I didn't see the programme but have already encountered several people who did and who now believe that they are 100% justified in refusing to alter their lifestyle in any way at all. It would be good to see Channel 4 setting up a rigorously chaired debate between the deniers and the true believers.

Rosemary -- re people who refuse to change their life style etc. They worry me because if or when CO2 is proved not to be the cause of warming then they will seem justified especially if we hang all our arguments on that tenuous and as yet unproven link. But saving energy, being responsible with resources etc are all very good things to do regardless of whether global warming or whatever is happening.

The Bartlett lecture (that Peter has just posted a link to) is WELL worth a look but I would listen to the webcast rather than read it (much more entertaining):-

http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

We are using energy at an unsustainable rate. No way renewables or nuclear fission can totally replace our consumption of fossil fuels. Demand rises every year and supply will soon start to contract, if you believe in an early Peak Oil (which I do). Demand reduction is necessary for these reason alone, we can't just hope the nuclear fusion scientists make a break through in time - there isn't enough time.

However, I do think doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 this century would be a monumental folly. I'd liken it to playing Russian roulette with the future of human civilisation when we know 5 of the 6 chambers have bullets in them. Crazy thing is, despite all the talk, still looks to me like we going to pull the trigger.

Tom,

I was the guest you were asking to 'declare yourself'. I really don't think I want to. This game is too rough for me. I'm worried it could get personal. I will just re-state that I think debate is good, and that it's important for the non-academics amongst us to be aware that it's not all cut-and-dried.

Biff,

- "Well I've already been specific about Moore and Calder."

No you haven't. You just expressed an opinion about their untrustworthiness. I'm open to learning that these guys are charlatans if that happens to be true, but your link for Patrick Moore hardly delivers a convincing critique.

- "PS "(funcrusher) I'm not up with the latest research" The go and do some reading. We just have to keep up if we want to be taken seriously."

I don't think it's fair to expect everyone who wants to chip in to this discussion to be a climate change expert. That's what your realclimate.org is for, innit.

While we're talking about rants go here for another perspective on Monbiot.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1839/

Personally I think Tony's making the most sense (most relevant approach for this forum), but I'll honour Tom's request now and butt out.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Guest</cite>Tom,

I was the guest you were asking to 'declare yourself'. I really don't think I want to. This game is too rough for me. I'm worried it could get personal.</blockquote>

Guest, I suspect there are others who are reading this who feel the same way, and who are concerned about either stating an opinion or even saying who they are.

I have already stated that I am not convinced of the cause of Global Warming, and it seems that those of us who take this line are labelled "deniers" or members of the "flat earth society". Not much incentive for open debate is it? I am not saying that the programme makers proved their hypothesis, but then the CO2 hypothesis is also unproven.

There are some good points above about playing against the odds; and irresponsibility, and this is partly why energy conservation and zero carbon generation are good things. I agree with these completely. Let's be honest here, those who contribute here all have the same aim - Sustainabity sums it up for me.

It is not a crime however to state one’s opinion; or to question unproven science. Suggesting that either hypothesis IS proven is for me the irresponsible thing to do. Maybe both sides are a little guilty of this

Mike, questioning unproven science is fine but your remarks "the CO2 hypothesis is also unproven" is now way off the mark. OK, I'm a fan of Popper and the unprovability of everything, but for all practical purposes anthropogenic global warming is about as established as anything is likely to be. We have a level of certainty that supports the most radical political and social change. Climate change denial is about as silly, and perhaps more dangerous, as holocaust denial.

A valid area for debate is whether the effects of Peak Oil will hit us first. It is likely that we will not be able to extract and burn fossil fuels at the rate that has been modelled and reported in the IPCC Summary. That may sound like good news for the climate but the effects on the global economy will just as severe - but sooner. The great uncertainty in climate science is the role of feed-backs which may make the situation much worse and much sooner and impossible to mitigate. In this area we have to do more science while keeping fingers crossed.

The mitigation strategies required for both climate change and Peak Oil are very similar - demand destruction through conservation and efficiency and the development of renewable energy supplies.

The present (albeit too small) push by politicians to address climate change may produce the right effects but for the wrong reasons. No achievable amount of air travel taxation and light bulb swapping will allow us to beat the oil depletion curve. If we save oil in one area it will be used in another part of the global economy. The amount of oil used, and carbon released, will be determined by our ability to suck it out of the ground. All of the available oil will be burnt no matter how green our politicians become.

However, a programme that reduces our dependence of fossil fuels will cushion the blow of energy shortage and enable us to move to a sustainable economy. For the UK, the most pressing problem will be a crisis in electricity generation.

Let's press for building zero-carbon houses now or we will find that the 2016 economy does not allow us to build houses at all.

Mike, try reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper" rel="nofollow" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

Looking at 'it' from where you are standing 'it' will be viewed from your perspective. Biff, if ,as you tell us, you have championed the cause of anthropogenic global warming for thirty years it is going to be exceedingly difficult for you to see 'this' any other way. You think and feel that it is all proven and that science is on your side. I see the whole thing as a media driven political band wagon. I'm going on holiday for a couple of months so I'll shut up for a while.

I enjoy our little chats very much. I still think that you were great with the cafetiere experiment.

Fostertom has already touched on the historic and pre-historic dramatic swings in climate and CO2 levels, which pre-date any possible significant impact by mankind.

