Professor David Bellamy came to dublin and a denier of anthropogenic global warming.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

When it comes down to it on this issue I am left for better or worse on noting the views of my favourite "gurus" , here is one guy I have alot of respet for as he has an excellent historical perspective

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Having read through that article, I can see several points that just cry out that this article is doing exactly the same as what the author himself is complaining about.

He shows situations where science / popular commentary on science has made incorrect claims in the past. While this is undoubtedly the case, what he fails to point out is that there are any number of other cases where science has made correct claims. He also fails to point out that in many (if not all) of these cases, there was always opposing viewpoints - just as there are today. Its pretty pointless to argue that one of two opposing viewpoints turned out to be wrong, unless the point one is trying to make is that at least one of the two opposing viewpoints today must be wrong. This is, putting it mildly, a given.

Look closely at what he has to say on Global Cooling. It has been well established that the scientific consensus at the time was not that Global Cooling was imminent, but that the possibility was seized on by the popular media. This is indirectly visible by the fact that the author acknowledges that "Global Cooling" became the next mantra of anxious intellectuals, as well as those whose ambition was to sell books. Note that scientists are missing from that group. So this is a situation where science did not support what the pundits were saying, and that as time has gone on, science has been accepted as being correct.

The author also falls short of being entirely accurate in his comments regarding Mann's hockey stick. There is, admittedly, still an ongoing controversy about the model, but it is far from established that anything was "falsified" as the author claims without reservation. The author also fails to mention - let alone explain - the myriad of other studies which have independantly produced results broadly in line with the Hockey Stick.

For me, though, its the conclusion of the article that sums things up nicely:

The proper methods of science are well established and the data base on climate history is extensive - as is the understanding of the comings and goings of ice ages. On a more detailed approach, the mechanism of the major changes in warming and cooling over just the past thousand years has been well understood before the mania about global warming brewed up.

You'll note that nowhere in his article does the author offer a single reference to someone who is relying on this well-understood science, using the well-established and extensive base of data to explain and model the changes we have experienced, and to model this to the level which his claims suggest should be possible....who is reaching the conclusion that he wants us to believe in, which is that its all bunkum.

So basically, he tells us that the science is well understood, that the data is there, and that we shouldn't pay attention to the non-scientists (like himself) who are punditing one perspective or another.

Put simply, the implication is that we should ignore the author and concentrate on the science. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the conclusion the author himself wants us to draw, which is that "Convictions about man-made global warming will soon be ranked with convictions about astrology and alchemy".

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

He shows situations where science / popular commentary on science has made incorrect claims in the past. While this is undoubtedly the case, what he fails to point out is that there are any number of other cases where science has made correct claims. He also fails to point out that in many (if not all) of these cases, there was always opposing viewpoints - just as there are today. Its pretty pointless to argue that one of two opposing viewpoints turned out to be wrong, unless the point one is trying to make is that at least one of the two opposing viewpoints today must be wrong. This is, putting it mildly, a given.

There is a distinction here though , where science/popular science has tended to get it wrong has been the scenario where we are "doomed" because "the models" say we are doomed and do what we say or else. Everything about this reeks of a mania with hints of messianic messangers , carbon trading has to be up there with the Catholic Church sale of indulgences.

bonkey wrote: »

Put simply, the implication is that we should ignore the author and concentrate on the science. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the conclusion the author himself wants us to draw, which is that "Convictions about man-made global warming will soon be ranked with convictions about astrology and alchemy".

What I took away from that is that alot of the data is there , ice cores etc, but in his opnion the data is being misused to promote a theory. If and when the "Hysteria" dies down then the real science will continue.
It will be sweet if this perspective is proven correct, given that central planning is/will be coming into disrepute in other areas of gov. planning in the economic sphere, man made global warming being discredited would be another nail in the coffin

P. Breathnach

silverharp wrote: »

...It will be sweet if this perspective is proven correct, given that central planning is/will be coming into disrepute in other areas of gov. planning in the economic sphere, man made global warming being discredited would be another nail in the coffin

That makes it appear that your agenda is political rather than scientific.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

There is a distinction here though , where science/popular science has tended to get it wrong has been the scenario where we are "doomed" because "the models" say we are doomed and do what we say or else.

