I clipped a bit out of the report. Clearly there is no evidence or they would quote the reference and would not use the quite remarkable fitst use of word LIKELY!!

"Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}" ---- from IPCC report

Not much to base whole world level decision making on for both economic and political decisions.

Proof!

Posted By: tonyProof!

Wheres the "proof" that its safe to carry on burning.

Whats wrong with the precautionary pricnciple.

I dont suppose that you are going to stop producing carbon dioxide by refraining from burning wood then are you?

Biff, am I reading you right in that its okay for you to burn wood while advocating that six billion others are effectively starved of fuel? Or do you suggest they all burn wood as well? which is of course the first thing they will do, closely followed by anything else they can dig or extract from the ground themselves. I don't like to think about what comes after that.

How would you feel if someone said to you that you were not allowed to make or sell joinery products any more?

The Chinese govenment is very aware of what it is and isn't capable of.

Remember the riots we had in this country when thousands of miners were put out of work in the 70's/80's.

Well imagine that but on a much, much larger scale in China as millions are starved of their livelihoods and millions more are plunged into darkness as the power goes off.

Playing all high and mighty self-righteousness might play well to people's concious but I would honestly rather take the risk of dealing with the effects of climate change rather than try to abandon/change 90% + of societies power grid.

If the power goes out in a big way in the next decade then thousands will die as advanced medical care fails and financial systems are unable to function. I myself would not have survived birth if it hadn't been for an electrically powered incubator, so the odds of convincing me that industrialised power systems are a bad thing are damn near nil.

Nope, I'll take my chances WITH climate change and keep my coal burners thanks very much. I think that the worst thing we could do is try and force inappropriate actions on other nations either by hectoring (which won't work as there are economic advantages to digging up all the coal) or by military force which would be worse.

The odds of anything meaningful being done about CC is small.

So I suggest rather than standing about arguing about which is the best methods for reducing our carbon emissions we should be planning for the effects of CC which are coming like it or not. Its time to break out the earthmovers cos we're going to need some levees.

Andy

Greed just might be the saviour (but leaving coal in the ground is a silver bullet!)

IMO a credit crunch recession leading into a energy(& food) shortage depression will wipe trillions of dollars off investors balance sheets. The demand for manufactured goods will crash and CO2 burning factories/power plants with them.

It will sort itself out! but not in a good way (I stole that from another forum)

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: tony</cite>How would you feel if someone said to you that you were not allowed to make or sell joinery products any more?</blockquote>

Tony - how are you going to explain to your children and grandchildren that they can't do the things we did - like travel the world - because all the resources are gone? That we've already stolen their future? That we were greedy and used more than our fare share so that others can't live the lifestyle that we use? That we knew we were causing unnatural climate change but preferred to put off the inevitable because we were too lazy to change?

Liz's statement it true, and whether or not you agree with it, Liz and I know it. You won't get proof because proof is a concept used in mathematics and logic, not science.
The key question, Tony, is whether all your excellent reducing, reusing and recycling will actually result in fossil fuel being left in the ground and the carbon not entering the atmosphere.

Mike, I'm surpised you think that 'proof' is a useful concept in science. Did you not read Popper?

Posted By: biffvernonMike, I'm surpised you think that 'proof' is a useful concept in science. Did you not read Popper?

No, did he proove it?

No it's not just semantics. In maths I can proove that 2 = 2 + 4
In science I can demonstrate that apples fall down every time I try the experiment. I can develop a model of the universe that allows me to expect that apples fall downwards. I can be so sure that apples fall downwards that I can use that expectation as a useful tool during apple harvest time.

I cannot prove that apples will always, everywhere, fall downwards. Newton's description of gravity was good enough to navigate spacecraft by, but Einstein demonstrated that it was not always, everywhere, quite right.
Popper showed that proof is not the business of science, though falsifying hypotheses is.

The point is that we now are so certain about what is happening to our climate system that the only wise course is to change what we do and quickly. It will, however, never be proved.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Terry</cite>
much as we shake our heads at what went on in the middle ages.</blockquote>

But we also respond with admiration and wonder at the civilisation and innovation of the ancient Greeks. I'm not sure of the point you're making, but I'd like to go down in history as part of a civilisation/movement that realised its misdemeanors in time and acted to correct them with commitment and ingenuity.