Christian doesn?t make his methods available. ? I told Steve separately, and told him to get more advice from a few others, as well as Kluwer (publishers), and the legal department.

    PLEASE DELETE?just for you, not even for Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.

    email 1076336623 Phil Jones to a climatologist Van Ommen, c.c.ed to Mike Mann:

    Thanks for the email. Steve McIntyre hasn?t contacted me directly about the Antarctic data (yet), nor about any of the data used in the 1998 Holocene paper or the 2003 Geophysical Research Letters one with Mike. I suspect (hope) that he won?t. I had some emails with him a few years ago when he wanted to get all the station temperature data we use here in Climatic Research Unit. At that time, I hid behind the fact that some of the data had been received from individuals and not directly from Met(eorological) Services through the Global Tele-communications Service (GTS) or through the Global Climate Observing System.

    email 1106338806 exchange.

    Phil Jones to and from Tom Wigley

    On the Freedom Of Information Act, there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn?t really clarify what we might have to do regarding programs or data. Like all things in Britain, we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn?t tell anybody about the Freedom Of Information Act in Britain. I don?t think the University of East Anglia really knows what?s involved.

    - - - - - - -
    The CRU, Jones and Mann have all been dealt a fatal blow. The fraud is blowing up in their faces. The National Oceanographic Data Center recently updated its 4th quarter and annual 2009 Ocean Heat Content (OHC) data and it now shows the decline that was expected. We have cooling and no matter what, 2010 was not the warmest year ever.

  • artwest artwest

    1 Feb 2010, 12:46AM

    "the refusal to disclose data was a bad call" - No, it was actually a criminal breech of the Freedom of Information act. It's difficult to think of any other circumstances where The Guardian would be so forgiving about the breaking of a law it demanded for so long.

    Curious too that you don't cite the IPCC. You certainly would have even a couple of weeks ago. It would have been top of the list with it's much vaunted reliance on peer-reviewed literature.

    Except there's a fast growing list of non-peer reviewed material it cited including non-scientific propaganda by the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace (both with a massive vested interest in alarmism), a now-withdrawn New Scientist article, a student dissertation and a piece from a climbing magazine.
    If the scientific case is so strong how come the IPCC relied on this dross?

    That the Guardian is still clinging to it's misplaced faith in AGW is sad, that it has given up any pretext of balanced reporting in this area is thoroughly depressing.

  • WheatFromChaff WheatFromChaff

    1 Feb 2010, 12:54AM

    The ­evidence for climate change driven by man-made discharges of greenhouse gases is now decades old

    ... and ...

    There is plenty of room for argument about the rate at which the world is warming, the degree to which humans are culpable, the likely outcomes and the most effective steps to be taken.

    Hmmm.

    The ­evidence for climate change driven by man-made discharges of greenhouse gases is now decades old, has been independently confirmed by researchers all over the world, and is ? as the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said yesterday ? overwhelming.

    And how on earth would he know?

    In the past three decades, glaciers have receded at alarming rates in Alpine Europe, tropical Africa and sub-Arctic Alaska

    Oh dear.

  • GwenDog GwenDog

    1 Feb 2010, 12:55AM

    Today, I reviewed some research by a fellow data analyst. He'd made an error pretty close to the start of his work and thanked me for pointing it out. Everything else he'd done was 100% but the result was dangerously wrong.

    With climate change, if I point out something fairly basic, I'm called a "flat earther" or "deny-er (how is that spelt)"

    For that reason alone, I have a problem with the alleged religion. It can't be proven with proper analysis, so it remains just a leap of faith.

  • imbrian imbrian

    1 Feb 2010, 12:59AM

    Is it just me or do I detect a very slight shift away from arrogant certainty? Is there just the teensiest, weensiest soupcon of doubt creeping in here? The more reasonable weekend press, that is the press without an academic axe to grind, is certainly quite scathing on the subject of eco-warriors. Himalayan glaciers, Amazon rainforest - it all seems a bit more doubtful now. As for the clowns in Norwich - enough said already.

    There is of course no doubt but that the world is warming. The doubt, as always, is what is responsible. As more and more evidence comes to light, not about the causes of warming, but the mind-boggling incompetence, venality and self-interest of the eco-warriors it becomes clearer that we may have reached the high water mark in global hysteria on this subject.