Ah. You mean like the whole Hole in the Ozone Layer type of doom? Or the whole notion that we needed better pollution controls, because otherwise industrialisation would destroy the environment.

Incidentally, does this mean you've also abandoned your Peak Oil position as also being just more "predicted doom"?

For the record, it strikes me that most of the people crying about messages of doom are those who are against the notion of man's influence on the climate. It has been my experience that most of the prominent supporters of the notion have said that it will lead to very large problems, up to and including wars, mass relocation of populations, etc. They have not predicted the doom of society...interpreting their words as such seems to be the perogative of those who oppose them.

I agree that the debate has no place for hyperbole, but lets be honest here...its pundits on either side of the debate who are engaging in it. Again, my position is that we shouldn't be taking any of them seriously - hyperbolic or not - without looking at what the underlying scientific position really is.

Everything about this reeks of a mania with hints of messianic messangers , carbon trading has to be up there with the Catholic Church sale of indulgences.

There's more of it. No-one has seriously suggested that carbon trading is a solution, any more than people suggested the Kyoto Treaty was a solution. Both - as well as any number of other proposed measures - are a way to get the ball rolling....to start working towards a new goal. I'm not a fan of carbon trading, to be honest, but I have no illusions that anyone is selling it as a "messianic" cure. Certainly, no scientist is doing so...which leaves those pundits again.

What I took away from that is that alot of the data is there , ice cores etc, but in his opnion the data is being misused to promote a theory.

And yet, he doesn't show how its being misused, but rather writes a long article about how some scientists and some non-scientists have been wrong about other stuff in the past.

He engages in punditry for his own position, rather than science.

If and when the "Hysteria" dies down then the real science will continue.

The real science does continue. The problem appears to be that it is being conflated with the pundits supporting it, and then further misrepresented by the pundits opposing it.

Indeed, nowhere in his article (other than the inaccurate claim about Mann's Hockey Stick) does the author even reference the real science concerning Climate Change. He just wants us to accept that its all hysteria.

It will be sweet if this perspective is proven correct,

A lot of things "would be sweet". Reality doesn't care much what is and is not "sweet" though, which is why we should look at what our best guess is rather than what our preferred outcome might be.

derry

silverharp wrote: »

When it comes down to it on this issue I am left for better or worse on noting the views of my favourite "gurus" , here is one guy I have alot of respet for as he has an excellent historical perspective



http://www.safehaven.com/article-9848.htm

<snip>
The understanding of the physics of the earth's climate will continue to advance under a disciplined, rather than hysterical approach. Convictions about man-made global warming will soon be ranked with convictions about astrology and alchemy.

Basically I can go with most all what it says
For me its science and a science debate which somehow got beyond the academic arena and then guru cult followers and control freaks whatever hitched to this global warming climate change wagon

Once enough evidence to show the most unlikly possibily of this theory were presented most all debates are conducted now in a near total hysteria from even some so called top scientists???

Up to 2003 I was sorta convinced by the GW argument but enough real data after that period made it look less likely

That science and science debate and science should move on from that

I myself will be glad when this global warming climate change subject goes back to what I knew it was the 1975 era a backwater academic subject which popped up in new sceintist or similar science journals or some off beat documentry .

However the global warming trip movement whatever got a bit bigger than global cooling or population control so I am not so sure the subject can be buried so easy as more suedo science junkets still keep jumping on that gravy train

The tricky bit is that CO2 does supply some heat for the planet but that the forcing CO2 senario that makes a rapid global warming or climate change is now looking to be extremely unlikly and the climate change brigade cant prove it so they keep wanting to vote it in as fact .With this science debate failure should come the normal academic ruffled feathers dusting down and off to other subjects but for some bizzare reason that process seems to be delayed or stalled possibly even totally hijacked

I suspect its going to take a bit more than the previous hysteria eposides to get this subject back under a academic roof so that science can do what science should be doing proper science .

