News24

Activists struggle with climate message

2012-10-22 11:13

Cape Town - Environmental organisations find it difficult to convince ordinary people of the reality of climate change, despite a noticeable increase in extreme weather events.

"There is no question that one of the challenges of dealing with an issue like climate change is that it is a bit more abstract, a bit more remote in time and space than an urban air pollution problem or a water pollution issue," James Leape, director general of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) told News24.

The WWF and several organisations have been campaigning for concrete action environmental affairs for decades and despite their efforts, there is rising scepticism of climate change, particularly in the US, where several politicians have questioned the science.

According to a recent poll conducted by Ipsos, only 59% agreed that human activity had mainly contributed to climate change, compared to 93% of respondents in Indonesia, 92% in Mexico and 87% in Germany.

"It's clear that climate change is a reality and the climate is already changing. The science is overwhelmingly clear that if we allow unchecked climate change, we're asking for a lot of trouble," said Leape.

Challenge


Some have blamed the media for an anti-science sentiment, particularly in American politics with the rise of conservative groups that challenge accepted scientific theories.

Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade called global warming a "scam" in a discussion with Dr Alex Berezow, author of Science Left Behind.

The WWF said that the challenge remained for organisations to push the message that climate change was a threat to all living systems on the planet.

"I think our challenge is to continue to find ways to bring home that message: To bring to life the implications of climate change but also to bring to life the solutions," Leape said.

One of the solutions, according to the WWF, was the move away from fossil fuel to renewable energy.

"At the heart of addressing the problem of climate change is shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

"Renewable energy of course has many benefits: It's not just low carbon, but it's also cleaner in a variety of ways and it allows a more decentralised power system, and often a more reliable power system," said Leape.

Weather events

Germany recently reached a renewable energy milestone when it was announced that solar power plants in that country produced a world record 22 gigawatts (GW) of electricity per hour, which is equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity.

Australia also opened its biggest solar power plant in October, estimated to generate 10MW, enough to power 3 000 homes.

But in SA, many are opposed to renewable energy investment and a group calling itself Wind Point recently ran an advert claiming that 270 000 birds in the US are killed by wind turbines annually and called on South Africans to object to the development of wind energy as a clean energy alternative to coal and nuclear power production.

"It concerns us that there are people who are holding us back from moving toward renewable energy to putting forward 'un-credible' arguments," Ruth Mhlanga climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Africa told News24.

The extreme weather events in 2012 were a "reminder" of the reality of climate change, said the WWF.

"Public attention to an issue waxes and wanes, but you see this year alone, huge reminders of what climate change has in store for us," said Leape.

He added that many people might accept that weather patterns are changing, but not feel that it should have an impact of their behaviour.

"People might accept intellectually that these storms are an indication of a changing climate, but there's a natural temptation to say 'Oh, but it's just the weather.'"


- Follow Duncan on Twitter
 

Comments
  • tommy.jones.754918 - 2012-10-22 11:42

    "only 59% agreed that human activity had mainly contributed to climate change"....what does "mainly" mean in his sentence?

      tommy.jones.754918 - 2012-10-22 12:16

      mainly as in %.

      arthur.hugh - 2012-10-22 15:52

      Apparently human contribution to global warming (carbon footprint) is 5% in total. Either way one looks at it no harm can come from being more eco friendly, and minimising the impact we have on the planet. The world population growth is massive, and with that comes more destruction of our planet, I'm all for doing my bit where I can. It's just a shame so much eco friendly stuff is more expensive (initial cash outlay) when there's an economic recession - hard to convince people to part with their bucks and change their mindset.

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:53

      @Hugh: The climate is sensitive to small disturbances in atmospheric concentrations of CO2. How do they know this? From past climatic changes. To make the conclusion that our emissions dont have serious effects because human contributions are "small" relative to natural variability, is not a sound argument. Cyanide is lethal in trace quantities.

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 19:23

      @mememan, judging by your stance elsewhere, are you not referring here to the remaining 41%?

  • fussed.anderson - 2012-10-22 11:51

    "Environmental organisations find it difficult to convince ordinary people of the reality of climate change" Please define "ordanary people"

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 15:26

      @Meme As if you got any qualifications?

