Name them or at least provide a link to a source that does.

That’s an enormous number so shouldn’t prove difficult.

I don’t much see the point in lots of arguing – best thing to do is to provide your sources/evidence and let other people have a look at them for themselves Shobba.

I’ve provided links myself, and as far as I know no scientific body now disagrees human activity has contributed to climate change, but I’m happy to be corrected by up to date sources.

(Report comment)

Once again (just for you) climate change is a fact..no matter what the cause, but we have a slim chance of doing something about about…we may not be the cause, but we could be part of the cure…(well some of us)

I hope you children and grandchildren are stockpiling wellies hahahah

(Report comment)

I was listening to a radio programme about the 1956 Suez crisis this morning. It was used as an excuse by UK government to add 30% to the cost of petrol overnight. In reality, Britain was bankrupt after the war and needed more tax revenues.

As now, our inept incompetent government had promised the hoi-polloi more than could be delivered. Health, education, pensions, defence. (Spooky eh?) The solution, cut services or tax more. They ,like now, chose the higher taxes option. Short term it works, long term you strangle the economy and create more unemployment.

I hate to disappoint. But there IS absolutely positively no conclusive proof for human cause climated change. ‘Global warming’ became ‘global cooling’ before ‘climate change.’ This is the best evidence that no-one on our little planet really understands the weather. If they did, our local forecasts would be accurate.

Example; The past 24hrs should have seen up to 2 inches of rain on the island. It didn’t happen. Anyone who prepared for it wasted time and energy.
The brilliant boffins at the Met Office saw it coming – but it passed us by.

My advice? Enjoy your life, don’t let it worry you and believe, (as I do) that technology will provide the solution to any future problems weather and energy related. My children and grandchildren are very bright. I trust them to solve mankinds problems as I and my forefathers did.

(Report comment)

(well at least you think you are)

750 of the worlds top scientists..hahahahhahahah and your source is.

and even if true, its a miniscule number compared to the real scientists not employed by America who prove climate change.

I like you shooba…you are very entertaining (in a TopGear kind of way)

(Report comment)

My dear lady, it’s you lot who are sad and bitter.
750 of the worlds top scientists say human caused climate change is an elaborate cynical hoax. Its purpose – to allow governments to tax more and reduce consumption.

I suspect most serious anti-airport angry ecomentalists are in fact unemployable beardy pierced scroungers, in need of a damn good wash. These people probably once dreamed of careers, exotic long haul holidays, owning a decent home and a yes, maybe even a Range Rover. Finding their own lives to be unfulfilled and uneventful, they’ve latched onto the green issue. In reality for them it’s really a communist far left cause. That’s why the same grubby people are seen hurling bottles at G7/8 meetings.

Youu’ll never convince me. I am not denying human cause climate change – there’s nothing to deny!

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (made up of top scientists around the world and commissioned by the UN, NOT greenies) said back in 1990 that ‘they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface’

Sir Nicholas Stern (a top government financial advisor) headed the Stern review in 2006 on the financial implications of climate change stated that “our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.”

The Arctic ice cap, recognised by scientists (not greenies) to be a good indicator of global temperature changes has thinned by 40% since 2004 and is predicted to disappear completely in the summer within the next few decades, something that has not occurred in 700,000 years. with the disappearance of arctic ice puts whole ecosystems at terminal risk – from those who use the top of the ice (polar bears, ) to the small invertebrates that feed on the bottom of the ice which feed the whales, not to mention the chances of the oceanic pumps shutting down completely (no ice means no cold water means no movement) – bang goes the Gulf stream – and our warmer winters.

As for the nuclear V’s renewables debate

Uranium is a FINITE resource, same as coal, gas, oil and will run out one day

we still don’t have a strategy for dealing with toxic nuclear waste, decades on from the first commissioned power stations, there is already 10,000 tonnes in storage at Sellafield with no solution for final disposal on the table yet.

the cost installing, using and decommissioning nuclear power stations is TEN TIMES that of using renewables

Nuclear power will provide less than 10% of the UK’s energy needs – are you prepared to take the risk of nuclear terrorism and have nuclear power stations and waste in your neighbourhood for that amount?