For me its simple there may or may not be some global warming or climate change issues which may or may not impact the planet in the long or short term
However the planet having spent some $50 billion on this issue needs the other camp the global warmers and climate changers to prove the science case absolutly beyond a shadow of a dought and they refuse to even try that but prefer to opt for non science methods to keep this junket going


Derry

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

Ah. You mean like the whole Hole in the Ozone Layer type of doom? Or the whole notion that we needed better pollution controls, because otherwise industrialisation would destroy the environment.

Incidentally, does this mean you've also abandoned your Peak Oil position as also being just more "predicted doom"?

Good question, firstly on the PO , no however given that it looks likely that up to a 1/3 of world economy could be wiped out by this long period of recession, the fact that oil demand may have have peaked as well may make PO a mute point. Where I was scratching my head before was the predicted growth in oil supply over the next 20 years, if we were at 85mbd in 07/08, how the heck was it supposed to grow to 120mbd in the future. Assuming that demand falls faster then supply then it is happy days (from a PO perspective) as far as I am concerned. A question I would have now is , given that CO2 should drop if this turns out to be a full blown depression, does this mean that countires will meet their "targets"? up until 06 all economic projections were up and I assume GW policy was framed in this context?


On pollution control, I dont have a problem with that, I doubt if too may people would like to have the air quality of Beijing at least most people can get their head around the cost/benefit of the measures.

derry

silverharp wrote: »

Good question, firstly on the PO , no however given that it looks likely that up to a 1/3 of world economy could be wiped out by this long period of recession, the fact that oil demand may have have peaked as well may make PO a mute point. Where I was scratching my head before was the predicted growth in oil supply over the next 20 years, if we were at 85mbd in 07/08, how the heck was it supposed to grow to 120mbd in the future. Assuming that demand falls faster then supply then it is happy days (from a PO perspective) as far as I am concerned. A question I would have now is , given that CO2 should drop if this turns out to be a full blown depression, does this mean that countires will meet their "targets"? up until 06 all economic projections were up and I assume GW policy was framed in this context?


On pollution control, I dont have a problem with that, I doubt if too may people would like to have the air quality of Beijing at least most people can get their head around the cost/benefit of the measures.

Joe soaps like us will never for sure know that we are truly vulnerable to Oil peak or that it is an invention of the oil industry

I prefer to take the pragmatic view we always since the 1920s we keep finding enough of the stuff and the known reserves are enough for 45 years at today's consumption .The probability is extremely high that OP is is an oil industry engineered event to keep oil prices high .As the oil industry controls access to most all the oil reserves data and information its a no brainier that if oil industry feed very slimmed down data to a bunch of scientists or book writers (who will happily sell their souls for a few $$$ )that its easy to make a boggie man OP event whenever you wish to spike oil prices higher ..

Local pollution is huge issue .Never mind Beijing there are many cities around Europe and ROI that suffer extreme pollution.On less windy days as you come in on the Stillorgan road you can see a green colored haze cover Dublin .As a commuter I can tell you that Dublin is on average one of the most air polluted cities I have been in and I have lived and worked in over twenty plus city's around Europe.

Only the recognition that the nasty chemicals that is contained in oil based fuels like diesel and petrol with over 200 chemicals in those fuels some of them extremely toxic and replacing those fuels with safer less polluting solutions like Ethanol or bio diesels or electric power can save city dwellers from the pollution that is killing the city dwellers more than cigarette smoking probably did .

I know that some will say electric makes the smoke stack in the country side but its possible to clean up large electric power stations emissions.The small simplex Cats we got in cars now don't work properly for these issues and bigger cats that help more cost very big money. Small scrubbers for cars and buses are unlikely to be workable or cost effective .

I personally figure on tackle local pollution head on and the other long term issues like CO2 will probably be solved in less than 100 years if other power sources like fusion arrive on stream.