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 16:41

      @Meme BS, you wouldn't be working where you do if you had any qualification!!

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 17:14

      @Meme Is this your only qualification? ..."My best qualification is a brain that is turned on and not cluttered with absurdities and childish notions. Try reality - it's very refreshing." LMAO, Meme, you don't posses a degree, and most of your knowledge is obtained via your bible ..wikipedia.

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 17:33

      @Meme So say you, what gives you the right to CLAIM VICTORY, LMAO, silly boy! To any readers who care to know the truth about Global Warming I suggest you read up on Climategate 1.0 & 2.0 , if those scientists come off as credible to you then believe them, for me I've live through "the Ice Age of the 70's" , Y2K, Ozone layer depletion ect ect ... I'm not going to live my lifein fear, besides there are 1000's of scientist who disagree of Global Warming, don't believe Meme's 97% , go check it out for your selves , here's a starting point .... http://www.petitionproject.org/ I could take you on on many of you lies , Meme, but what's the point you'd just carry on the charade. Here's a intresting article on Climategate ..... http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/2/ Read what was said in those emails and then try to explain them away!!

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:58

      @Paulthebok: Again, you are falling for the denialist propaganda that is being spewed by the fossil feul industry to make you believe that there is some kind of conspiracy. Perhaps you should see the list below: The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia Geological Society of London International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK Continued:

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 18:02

      Meme , read these articles and weep ... http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwODEyNDgyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/12/400-scientists-dispute-man-made-global.html http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=143 So who's "the Sheep" now Meme, don't believe something just because "the Scientists" say so, read up get all points of view and then choose your position>

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 18:03

      Continued: The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico) Russian Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." As far as Climategate is concerned: http://www.skepticalscience.com/fake-scandal-Climategate.html As far as the petition project is concerned: No Effort was made to verify the scientific credentials of the signatories, hence the list is bogus. http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm http://www.petitionproject.org/

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 18:06

      @Meme and Ernst Take a look at Climategate emails , you failed to respond to this comment on Friday ...lets see if you can now!!! Which ever way you look at it , there is noway they can explain away those emails, lets take a look at just one of the email discussions ... "And just how important are real facts? Tom Crowley, a key member of Mann’s global warming hockey team, didn’t seem overly concerned when he stated: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” However another researcher saw a problem with this reasoning: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office also advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…” In another e-mail he stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”" here's the link... http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/2/ I suggest readers read both pages. TCB..

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 18:07

      continued ... Yes Meme, in your mind insulting a opponent in a debate and calling into question his intellect and sanity somehow makes you look good, lol , all it does is show you up, as a weak debater. Let the readers of this decide for them self , why would these MEN OF SCIENCE be talking the way they are if they had nothing to hide, why don't they abide by FOI acts.. or at least make the information freely available via a website, that way they wouldn't be burdened by FOI requests. But no they seem to be covering up something, WHAT?

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 18:17

      @Ernst I think you should read those Climategate emails for yourself, if you can explain away what those scientists were saying then you are obviously biased. Their deciet is there for all to see!

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 18:21

      Ok meme Explain this away for me... "And just how important are real facts? Tom Crowley, a key member of Mann’s global warming hockey team, didn’t seem overly concerned when he stated: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.” However another researcher saw a problem with this reasoning: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…” Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office also advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…” In another e-mail he stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”" I'll come back and see if you could. Please, stick to the above subject matter, don't go off on one of your tangents.

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 18:25

      @Paulthebok: 1) Please go and physically read the below link and STOP providing links to sources that are NOT based on peer reviewed scientfic literature. 2) Also go through the list of pretigious scientific institutions that I provided. http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Climategate http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm 3) Funny how the emails were "leaked" right before the crucial global meeting at Copenhagen and last year just before the climate meeting in Durban.

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 19:15

      @Ernst Are you disputing the contents of the emails? If so on what basis? Can you explain away what was said in the email? Your list , I bet I could find scientists from many of those institutes who dispute GW.

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 20:25

      @Ernst Here are a few Scientists from those institutions who dispute GW. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences Here's a gem.... "Britain’s premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind’s contribution to rising temperatures. The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350-year-old institution’s official position on global warming. It will publish a new “guide to the science of climate change” this summer. The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause. ok that took a few minutes ... do I need to go on?