  • lazystudent lazystudent

    1 Feb 2010, 1:01AM

    The shameful acts by the CRU at UEA anger me deeply. Scientists are generally quite well trusted and respected by the public, and the actions of this small minority who seem to think they can ignore their wider duties to the public and society diminish us all in the eyes of others. If you don't like people seeing your data and criticizing your methods, I have one thing to say to you : FUCK OFF OUT OF RESEARCH SCIENCE!!!!!!

    As for the evidence of Anthropogenic global warming, it's extremely difficult to pick a clear signal, and attach it to an underlying cause. But a lot of work has been done on it, and a lot of progress made, and when the vast majority of scientists agree on something, it doesn't mean we've got every single detail figured out, but it does mean you should sit up and take notice of what we're saying.

    What I find distressing, is the debate is hijacked on both sides by shrill extremeists, who peddle conspiracy theories like they're going out of fashion. Climate change resulting from anthropogenic global warming is a credible threat; we have a natural analogy from the geological record (the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM), a plausible mechanism (greenhouse effect), and some reasonable computer models of the ocean atmosphere system (not perfect, they never will be, but they are reasonable). They all point the same way, it's enough to build a consensus position, and we can move forward from that. No need for hysterics, just get on with the job in hand.

  • ngavc ngavc

    1 Feb 2010, 1:02AM

    I'm not convinced:
    it's getting warmer;
    that your data are valid;
    that people cause climate change;
    or that I wouldn't like a warmer climate.

    President Obama has reduced his call for massive cap and trade legislation to suggestions that efficiencies would be sensible. You folks had better go back to a very public drawing board.

  • Theloonyfromcatford Theloonyfromcatford

    1 Feb 2010, 1:05AM

    gwendog

    "With climate change, if I point out something fairly basic, I'm called a "flat earther" or "deny-er (how is that spelt)"

    feel free to point out something pretty basic and bring the climate change conspiracy crashing down.

  • TheNeoconGuardian TheNeoconGuardian

    1 Feb 2010, 1:10AM

    lazystudent

    The problem is that the science is based on very corrupt temperature data, much of it by the climategate wide boys. Not only at the CRU, but at NASA GISS, Michael Mann and the rest of the Realclimate zoo (which was created to defend Mann's hockey stick).

    There is absolutely no way back from that.

  • fabiusmaximus fabiusmaximus

    1 Feb 2010, 1:19AM

    Much new research is pointing to a cooling. There is evidence to suggest that water vapour regulates the planet's temperature. Some of the evidence appears to be tainted and come from people with an agenda.

  • bothropsAsper bothropsAsper

    1 Feb 2010, 1:34AM

    I believe it, like I believe in Tony Blair's just war, and the truth of Christianity.
    Trouble is the integrity of the establishment has been completely shattered.
    I don't believe a word any of the bastards say, and I couldn't give a shit either.

  • DodgyGeezer DodgyGeezer

    1 Feb 2010, 1:35AM

    The evidence for climate change driven by man-made discharges of greenhouse gases is now decades old, has been independently confirmed by researchers all over the world, and is ? as the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said yesterday ? overwhelming.

    No it isn't. And repeating government propaganda in the editorial pages of the Guardian won't make it so.

    Honestly! Decades old research into CHANGING CLIMATE? Don't you people even read the latest research before shooting your mouth off?

  • frankverismo frankverismo

    1 Feb 2010, 1:36AM

    Another proselytising, yet anonymous editorial. Probably a wise thing, given what you're attempting to defend. As artwest pointed out, your failure to even mention the IPCC speaks volumes. One can hardly blame you (whoever you are) for wishing to distance yourself from those charlatans. Hardly a day goes by now without another crack in that once-mighty edifice. An edifice of lies is a brittle thing, as the whole world can now plainly see.

  • potentilla potentilla

    1 Feb 2010, 1:39AM

    arid regions have become more arid, floods more catastrophic, hurricanes and cyclones more destructive. Millions of very poor people have been forced to abandon their homes, to kill their cattle, to walk away from their farms. Oceans have become more acidic, and coral reefs have been bleached. Forests have burned; rivers in the drier regions have slowed to a trickle, or dried up altogether

    There is no evidence that extreme events are increasing in magnitude or becoming more frequent; not in the recorded river flow data, not in the climate models and certainly not in the peer reviewed literature. Making assertions does not make it so. Even the potential elimination of glaciers in the Himalayas would not result in catastrophe.

    The Guardian should do some serious investigative journalism on this issue instead of simply repeating speculation by others.

