are there still any climate sceptics out there??? It's only 5mins...

[mockney piers]

The upward trend is of course irrefutable.

Of the black death estimates vary but the lowest I've seen is 25% of world population. The highest about 60%. The latter was certainly true of parts of Europe.

While strictly speaking a statistical blip in the short term that really was an enourmous number of people even at the lowest bound, the economic, social and politiCal upheavels were enourmous te closest we've come in the modern age would be the second world war (similar numbers dead though obviously a much much smaller percentage). It's not a huge stretch to theorise that their may have been climactic impacts if we take it that preindustrial activity can have an impact).

This is of course a minor aside on the whole debate but I found an interesting one nonetheless.

[????]

It's an aside and not a disgreement re Climate Change overall

BUT It strikes me as a huge stretch Mockney - given the overall population then, the relatively small extent of deforestation in the 13th century ie mainly Europe and north africa/deast and the fact that population recovery post black death started almost straight away (although admittedly taking 200 years to recover in the UK) and that the data isn't really reliable enough. Land use I suspect recovered very pretty quickly and I don't think there was much of a 'reforestation' anyway....

I'd stick with the solid science that overwhelmingly backs both global warming and man's part in it than this slightly 'mad' aside.......

[mockney piers]

It wasn't a mad aside it was a fully researched and published piece. Huge swathes were left untouched for over a century. Many dead in a community could mean the complete Displacement and dissappearamce of a community and indeed thousands upon thousands of hamlets dissappeared off the map formever and yes huge swathes of farmland became woodland again.

It really isn't crazy science, this much i was aware of long before climate change was brought into it having read first And second hand accounts of English soldiery marauding through France during history studies.

I honestly don't think it's an enourmous sgrectch or dodgy science though it's certainly speculative. But they were suggesting that it was the seismic nature of this change that went on to have a long term effect (if 400 odd years is long) even if population and agricultural activity enjoyed a heathy recovery in the short to medium term.

What I do love about deniers is saying something like 'how do you account for this warming' and have any refutation of it as 'what do scientists know'. Err, who exactly was counting tree rings in and positing the theory in the first place you loons?

[silverfox]

SeanMacGabhann said: "so, the quote I used was just mere "questioning" was it?"

Yes, when taken in context. Unfortunately your selective editing changed the sense. By deliberately omitting

"The 'facts' are not necessarily FACTS and many of ..." you managed to work yourself up into a tizz.

It's simple. The post asks whether there are still any climate sceptics out there??? and I am unashamedly one of them. I'm sceptical about some of the half-truths and myths being paraded (and unfortunately accepted by many) as facts and truth. I'm a sceptic - not a denier. And putting daughters on stages to espouse a cause, good ship lollipop-style, does not impress me.

[mockney piers]

I'm with you on the cheap theatrics.

I'm also with you that the climate cause has had damage done by poor journalism and untold damage by the email scandal.

The thing is though both give deniers huge amounts of ammunition, neither actually undermine the science which has become pretty overwhelming in the evidence such that there are no reputable sceptics left among the scientific debate as to whether our climate change is man made, only on the degrees, timelines and predictons, though obviously there is still much debate on many of the nitty gritty issues.

The actual distractions and dissimulations however are at the very core of the deniers' tactics, not those of the scientific community.

[silverfox]

Agreed.

However I do feel sorry for the UEA scientists and I'm quite prepared to accept there was no intention to falsify data. As far as I understand it the problem they had was conflicting data due to different methodologies used to record that data. The 'tricks' were the attempts to factor in adjustments so the data could be used meaningfully. However, one good thing that's come out of it is that our met office is now going to look again at 160 years of data.

[Brendan]

I still can?t see what motivation scientist would have to just make this shit up. What cause are they forwarding?

[mockney piers]

Research grants, reputations, our gratitude, ego.

Plenty of theories out there form the AIDS deniers camp especially.

All somewhat less convincing than an oil company's vested interests I must say. I have research scientist friends and believe you me they don't do it for the money. They do it because they believe in the cause of science, they really do.

One friend works in plant genetics (yep Frankenstein food). He could earn three or four times as much and have better equipment working for monsanto, bit amazingly he wants his reseach to be as free from commercial pressures as is possible. That's not to say he doesn't have to justify what he does, but at least his work is open to peer review and external examination

deniers, lobbyists and plain old fashioned sceptics have no such srupulous examination of their activites. If one persnickety undermines what thy have to say then just keep repeating the message in as many places as possible, if you can get a sympathetic journo or politician all the better.

And the damage is being done, those believing in AGW are being rolled back.

There is of course the other factor in this of climate change ennui. The timescale are so long, the changes you have to make to your life seemingly infinetessimally small whilst the challenge seemingly so vast that people stop caring.

I do wonder why deniers bother. Why not just carry on putting small children on the fire and living your life guilt free, nobody else seems to care much. Who are you trying to convince? Methinks she doth protest too much etc.

[casper]

I suppose I am a sceptic in that I have a natural predisposition to worry when any concensus appears and the word 'denier' starts getting thrown about. The argument has been made in that the 'majority' of scientists support the Climate Change hypothesis but it is by no means 100% and there are undeniably some very persuasive counter arguments.