Now the problem is get our priorities redirected away from so much CO2 and GW and CC and tackle oil and coal companies massive local pollution head on as up to now they had got the smoke screen GW and CC to hide behind.


I suspect in 2050 no fuel burning cars or cars or buses will operate in most world city limits .There will only be electric PHEV and some few exempt Hybrids such as police and essential services as burning any fuels of any types in any city in small combustion chambers is too difficult to control those emissions and therefore is stopped .Outside the city limits mostly bio fuels will be burnt in transport or possibly in fuel cells that use ethanol not burnt but used up.

The stone age didn't finish because they run out of stones and the oil an coal age will be stopped soon pre 2050 as its a filthy dirty dangerous to the environment industry and only taking them on head on will stop the process faster than the oil coal indusrty want it to stop


Derry

quentingargan

gerky wrote: »

He hasn't been on tv since 94 and seems to be just looking for a bit of attention.

Actually, Bellamy was on Channel 4 in 2005 debating the issue of climate change with George Monbiot. You can watch it here. Very interesting, and begs the question why this debate is still going on today.

Q

gerky

quentingargan wrote: »

Actually, Bellamy was on Channel 4 in 2005 debating the issue of climate change with George Monbiot. You can watch it here. Very interesting, and begs the question why this debate is still going on today.

Q

I meant he hasn't been on tv as in he hasn't had his own tv show or been on an actual program like he used to be.

silverharp

derry wrote: »

Joe soaps like us will never for sure know that we are truly vulnerable to Oil peak or that it is an invention of the oil industry

I prefer to take the pragmatic view we always since the 1920s we keep finding enough of the stuff and the known reserves are enough for 45 years at today's consumption .The probability is extremely high that OP is is an oil industry engineered event to keep oil prices high .As the oil industry controls access to most all the oil reserves data and information its a no brainier that if oil industry feed very slimmed down data to a bunch of scientists or book writers (who will happily sell their souls for a few $$$ )that its easy to make a boggie man OP event whenever you wish to spike oil prices higher ..

True that the information is very opaque but I would disagree based on the structure of the oil industry, on the one hand you have multinationals with decreasing reserves and NOC's like Saudi Aramco that are are not very forthcoming with information, each country has its own agenda. Oil geology is very different to say copper and it just looks like that all the big fields have been found, there are no more land based Ghawars to be found, and some of the deep water stuff that has been anounced over the past few years is very speculative where in some cases the technology isnt ready to land the stuff. Either way it looked like the easy and cheap oil was going into decline and marginal cost would rise due to having to resort to tar sands oil.

Otherwise I agree with your sentiment that we should be moving away from oil and coal as much as possible, the political situation with oil is reason enough.

espinolman

What about the damage done to the earth's protective layer by aerial nuclear tests , oh of course we should not discuss that because it cannot be taxed .

derry

quentingargan wrote: »

Actually, Bellamy was on Channel 4 in 2005 debating the issue of climate change with George Monbiot. You can watch it here. Very interesting, and begs the question why this debate is still going on today.

Q

Well Bellamy is now 76. When he did his TV stuff I soppose he was in his sixties.
BBC became very top heavy with save the planet programs that were not about animals and bugs science and more to do with alternitive fuels and energy and CO2 reduction

Bellamy pointed out the short coming of some these solutions including the wind power concept (best I can see it was a pet project of the BBC )which was correct at that time and even still many of his points from that period still apply even with new solutions to wind power

I guess it didnt suit the new BBC rosy garden piture of no debate in the nice eco garden and eco types all agree on everything and science debate was secondary and suplus to requirements and it appears BBC chose to steer the eco agenda and not just follow it as most media outlets tend to do

From which it looks like he fell out of favour with BBC .He remained high profile in the UK and still was a big shot in the science world and probably had a good steady income and college positions and public speech circuits so it probably wasnt so big a issue other than a few ruffled feathers.

One day your a media star and the next day well life is bitch.For scientists this is mere small issue for true scientists as the science is the drivng force and the media is nice novelty (if its onboard but can be a serious issue if its front loaded with its own agenda) .