  • proby24 proby24

    1 Feb 2010, 1:51AM

    The only undeniable fact surrounding AGW is that the Science is NOT in agreement. There are doubts, serious doubts.

    I say this as a scientist myself. What is needed is informed and open debate.

  • shexmus shexmus

    1 Feb 2010, 1:56AM

    "Reluctance to disclose ? revealed last week in the wake of the release of private email exchanges between climate researchers ? invites suspicion. The hacked email exchanges were an embarrassment, and the refusal to disclose data was a bad call, but neither episode casts much doubt upon the science of global warming."

    Is this the mother of all understatements?

    The revelations are so damaging to the credibility of Climate Science that the whole thing must start afresh. Fresh data, fresh methodology, fresh scientists.

    It is also high time for other scientific disciplines to put Climatology under the microscope. Otherwise, the public trust in science and scientific method will be under threat.

  • pocoloco pocoloco

    1 Feb 2010, 2:23AM

    The unwillingness of scientists at the University of East Anglia to release climate data to people who choose not to believe in climate change was a mistake.
    Sounds like your admitting it is a religion after all..

  • shexmus shexmus

    1 Feb 2010, 2:36AM

    GwenDog:

    "With climate change, if I point out something fairly basic, I'm called a "flat earther" or "deny-er (how is that spelt)"

    For that reason alone, I have a problem with the alleged religion. It can't be proven with proper analysis, so it remains just a leap of faith."

    It is spelt 'denier' ;) But of course, the usual fare is to call sceptics 'denialists'. In some Australian blogs, the farce has descended to calling non-believers 'delusionists'. I have seen a few occasions of 'vorticists' too.

    One of the things that surprised me the most when I first dipped my toes into the climate debate several months ago was the dogmatic devotion of the AGW faithful. Indeed, the whole AGW movement stinks like a crusade.

    1- The gods (Scientists)
    2- The sacred texts (IPCC reports)
    3- We are all sinners (Our carbon footprint)
    4- We must repent (Stop using fossil fuels)
    5- The end of the world is nigh! (the looming climate catastrophe)
    6- The four horsemen of the Apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. Identical to the ones AGW believers scare people with)

  • frankverismo frankverismo

    1 Feb 2010, 2:49AM

    1- The gods (Scientists)
    2- The sacred texts (IPCC reports)
    3- We are all sinners (Our carbon footprint)
    4- We must repent (Stop using fossil fuels)
    5- The end of the world is nigh! (the looming climate catastrophe)
    6- The four horsemen of the Apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence and Death. Identical to the ones AGW believers scare people with)

    Almost perfect, Shexmus. I would only point out that the four horsemen of this particular apocalypse were already appointed by some of the religion's founders, the Club of Rome:

    The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

    from 'the First Global Revolution' by the Club of Rome, 1991 Pantheon Books

    Otherwise, carry on!

  • Ender3rd Ender3rd

    1 Feb 2010, 3:03AM

    I wish I could say I wrote it. Brevity isn't my strength.

    I also don't need to rely on anyone else's science. I use my own life and its sum total measurements of my surroundings to recognize that changes are happening in my own surroundings.

    It all started when I was running to soccer practice in 1976 when I nearly passed out. The news reported that the smog was choking us to death and as a young man, I never paid much attention to the news.

    But since then, I have become more sensative to the real measurable impact man has on all of the life support systems he needs for his own survival.

    About 20 years ago I made a return trek to the local Nature Center where as a youth I caught Eastern ringneck and water snakes, colorful salamanders, and crawdads that lived in densely packed pools.

    Those creatures were gone 20 years ago, and last year there is no sign of any life except a few hearty minnows.

    My children have grown not knowing any of this natural world.

    What will their children never know they missed?

  • halmighty halmighty

    1 Feb 2010, 3:06AM

    Why does anyone hide things unless they have something to hide? Given the frequency by which the East Anglia folks have concealed information and refused to expose their science to sunlight (pardon the pun), one has to assume that they had something to hide.

    Such silly games doesn't lead to "settled" science. In fact all it leads to is creating the impression that they are a bunch of fraudsters, which is what many millions in the world now think they are.

    The three primary world powers (who at least have populations that will allow them to continue that position within the next 100 years), China, India and the US all refuse to listen to these scam artists and hobble their economies.

    I say good for them.