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 20:38

      @Meme LOl ... I'm your nemises...lol ... I debunk all you lies, live with it or stop lying! Ok here's annwers to this claim of your's ... "5) What do the peer reviewed studies say? Well now - well over 1,000 that is one-thousand peer reviewed studies say GW is real and human caused How many disagree? 0/NONE/zilch/niks... vok0l...." Haha ha .... Check this link out... read the "peer reviewed papers" all 1100 of them disagreeing with GW http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Face palm !!!

      paulthebok - 2012-10-22 20:40

      @Meme Why do you keep avoiding responding to my Climategate quotes, WHY? Must be that you can't debunk them!

      Desilusionada - 2012-10-22 20:59

      @ paulthebok - October 22, 2012 at 17:14 Your post refers. @Meme Is this your only qualification? .. You apparently cannot read. He said his BEST qualification not ONLY........ So how much credibility should we attach to your copy/paste skills?

      tommy.jones.754918 - 2012-10-23 08:07

      Paul, do you mean there are now 1100 peer reviewed docs debunking GW, compared to 1000 peer reviewed doc in favor of GW. Well then, by some peoples logic here on this forum, it must mean it has been debunked....right Meme/Ernst? Here's the thing, we all can agree the climate is changing. The questions that remain are: 1) What is the actual human contribution to this climate change; 2) Does this change involve a overall rise in earths temperature; and 3) How do Governments benefit from Climate change? Meme, you being up there with science should now that it always good to question and question again, and unfortunately the jury is still out on this one.

      paulthebok - 2012-10-24 08:01

      Meme, did you bother to read this, you say zero peer reviewed papers ...I say BS !!! Check this link out... read the "peer reviewed papers" all 1100 of them disagreeing with GW http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Just one more Meme lie !!

  • stirrer.stirrer - 2012-10-22 12:03

    The scientist are promoting the wrong message. Climate change is real, AGW is very much debatable. Chances are that the climate change we are experiencing, is cyclical and unstoppable, so instead of being alarmist and trying to change human behaviour to stop the unstoppable, rather spend the money and effort on strategies on how to effectively deal with the change.

      phil.losopher.3 - 2012-10-22 12:54

      Idiot

      sven.gohre - 2012-10-22 13:43

      @Philosopher Stoned, the fact that global temperatures have not risen at all for the past 16 years, seems to indicate that the models used by the Alarmist Climate Change scientists is very flawed. We were told back in 1997 that by 2020 the Global temperature would rise by no less than 2 degrees Celsius. It looks as if there will be no warming at all unless the temperature increases are faster and more noticeable than was predicted back in 1997. Climate scientists have admitted that their models may be flawed and that they do not as yet understand all the natural variables such as the Pacific and Atlantic temperature inversions, or the fact that the sun is now in a weaker phase than it was at the end of the nineties. So it would seem that even though the CO2 levels are much higher than predicted, the Globe is not playing along with the Man Made Warming theory at all. The Earth has been far warmer in the past, reaching around 60 degrees Celsius at the equator when the dinosaurs and more than 90% of life on the planet was destroyed. It has also been much colder and both these extremes were achieved without the help of mankind in any way. So the conclusion that I draw is that we have no effect on the planets long term temperature, but are not helping by destroying so much of the forests and other flora that keeps CO2 in check.

      stirrer.stirrer - 2012-10-22 14:41

      MemeMan, want to know why I'm a skeptic? Note: not a climate change sceptic, just an AGW sceptic. It's when so-called "scientists" look at the same set of climate data and arrive at opposing conclusions. Dr Judith Curry's credentials are impeccable. The UEA-CRU has Climategate under it's belt. Both claim to be experts on climate. Then we get phrases like this one: "While the trend is not statistically significant, the central value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has most likely warmed over this period." - When you have a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail. Is the trend statistically significant or not? Has the surface temperature warmed or not? C'mon guys, you are the scientists and data does not lie! Why can't you make up your minds and say it like it is? Oh, I know - you're not sure...

