[rearguard]

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst

Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.

Full story here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

[sasquatch2]

Yeah well certain elements---Gore, Suzuki, IPCC, realclimate have been telling us Antarctica would be gone by now too.

[This]

This is a big topic, considering that the Earth's constantly changing weather and long term climate are dependent on so many different factors. To be really unbiased in this debate one has to admit that the Earth is affected by the sun, and by it's constantly changing position to the sun (our orbit changes over time).

The IPCC is comprised by a majority of politically motivated bureaucrats and a minority of scientists, who have very little if any say in the published results. Many scientists have quit the IPCC in disgust.

The IPCC does not follow accepted scientific protocol of advancing a theory, testing it, and requiring even peer review before publishing, let alone implementing economic mandates. The IPCC was set up by Maurice Strong who previously privatized Ontario Hydro for us.

The IPCC does not consider the sun, the ocean (which has a huge effect on CO2 in our atmosphere as well as our climate) and many other factors. It takes a narrow focus and fits the data to it's theory. it is an extremely uninformed 'consensus'. There are many other scientists who disagree with the IPCC theory, recently 32,000 from the USA signed a petition to that effect:


http://petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/G ... ticle.html


The IPCC propaganda is deafening however, reaching into schools, and into a daily barrage of media unquestioned 'truths' about human caused global warming. It is because there are big stakes involved, billions or trillions of future tax revenue depend on our willing acceptance of this farce. Many economies and people will suffer harshly from poverty and hunger induced from carbon cutbacks, and the UN doesn't care about that, do we?

Some general info on Global Warming given as a simple multiple choice test, give it a try:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobW ... start.html

[Jaydon]

Global warming is the media term that is used for climate change.
The implication of climate change is that some areas will be warmer than they have been, some will be cooler than they have been.
This info about climate change has been out there in most European countries for ages.
This is not evidence of global warming not being an issue.
Any climate change is going to impact things like cash crops as they are not adapted to warmer or cooler temperatures. , I think advocating caution and a bit of prevention is not only a smart ecological move, but a smart economic move.

[Brent Swain]

Bear in mind that the people hired by the oil gas and coal companies to deny climate change, are the same people who were hired by the cigarette companies to tell us that smoking is harmless.
Climate change means wild fluctuations in temperature, which still has the average going up in the long run, with some fluctuations in anual temperature, including a few colder than normal years. One or two cold years doesn't constitute a long term trend.

[kilroy]

I'm surprised that this section of the forums doesn't get any more attention, the environment, ie that area where we all live, is the big one as far as I'm concerned.

Global warming is going to be bad enough, but when you put it's effects in context of peak oil, higher populations, and increased consumerism around the world, I think we are headed for ugliness on a scale we haven't seen before.

We are looking at having the farmland that has produced our surpluses since the 60's being compromised by higher temperatures, lower water availability, more frequent storms, and corporate profit taking causing soil loss. The green revolution depends on cheap oil, it ain't out there anymore.

Species loss and relatively little effort going into reversing that trend means that our grandkids will have a poorer world.

Some aspects of global warming have the ability to make our part of the world more livable, but I am willing to forego milder winters if we can avoid superstorms and mega droughts. And yet there is a feeling growing that all we are going to be able to do is adapt to the new reality because we don't have the will or ability to change.

How are we going to be able to adapt if we can't change?