Hoax - its a hoax - can't you see it?

[DA_]

Why oh why, don't you read the facts and not get swept up by all the hysteria of gore & stern? climate change has been around for ever. nothing we can do will change the world. how daft is it to suggest we can save the planet by taking the bus! I'm off to US next week, for a holiday, and you ain't stopping me!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...FSFFOAVCBQ0IV0

[matthewtrigg]

DA,

Do you believe that at the very least the unlikely predictions of climate change are feasible?

Matthew.

[DA_]

anything's feasible when it comes to global temperature, the point is that the arguments have been skewed to make it look like its man's fault, and that we have the power to resolve it, when in fact there is no evidence that that is the case.

The infamous chart of 650,000 years temperature/CO2 in the gore fantasy, does not show that the spiked rises in temperature actually preceeded rises in the CO2 levels by 400-4,000 years - not the other way round. Mr Gore neatly avoided pointing that out.

[matthewtrigg]

But in denying the inherent danger of this possibility, however remote, you are presenting the same type of argument with far worse consequences if you turn out to be wrong.

If people such as Stern and Gore are listened to and action is taken only for us to find out it was not needed, no harm will be done. While if they are correct and we fail to act (as you are suggesting) the consequences for our society will be disastrous.

The precautionary principle teaches us that we should always make decisions based on the worst case scenario, often before it is proven with absolute certainty. That way we are prepared for any eventuality and can easily cope with future changes.

To deny to growing opinion, both scientific and social towards human-induced climate change is to act in ignorance of an increasingly likely reality of the world.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by DA_

The infamous chart of 650,000 years temperature/CO2 in the gore fantasy, does not show that the spiked rises in temperature actually preceeded rises in the CO2 levels by 400-4,000 years - not the other way round. Mr Gore neatly avoided pointing that out.

I think you'll find if you bother to delve into the science of it that the uncertainty surrounding the timings of temperature and atmospheric events over a 650 000 year time period can be as much as 10 000 years or more so to suggest that the timing is one way round or another is speculative. The arguement 'climate change deniers' usually use is the uncertainty involved in predictions and measurements backwards and forwards in time. That would be a fair arguement concerning the timings of events you speak of here. To suggest with any certainty that one set of events definitely preceeded the other is uncertain at best.