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 15:24

      "Chances are that the climate change we are experiencing is cyclical and unstoppable..." Actually, no. Scientists worldwide have studied this, and concluded quite emphatically that there is no known natural mechanism that could remotely explain the observed warming of the earth. And what we're seeing is that it's all happening way too fast. The only people who cling to the 'cyclical' theory are not even climatologists, but politicians and pseudoscientists (mostly geologists, curiously), funded by the fossil fuel industry. Sounds legitimate to me!

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 15:26

      @PeggySven: "...the fact that global temperatures have not risen at all for the past 16 years" Source please. And note, you just chose 1998, one of the hottest years in recorded history, to start your 16 year theory. That's called cherrypicking, I'm afraid.

      stirrer.stirrer - 2012-10-22 16:18

      MemeMan, I get what you're saying, but when I look at the whole circus without any pre-defined "science doesn't lie" blinkers, the whole shebang looks like the biggest circus of the past 100 years. Now the data says this, now it says that, now Arctic ice is diminishing, but Antarctic ice is not, glaciers are melting, oh, not in the Himalayas, or in South America, the models are too complex, the models require tweaking, maybe we were wrong, no, we are right - it's endless. A says this, B debunks it, then C debunks B, D debunks C - eish, I can't keep up. If these guys want any kind of credibility, they would do their research PROPERLY, not base their conclusions on too complex, flawed models, with flawed data, but come with some kind of verifiable proof. All we have now are "probably", "maybe", and "we don't understand yet". Regarding the money: Most of it comes from government grants. That's where the serious money lies, and it's not profitable to be labeled a skeptic, no grants for that (and PLEASE don't come with the oil company BS again!) Maybe the problem is that everyone involved in climate research wants to get a report out ASAP and see their names in print, that's why we are bombarded with half-baked, contradictory, mostly useless reports which someone, somewhere will invariably try to debunk. It's just a bloody circus. How can anyone take this seriously?

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:28

      @Stirrer and PeggySven: Humans are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere by dumping billions of tons of carbon in it every year. More enrgy from the sun is trapped into the biosphere than is escaping into space. This causes an energy imbalance, and so the stability of the climate is disrupted. You cannot run away from simple chemistry and physics.

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:44

      @Stirrer: "It's when so-called "scientists" look at the same set of climate data and arrive at opposing conclusions. Dr Judith Curry's credentials are impeccable....." 1) I will say it again: Climategate is a fake scandal designed to delay action on greenhouse gas mitigation. Have you actually bothered to do more research on this issue? Why havent you said that 9 independant investigations have concluded no irregularities in the research of these scientists 2)The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia Geological Society of London International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Continued:

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:46

      Continued: International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico) Russian Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) So Judith Curry disagrees with al the above? What more is necessary for you to wake the f up?

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 18:27

      @mememan: Dude, you are the best! Thanks for the assistance!

  • martin.brink.965 - 2012-10-22 12:34

    Climate change as marketed by Al Gore is merely about making money. Pollute here - buy \clean air\ from there is pure mindgames and has no effect in actual pollution terms! By reducing waste to landfill by reducing packaging, by re-using and recycling makes sense. Go have a look at www.mrrecycle.co.za for tips on starting a recycling collection system. Recyclable materials have social, financial and environmental values and could/should be used to fight the reasons for petty crimes by providing jobs for commercially unemployable people.

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:30

      Humans are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere by dumping billions of tons of carbon in it every year. More enrgy from the sun is trapped into the biosphere than is escaping into space. This causes an energy imbalance, and so the stability of the climate is disrupted. You cannot run away from simple chemistry and physics.

  • ian.huntly - 2012-10-22 12:38

    Climate is always changing, get used to it. AGW is still unproven and very much under debate. What we can do that makes economic sense, is just use less electricity, fuel, energy of any kind. Pity I see WWF members still pitching up at conferences in large 4 x 4's that look like they have never seen a dirt road. They could halve their impact (or more) by driving a smaller diesel car, which would help SA's balance of payments at the same time.

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 15:18

      Certainly, climate is always changing. It's a no-brainer. AGW is however no longer under any serious debate, at least not in scientific circles. That's like me saying the flat-earth society is still garnering a lot of support. There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming, and that we're chiefly responsible for it. Please name me one, just one, credible scientific body that doesn't unequivocally teach this.