    If the IPCC folks want to be taken seriously, they should open up their raw data, let the skeptics in, argue publicly without castigation and stop the silly games. Maybe then their position will be taken seriously.

  • Dougetit Dougetit

    1 Feb 2010, 3:20AM

    ?The ­evidence for climate change driven by man-made discharges of greenhouse gases is now decades old, has been independently confirmed by researchers all over the world.?

    Consensus is not a scientific term, thus, doesn?t scientifically prove anything. Before Galileo, everyone thought the earth was round. It was Albert Einstein who said ?No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.?

    ?Their conclusions have been backed by?..?

    ALL of the sources listed have based their research on the global thermometer temperature reconstruction which has been substantially discredited. Garbage in, garbage out.

    ?Although any single piece of evidence is open to reinterpretation?

    Reinterpretation? How about we just stick with scientific fact.

    ?Nine of the 10 warmest years ever recorded have occurred in the past decade.?

    True, if you believe the thermometer record, we have been in a global warming trend for the most recent 12 years. If you believe the two much more accurate independent satellite datasets, (UAH,RSS), we have been in a global cooling trend for the most recent 12 years.

    ?In the past three decades, glaciers have receded at alarming rates in Alpine Europe, tropical Africa and sub-Arctic Alaska. The Greenland icecap has begun to melt and the north polar sea ice has become both smaller and thinner.?

    This is totally false statement.

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=30&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=30&sy=2010

    ?The northern hemisphere growing season has been extended by 11 days.?

    And what about the southern hemispheres unprecedented sea ice growth?

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=30&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=30&sy=2010

    ?For reasons connected with human pressure, but also possibly with global warming, ??

    So which one is it? Human pressure or global warming? If you are blaming all of your dire scenarios on AGW, then you are incorrect.

    ?Some events may be considered as consequences of natural variation in a climate cycle, but the intensity and frequency of such extreme events is expected to grow as the world warms.?

    Name the ?extreme events? you are referring to? Hurricanes? If so, how many ?extreme? hurricanes did we have last season?

    ?The lesson to be drawn? is that you need to do considerable more research before you make such unproven and unsubstantiated claims.

    Suggested reading to get you up to speed by Googleing Climategate, GlacierGate, AmazonGate, PachauriGate, GreenpeaceGate, HimalayaGate, IceGate, GoogleGate, DisasterGate, HurricaneGate, CRUGate, SternGate, WaterGate II, IPCCGate, NASAGate, GoreGate, WikipediaGate/WikiGate, AfricaGate, NOAAGate, HansenGate, StormGate, DarwinGate, RainGate, WarmingGate, HockeystickGate, YamalGate, GissGate and RussiaGate.

  • Ender3rd Ender3rd

    1 Feb 2010, 3:21AM

    Halmighty,

    The IPCC position is being taken seriously.

    Are youa database analyst working in the field? Are you competant to handle the data, maybe you would get it if you ask.

    Did you ask?

    Why complain when you didn't ask them to do what you say they won't?

    Data cleansing isn't "hiding".

  • Ender3rd Ender3rd

    1 Feb 2010, 3:24AM

    Dougetit,

    Antarctic ice has grown due to the hole in the ozone. As it heals, so the greenhouse gases will reverse that trend. Too bad we fixed the ozone hole. It may have proplonged runaway warming.

  • frankverismo frankverismo

    1 Feb 2010, 3:26AM

    But since then, I have become more sensative to the real measurable impact man has on all of the life support systems he needs for his own survival.

    I entirely agree. I have spent my entire adult life being disgusted with the way industry treats its own backyard like a toilet. Chemically ruined rivers, reeking, choking air, wildlife devastating ocean spills . . . . .

    But I separate all the above from the issue of climate change. One is simple, inexcusable abuse. The other is a very wily game, where people's genuine concern is slyly used to power an agenda that benefits a political elite. Watching peoples' excellent intentions being twisted and exploited for power and financial gain - now that really gets me boiling.

    My children have grown not knowing any of this natural world.

    It's truly awful - and all too common a story. If we can wrest enough of our power back and bring these people to account, perhaps their children will indeed inherit a better world. There's no such thing as a one-way tide.

  • Ender3rd Ender3rd

    1 Feb 2010, 3:44AM

    Frank,

    It is too late.

    When a river is polutted enough to kill off the creatures that evolved there over millions of years, that pollution lies in the sediment and will remain for thousands, if not millions of years.