My position is that I don't necessarily believe it but that it in issue that by it's very nature we cannot ignore in case it is true. We won't be able to turn back the clock. 'The Economist' takes what I think is a very good line on this. It sees it very much as taking out an insurance policy and that we can spend 1% of global output over the next 20 years to mitigate the effect of Co2 increases.

My fear is that if this in my view more sensible analysis is highjacked the eventual cost of mitigation may be far higher and cost us all more. And we must remember that the cost or effects of global warming will inevitably be bourne by the worlds poorest.

[mockney piers]

Very well put Casper.

[Brendan]

One of the worst things to have happened was for the issue to get politicised. It doesn?t really matter which side chose to discredit scientific evidence or for what reasons once the political battle lines are drawn and the politicians get stuck in the whole bang-shoot becomes a circus. Reasonable thought goes out the window and we are now stuck with credible scientist sitting with their heads in their hands while the politicians who decide to accept their work do as much damage as those who want to suppress it.

[mockney piers]

I agree that politicisation of the issues has utterly confused and subverted the debate.

Unfortunately experience tells us that people won't do anything without being pushed, and for that we will need international agreements, regulation and carrots and stick taxation.

It worked for the ozone but that was a much much smaller challenge.

Not to get all political again but by undermining our trust in politicians new labour have undermined our trust in everything they say and do.

I've just had people on my office telling me climate change was made up by Gordon brown to vet mote tax money out of us.

Lunacy, it was Tony Blair's idea!!!!!!

[Brendan]

Why do people think it is a new concept? I remember my dad explaining global warming and the greenhouse effect to me when I was a kid in the ?80s.

[????]

The concept isn't new nor the theory but the evidence has largely been gathered and indeed the body of evidence has grown since then...eg 90s temperatures etc

[DaveR]

The idea that this isn't a political issue is misguided - it's supremely political

Scientists have identified a problem that calls for action. Unfortunately, although there is a broad concensus about the problem, there is not much agreement about how to go about dealing with it (if you don't believe this, look at the rows between equally committed environmentalists about the utility of wind/wave power for one example). Decisions that involve changing laws, imposing taxes etc. are political decisions, like it or not. A decision to build nuclear power stations (rather than wind farms) to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, for example, is a political decision.

It's because it is all about politics that all interested parties are madly producing propaganda. Environmentalists have long accepted that you don't get anywhere with balanced debate - you have to shout "THE WORLD IS DYING NOW AND YOU ARE KILLING IT - THROW AWAY YOUR GEORGE FOREMAN GRILL AND LIVE ON SEEDS - NOW!" and hope that you get a reaction. I'm the last person to defend New Labour but it's hardly a shock that a party + government utterly obsessed with 'presentation' should be spinning on this issue as well.

It's worth adding that anyone who says deciding exactly what should be done is easy is as guilty of spinning as anyone else. Are you going to tell all the African nations that unless their people can afford hybrids they're better off not having cars? Good luck.

[Brendan]

Yeah on that level but I was referring more to the tit on the Clapham omnibus who thinks that global warming is something dreamed up by the government along with elf and safety and recycling in order to persecute him.

[EDOldie]

I always get a cab to Clapham these days

[Brendan]

Alas I don?t think anyone from ED can be given the title of Tit on the Clapham Omnibus as the only bus that will take you from ED to Clapham goes on to Putney so even if they get off in Clapham they would still have been on the Putney Omnibus. Or on the Peckham Omnibus if they were on their way home.

[EDOldie]

Well, I'll go off topic here but I think the judge at the time was refering to a man sitting on a bus going through Clapham rather than terminating or begining his journey there.

Back on topic that is not what I think but what I do think is that politicians and some sections of society bully people if they dare to question their masters or the accepted 'wisdom' of time.

Mind you it could be very amusing if some judge did ask the jury to consider what the reasonably educated and intelligent but non-specialist tit on the clapham omnibus might think.

[mockney piers]

"It's worth adding that anyone who says deciding exactly what should be done is easy is as guilty of spinning as anyone else."

i applaud your post above Dave, I would take issue with that one sentence. You may describe something that is patronising, haughty, maybe misguided or just plain insightful or useful or not useful, or it may quite simply be an opinion but ain't necessarily spin.

Spin is lying to dupe your target audience into thinking what you want them to think pure and simple. It is usually a misdirection or dissemminstion, it may not be a black lie but it is never and can never be, by definition, the truth.

[Brendan]

And here we are going back into politics again. I think Dave is right.

[mockney piers]

And again, this government is addicted to spin. Because of this we have men on omnibus' being stupid. And yes even the environmentalist scream "Well ALL DIEE!!!!", but it doesn't help.

If its one thing we need honesty and openness about it's this.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Be careful reading

some of the posted comments below the article.

[EDOldie]

Well thats it then if it's in the Express it must be true. Let this be a warning to all you unbelievers and sceptic deniers (is this right?). I'm off to buy a Rolls Royce meself.

[Marmora Man]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do people think it is a new concept? I

> remember my dad explaining global warming and the

> greenhouse effect to me when I was a kid in the

> ?80s.

I remember my Geography teacher presenting a very believable case for the coming of the next Ice Age in the forthcoming century when I was at school in the 60's. The age of the argument doesn't, necessarily, give it credibility.