  • robbie.crouch - 2012-10-22 12:49

    No significant change in the weather the last 16 years folks. Just better reporting capabilities due to social media.

      stirrer.stirrer - 2012-10-22 12:59

      Robbie, I agree with you as far as temperature changes (i.e. global warming) are concerned, BUT we are seeing more and more extreme weather events, the past weekend is a case in point. There is definite climate change.

  • robbie.crouch - 2012-10-22 12:51

    No big fanfare but http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

      tommy.jones.754918 - 2012-10-22 13:03

      Yes, but my scientist is more intelligent than you scientist. Love the arguments of the global warming advocates.

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 14:07

      Too funny. And one has to absolutely LOVE the arguments put forth by the deniers Almost as good as the one you refer to (published by a tabloid newspaper, sir, let it be noted). First of all, would it surprise you to know that the Met Office has NEVER issued a report stating anything of the kind? Would it surprise you if some of the scientists quoted vehemently denied they ever made such statements? Would it surprise you if I told you that 8 out of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2002? What we have here is another classic case of cherrypicking, combined with false and misleading tripe published as scientific fact. Sad, really. It's like the denier camp is clutching at every last available straw these days.

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 14:12

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong?newsfeed=true The article's subheading pretty much sums it up, I think: Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 15:28

      No big fanfare he says. That's because it's BS of the purest kind, and published in a tabloid to boot!

  • phae.rayden - 2012-10-22 12:54

    The comments reflect exactly what the article is about, yet more denial and deflection. Why should this catastrophe need to consider peoples feelings? 'Locust' behaviour by humans is the primary reason for this disaster, if there's any solution it should be the sterilisation of 90% of humans.

      john.collin.1690 - 2012-10-22 13:34

      Agreed lets start with you and your family?

  • peet.smit.12 - 2012-10-22 15:09

    I fully agree with most comments. If some environmental groups and individuals stop lying to us about the causes for climate change just for their own benefit, they would have had much more support by now. They harmed themselves by all their false theories about AGW, which gave them a bad reputation. AGW may definitely play a role, but how significant is the real question. You may be worried about 4WD fuel guzzlers, but do they really matter that much? Read this article and get a better perspective: http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/. Learning to manage global warming is what is really important and learning to live in harmony with nature has always been the right thing to do, anyway.

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:31

      Humans are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere by dumping billions of tons of carbon in it every year. More enrgy from the sun is trapped into the biosphere than is escaping into space. This causes an energy imbalance, and so the stability of the climate is disrupted. You cannot run away from simple chemistry and physics.

  • nom.deplume.969 - 2012-10-22 15:28

    Rant start - All Im going to say is search Google/Youtube for The Great Global Warming Swindle. Does global warming occur as a natural and cyclical event, yes, much like global cooling does. This "Al Gore" hype is just really all about keeping developing countries in a perpetual "developing" status quo by imposing huge tax burdens and purchasing of exorbitantly expensive "green" equipment so that you are seen to comply. Leave the developing countries to their own Industrial Age and stop expecting the little guy to remain the little guy while you get fatter, Mr. Developed First World country...rant over

      douglas.hollis.7 - 2012-10-22 16:01

      Right. Maybe you should stop ranting, and expose yourself to writings of a more balanced nature. The Great Global Warming Swindle is itself nothing short of a swindle. It has been debunked so many times, and by so many different authors, I'm surprised you even bring it up on this forum. Seriously, you should try to expand your horizons a bit? Try this, for a start: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

      ernst.j.joubert - 2012-10-22 17:55

      @nom.deplume: "The great global warming swindle" has been debunked thousands of times and this was done 5 years ago. You are behind the times mate.

  • jim.corcoran.7 - 2012-10-22 20:19

    Human pursuit of animal protein is the leading cause of methane release and a primary cause of CO2 concentrating in the atmosphere. Check the facts and act! "As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?" “If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund Why would someone choose to be vegan? To slow global warming for one! Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ~ Albert Einstein

      tommy.jones.754918 - 2012-10-23 07:57

      Mmmm, a man with an agenda.

  • pages:
  • 1