    Besides, the Eastern ringneck is gone. It won't be back. The crawdads require very clean water, they're gone.

    Now we must deal with the loss of the rest of the native fish which will be replaced by the alien chinese carp. It's a done deal.

    So it isn't any leap of imagination for me to think that killing off watersheds and coastal fisheries will not have long term effects on chemical compesitions.

    I have a pond in my backyard.

    If I allow debris to accumulate, it's natural rotting can cause a total fish-kill literally overnight.

    These tipping points are only learned by observance. If you have seen what I have seen, you'd know we are on a destructive path that has only one logical conclusion.

  • carolm62 carolm62

    1 Feb 2010, 3:48AM

    Not so fast....

    Mainstream AGW researchers just cam out the other day with a report saying that a reduction in atmospheric water vapor is reducing the rate of global warming and that this needs to be factored into the Climate models.

    Funny, skeptics have long harped about the need to include water vapor in any analysis, but oh no, the science is settled. So now it is AGW proponents that are saying the models are wrong -- that they did not factor in an important variable.

    Duh! The models have always proved to be, well, wrong, so obviously they are not factoring in important variables. (Maybe un-doctored data would help) And since we can't account for all the variables we don't KNOW climate change is caused by anthropogenic CO2. It's a guess. Guesses are not facts.

  • Ender3rd Ender3rd

    1 Feb 2010, 4:04AM

    Carol,

    I disagree, water vapour is 75% of auto emmissions and I have always felt water vapour doesn't get enough attention.

    If there are hypothesis that say water vapour is reducing, please explain or show a link.

    If 10 years ago there were 500 million cars and by the end of next year over 1 billion cars, what is the supposed cause of reduced water vapour?

    I read that increased warming leads to increased evaporation which means increased water vapour.

    What gives?

  • Xobbo Xobbo

    1 Feb 2010, 4:16AM

    Never before have so many known so little about something so important.

    I used to debate with sceptics/deniers and correct their more common misunderstandings, but this isn't a debate any more, it's more like a who's-the-stupidest competition.

    So congratulations to the head-in-the-sand brigade: you have indeed won the argument. I concede.

    It's just a pity none of that changes the science...

  • Stealthbong Stealthbong

    1 Feb 2010, 4:33AM

    richardoxford
    1 Feb 2010, 12:34AM

    It appears there is a warming of about 1 degree in the last hundred years
    But the evidence that that is not the natural climate change cycle which is unceasing is non existent.
    The evidence that climate change scientists are fanatics who try to fiddle the data and conceal it is now clear

    From one Oxford man to another, go get yourself a coffee, mate. Surely you can do better than lame generalisations. Have you looked into the body of evidence that has been witheld, manipulated, cherry-picked, cut 'n' pasted and generally hashed together by the ExxonMobil lobby?

    Suggesting that two or three decades of compelling evidence has been shredded by the odd dodgy e-mail (that turned out to be not that dodgy at all) really is clutching at straws.

  • littlegreenman littlegreenman

    1 Feb 2010, 4:46AM

    Proof that man-made global warming is a scam

    The science of this was settled way longer than the pseudo-science of AGW!

    Abstract:

    The atmospheric greenhouse e?ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ?ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a ?rm scienti?c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clari?ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ?ctitious atmospheric greenhouse e?ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned di?erence of 33 ? C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi?ed.

  • calmike calmike

    1 Feb 2010, 4:48AM

    FACTS

    There is no proof that human activities have contributed significantly to global warming.

    The warming that has been of such concern is only the recovery from the little ice age.

    The previous interglacial warm period was about 15,000 years. This one has lasted about 17,000 years. The natural cycle of global temperature fortells a new ice age.

    The sea levels have been rising 1 to 2 mm for several hundred years and still are.

    There is no evidence that reducing CO2 will lower global temperatures.

  • pmagn pmagn

    1 Feb 2010, 5:00AM

    Its time to move on from all this ....

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-change-deal-impossible-2010

    Governments need to start implementing fee/tax and reinvest. It is the only solution with any reasonable chance of getting us where we need to be on emissions within a democratic framework.

    I can see cilvil collapse round the corner now. The end is nigh.

  • Xobbo Xobbo

    1 Feb 2010, 5:04AM

    MORE FACTS

    There is no proof that the earth goes round the sun

    It's snowing today

    Custard is purple

    My hairline is receding at 1 to 2 mm per year and will continue to do so

    America is the greatest country in the world

    Obama is a communist

    Relevance is relative

  • JamesCameron JamesCameron

    1 Feb 2010, 5:21AM

    "The unwillingness of scientists at the University of East Anglia to release climate data to people who choose not to believe in climate change was a mistake."