Nuclear is just storing up HUGE problems for future generations – renewables are not

If you went to a doctor because you were feeling ‘under the weather’ and, being the expert (not a quack) , ran a series of tests and checked you over and concluded that you had an illness that needed treating or you would get progressively worse – would you believe him?? Just because you are not a doctor or lab technician yourself does not mean you ignore the results.

Come on, Isle of Wight -

(Report comment)

Fact: The intergovernmental Panell on Climate Change, of the United Nations (not greenies) ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change said in 1990 that ‘they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface’. Things have been furthe rproved since then. The Stern Review in 2006, headed by Sir Nicholas Stern, a leading economist (not a greenie) among othe things stated that
# The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.
# The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.
# Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.

Artic ice is shrinking – in 2009 it was 25% below the 1979 – 2000 average – 25% – that’s a quarter!! Nasa studies have also shown that the Artic ice has thinned by 40% since 2004 – that’s nearly half in just 5 years. We keep going at this rate then scientists (not greenies) say that it is likely that we will lose the summer Artic ice completely within decades, possibly even one decade down the line. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/arctic-survey-ice-melting

So let’s not dispute the issue of global warming due to human activity – look at the facts, not the gossip.

As for nulcear power V’s renewables – OK let’s once again look at the facts

Nuclear pwoer will only contribute 4% of the UK’s energy needs, and costs 10 times the amount it would cost to use renewables and decentralised power hubs, not just due to building costs, but due to decomissioning costs and disposal of nuclear waste (there still isnt a solution decates on from the first nuclear power stations)
AND there is the ever ready threat of terrorism (so security costs will be higher) AND uranium is a finite resource, same as coal and gas – wind will never run out.

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

we have a new comdeian in our midst.

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

To make a point, I will run the argument the other way: Imagine the governments of the world are aware that an asteroid is heading toward earth. The estimated result of it’s impact will be broadly similar to climate change; in other words, starvation and disease on an unprecedented scale, terrible resource wars, tens or hundreds of millions of deaths globally, poverty and loss of possessions and displacement being common around the planet, including here, in Britain.

At what point would we demand the government takes all possible action – when the estimated probability of impact is 1%, or 10%, or perhaps 50%, or do we just hope it goes away because it’s going to be ‘a bit expensive’ to take mitigating action and the defences don’t look quiet right in the countryside and anyway, Jezzer Clarkson says it’s all a conspiracy?

(Report comment)

I still think we should give these ostriches an opt out clause..that they would not benefit from any energy manufactured by Island wind farms (should they ever be allowed)

(Report comment)

Either EVERY scientist is involved in some sort of conspiracy theory or the American Association of Petroleum Geologists USED to be right (I’d really hope Shooba didn’t take advice from the tobacco industry prior to the 1980s RE: the health benefits of smoking!)

I posted a link detailing most scientific bodies positions (which I doubt was viewed), and even pointed out that the leading scientist cited by most anti wind-turbine campaigners (and whose Gaia theory was often manipulated by Petroleum companies for their own ends) is now in complete agreement human activity is contributing to the climate in a negative way.

You can’t really do much more than that, but unfortunately some will cling to opinions rather than reviewing/revising in the light of new evidence. That’s how science works – it’s constantly reviewing/revising and will continue to do so.

That we’ve contributed to climate change will always be a theory in the same way that gravity and evolution remain theories.

It is of course ‘possible’ that the current global warming trend has nothing to do with human activity in the same way Russell’s teapot is ‘possible’. It’s also a fact that, regardless of where we apportion blame, it is within our capabilities to reverse it.

Surely we owe the next generation that?

(Report comment)