OpinionSaid climatologist Dr. David Gee, Chairman of the International Geological Congress, "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming?"
      – DigitalBoss, 2009-01-21 at 20:24:12   (10 comments)

On 2009-01-21 at 20:25:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
Until the communists get a climate change tax on your paycheck, that's when.
On 2009-01-21 at 20:40:38, Lee J Haywood wrote...
David Gee is a geologist, not a climatologist. He's as unqualified as the next person, and clearly a front man. Just because you find something which fits with your beliefs on the Internet doesn't make it a valid source.
On 2009-01-21 at 21:30:12, DigitalBoss wrote...
What are you?
On 2009-01-21 at 22:11:56, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I have a science degree. But I don't claim to be an expert on climate change, merely knowledgeable about science in general.
On 2009-01-21 at 22:36:27, Baslisks wrote...
What are climatologists saying then?
On 2009-01-21 at 22:58:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Glaciers are one of the most sensitive climate indicators (they are used by the IPCC), and observations of them have provided a global signal of climate change - both near the poles and the equator. The evidence of a temperature is not in dispute, regardless of its cause, nor is its effect on many of the world's systems. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ The warming potential from human emissions is relatively small compared with that from natural sources. The natural system, however, is countered by natural sinks which absorb carbon dioxide in particular at a rate almost equal to its production. Carbon dioxide isn't bad for the environment, since we wouldn't be able to cope without the warming it provides us, but our emissions are not being removed as quickly as they are being produced - and on top of that we are removing carbon sinks by means of mass deforestation, etc. As the oceans become more acidic, they also rapidly lose the ability to absorb more carbon dioxide.
On 2009-01-22 at 16:38:29, Baslisks wrote...
So warming/cooling is cyclical but it can be affected by the actions of humans its just not known at our current time what our actions actually do.
On 2009-01-22 at 17:44:14, Lee J Haywood wrote...
We know that our actions will lead to further warming, even if we stopped emissions immediately, but predicting the long-term trends is a completely different science to predicting short-term changes. It's obviously the case that the weather in any given part of the world is hugely dependent on the systems that the region connected to - whether it be ocean currents, wind patterns, cloud prevalence, etc. For the sake of argument, let's accept that the climatologists may be mistaken to some extent. Should we really be taking the risk that we can carry on as usual when they may be correct? Alternatively, not only does our civilisation depend on a limited supply of oil (to an enormous extent) but we also depend on energy supplies from other countries. I think this is a bad choice, and an historical one - it's tough to change, but change would be beneficial in many ways.
On 2009-01-22 at 19:36:54, Thelevellers wrote...
Agreed Lee, 'green' fuels are good whether climate change is caused by us humans or not!
On 2009-01-22 at 20:23:15, Baslisks wrote...
I'd love to start producing my own power and fuel but as I currently live in a 10x8 dorm room(maybe smaller). I can't do it....