    I think there is a little more to recent events that this bland comment. The problems started last year when a whistle-blower outed all sorts of underhand attempts to hide inconvenient facts at the Climate Research Unit, chief supplier of data to the IPCC. Then the Russians confirmed endemic cherry picking in the gathering of global temperatures and the Giant Green Jolly in Copenhagen collapsed in confusion. Now we hear that the IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt within the next few years was based on nonsense recycled by the World Wildlife Fund. At the same time, their categorical statement that global warming is causing extreme weather was exposed as another kite flown by environmental extremists. To add to the merriment, the IPCC assurances that nearly half the Amazonian rain forests were about to turn into savannas was traced to the usual suspects at the WWF.
    It is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.

  • cghorn cghorn

    1 Feb 2010, 5:27AM

    @ender3d
    About 20 years ago I made a return trek to the local Nature Center where as a youth I caught Eastern ringneck and water snakes, colorful salamanders, and crawdads that lived in densely packed pools.

    Those creatures were gone 20 years ago, and last year there is no sign of any life except a few hearty minnows.

    My children have grown not knowing any of this natural world.

    What will their children never know they missed?

    Yes I'm really pissed off not having seen the sabre toothed tiger and the dodo etc

  • littlegreenman littlegreenman

    1 Feb 2010, 5:33AM

    @cghorn

    ever heard of "Darwin"?

    I, too, am pretty pissed off at not seeing dinosaurs in real life but, hey, stuff happens. It seems to me that in the recent decades homosapient have essentially signed off on their own species death warrant... Not because of AGW and other utter nonsense like that but because there is a growing trend in our own species to worry more about cute little fluffy animals that our own survival.

  • Xobbo Xobbo

    1 Feb 2010, 5:45AM

    @littlegreenman

    Sorry, just to confirm, you think that worrying too much about cute fluffy animals is likely to lead to the death of the human race?

    I'll bet you a pound we're destroyed by an alien invasion first.

  • oldingo oldingo

    1 Feb 2010, 6:02AM

    ALL THESE CLIMATOLOGISTS ARE A BUNCH OF COMMIES SEEKING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD'S GOVERNMENTS. OBVIOUS INNIT? WHAT ELSE COULD MAKE A BLOKE LIKE DR. J. HANSEN COME UP WITH SUCH CRAP? i MEAN TO SAY, JUST BECAUSE HIS THEORY ON VENUS'S CLIMATE TURNED OUT RIGHT DOESN'T MEAN HE'S GOING TO RIGHT EVERY TIME..... THESE MINING GEOLOGISTS MUST KNOW SOMETHING. JUST BECAUSE BUSH GOT IN ON A COAL AND OIL TICKET WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO CENSOR THE WORK OF CLIMATOLOGISTS WAS IT? HE JUST A THE HEALTH OF THE NATION AT HEART. yOU THINK ALL OF THIS IS CRAP?? YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE STUFF ABOVE.

  • Ian60 Ian60

    1 Feb 2010, 6:07AM

    CO2 is not capable to cause rapid and catastrophic climate change because of the logarithmic relation between CO2 concentration and temperature which says: CO2 concentration has to double for a 1 centigrade rize in temperature. This means that for the average global temperature to rise just 1 degree centigrade the current 400ppm CO2 must jump to about 800ppm which is unlikely at the current rate (which is only halve what the IPCC predicted) we are burning fossil fuels - oh, and by the way, laboratory experiments and fossil with ice core records have proved that optimal plant life occurs at about 1000ppm CO2. Even if we do mange to get CO2 up to 1000ppm, it will be impossible to get to 1600ppm because there simply are not enough carbon resources on this planet to go to those levels.
    Sorry the current man-made global warming scare is based on fraudulent data, like the Mann hockey stick chart where the Medieval warm period was fudged away, the climategate emails where data showing the current 9 years of cooling on the planet was tampered and now the Glaciergate where it was fraudulently claimed that the Asian glaciers will be gone by 2025.
    GW is a hoax.

Showing first 50 comments | Go to all comments | Go to latest comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in.

|

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Guardian Jobs

UK

Browse all jobs

USA

Browse all jobs

  • Loading jobs...

jobs by Indeed job search