Mankind has a long history of perceiving all natural phenomena as some judgement on his mis-conduct and a prelude to his destruction, which he can only be avert by some extraordinary public sacrifice/self-punishment. Seems to describe the current 'climate change' mania rather well?

So what if Greenland warms up and returns to farmland, as it was when colonised by the Vikings c1000AD ?

Ironically, I rather suspect that the USA would be a loser from global warming, whilst Canada and N Europe (the habitat of the scare-mongers) would be the winners!

HOWEVER: see my previous post 9above) on global dimming.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: biffvernon</cite>No Mike, there is no staight answer to questions like "What is proof?" You just have to study philosohy of science.

</img></blockquote>


Ah, studying the philosophy of Science. The trouble is there is a lot of so called science it in this area and not all of it is based on knowledge. There are many hypotheses which remain unproven and most of us simply do not have the time to review all of the ‘evidence’ and sift through who said what; why they said it and whether they were paid to do so.

Part of my approach is to use Forums such as this to try and glean information from others who often contribute ideas I would probably never consider otherwise. Of course I always try to evaluate their motives.

Regarding published ‘knowledge’, most research is funded and it is very easy to forget that you must start with a hypothesis and try to prove it one way or the other. The great shame is that should one’s findings be detrimental to the commercial [or other] interest of one’s paymaster, they are unlikely to come to light.

What we have with AGW is a common viewpoint, held by most of the scientific community. The other side of the fence are perceived as the biased, the doubters and the deniers.

So for those of us without the time to philosophise all of these opinions, all we can do is have a little faith - a bit like religion really.

Is your Format comments as html button at the bottom selected, MG?

I agree, Kit, that excess population and energy use are the big issues. After all, if there were only a billion of us then we could all continue much as we are without causing any significant climate or energy water or food shortgage problems. However given that it would be morally unacceptable to deliberately exterminate 5 billion of our number and we look likely to go on using energy at much the same rate as we do currently, it might be worth considering moving that sea front property on...

I'm sorry to hear you have a problem with radionucleide pollution in the environment. From what you say I can only conclude that you are living on a low lying south Pacific athol that has recently been used for a French nuclear weapons test as this is the only place on the planet where this is likely to be the case.

We're seeing faster and faster oscillations and polarisations and the destruction of 'knowability' - nothing to hold onto as certain or secure, the end of reliance for mental comfort on belief in 'the answer'. We're at the chaos point, when everything old and reliable, or new and hopeful, fails our expectations, while something radically unpredictable takes form. It's finally undeniable that, while human actions can be seen, with hindsight, to influence the future, they in no way shape the future as humans hoped. So it's time to abandon the idea that we can 'save' the planet, or even save ourselves, if only we can convince everybody of the 'right' course of action, which is a non-starter, as ever. We live in the most interesting 5-10yr period of the last 50,000yrs, so how to act, how to enjoy complete insecurity? All anyone can ever do is act in the way that feels best for them - and hope to be infectious - and leave the rest to the universe. Relax, stop agonising, so our creativity can emerge and do great things, start to shine, enjoy the ride, enjoy ourselves (our Selves) - then maybe the planet will decide there's hope for us yet and take its finger off the 'abort' button.

Any evidence that these are:-

1 From Sellafield and not from nuclear weapons tests? Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing has spread radionucleide pollution throughout the globe in an uncontrolled fashion. How have you traced this back to Sellafield?
2 Any danger to human life? I lived in the Isle of Man until I was seven and spent many a happy summers day on the beach and in the sea. No ill effects as yet. Since the age of seven I have lived in Derbyshire, a radon affected area. My guess is that I have suffered more radiation as a result of the naturally occuring radon than anything Sellafield put in the Irish Sea.
3 We are all aware of the releases that occurred in the early days of the nuclear programme. Priorities were a lot different then ( the Cold War etc) and Professor Lovelock had not yet furnished us with the Electon Capture Device to enable us to detect these minute quantities of radiotive isotopes. Are you saying that Sellafied is still releasing radiactive material into the Irish Sea or that new nuclear power would do so? Comparing what went on in nuclear industry in the 1950s with what would and does happen now is like comparing modern wind turbines with the one operated in Camblewick Green by Mr Windy Miller...

Nuclear reactors operate on the coast or next to a large lake to allow the discharge of hot water from the reactor cooling circuit which is sealed from the radiactive parts of the reactor, not to dump waste. They could achieve the same by constructing cooling towers but at much greater cost.

I'm not particularly keen on nuclear power for its own sake but I think there is a significant element in the environmental movement that made their minds up about all things nuclear when they were members of CND 25 years ago. They have been unable to see the benefits of a well managed civilian nuclear power programme because they associated the technology with nuclear weapons and the battles of the Cold War period.

Nulcear fission is not the long term answer to the world's energy needs but not because it is unsafe, rather because we don't have enough uranium to go around. However, if we want to prevent the collapse of industrial societies as we pass Peak Oil and Peak Gas over the next couple of decades, we will need to use nuclear and coal, with carbon capture, as we power down from a high energy use society to a low energy use society that can exist on renewables alone. Anyone got a realistic alternative that will be acceptable to the general public at an election?

Here is George Monbiot's response to Channel 4: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/" > Monbiot response