Enter 2005 and the CO2 mass hysteria is at its zenith and any scientist that debates against this concept risks to be goose steeped over with junk science and cult followers and mass media accusations of working for the oil giants. Whatever is needed to keep the CO2 issue as a proven fact is the climate science agenda when clearly its at best a weak theory getting weaker daily and at worst some sort of mass hsteria front loaded goose steeping movement that votes in with brute force quack science as apposed to normal debating science.

Science has been through these quack science events before and Bellamy obviously aware that there was a media circus with his media abilties was able to make a perminant record of what this quack science media footprint looks like.

Monibiot I think will live to regret this interview as he wasnt brow beating a non science oil company exective about oil spills .Nor was Monibiot dealing with some novice to science.He tangled with something that will make this the interview of the centery on how not to interview your felloow peers in the same trade especialy if your science is bordering on a quack science and your standing on top of a slippery melting glacier for which you may know even a lot less about that science than maybe your opposer does.

Bellamy has less chance to regret this interview as he is older and for practical purposes it wont really dent his future science prospects so he can champion science debate and science truth and not worry about its long term effect on his carreer

Monibiot took a big risk and and he is a lot younger and the tides of time are stacking against him.He might come away from this with the loss of a few feathers
however I suspect his power base will bolt for the exit marked quack science exit stage right and as most all his power base are far bigger than him will be leaving Monbiot behind holding the baby and it is going to dump him in the quack crap of if he is lucky he still keeps a dingy research lab at the wrong end of the college

I dont think after this we will ever see another Monbiot copy cat take on a top scienctist in a public areana again as the little pin prick damage trail it leaves behind leave too big spore trail to be followed up on when the hounds change targets to hunt down who said what where and when.Sometimes pays to do as Bellamy does and stick to the old rule often its what you dont say thats more important than what you do say
Monbiot said a whole lot.

The science progresses and it would be intersting to see which way the glaciers melt on this one .

Its not often we the outside the science get to see how a real pro like Bellamy can still turn the tables on the younger up and coming sciences

My Father alway said there was a science proffessor in His engenerring univercity in the 1940 era.He dipped his finger in a foul chemical and sucked on it and didnt blink at all from this horrible stuff .Then all the students on thier first day of science were lined up to do the same and all reeled in agony from this awful stuff.Then the proffessor showed them he switched fingers and they hadn't noticed.Science is observation of all the facts. Sloppy observation of all the facts can lead to a foul taste in the mouth.

I strongly suspect a lot of Science since then has gone backwards since those days


Derry

Húrin

BrianMeehan wrote: »

All other environmental problems can be easily solved, that is why we have been given "global warming". Something that cannot be proven, seen or ever solved.

Somewhat like the "war on terror". What exactly is "terror" and when will the war be won?

Actually the funny thing is that climate change, unlike "terror" can be counted. You can measure volumes of carbon dioxide to the last kilogram.

Nothing in science can ever be proven, but there are plenty of scientific institutions who are confident enough to stake their reputations on climate change.

Your idea that it's all a scam is a hyothesis but it is supported by very little evidence, and refuted by a lot of evidence.

Besides, if we can't trust climate scientists for finding information about the state of the climate, who can we trust? You?

lostexpectation

if the thing about the burren being the result of overgrazing, exposing karst rock is true, will somebody please explain to me why the damaged landscape of the burren needs to preserved in its damaged state.

espinolman

Húrin wrote: »

Actually the funny thing is that climate change, unlike "terror" can be counted. You can measure volumes of carbon dioxide to the last kilogram.

Nothing in science can ever be proven, but there are plenty of scientific institutions who are confident enough to stake their reputations on climate change.

Your idea that it's all a scam is a hyothesis but it is supported by very little evidence, and refuted by a lot of evidence.

Besides, if we can't trust climate scientists for finding information about the state of the climate, who can we trust? You?

Carbon dioxide is a minor green house gas , water vapour would be a real greenhouse gas , it is not proven that carbon dioxide drives the climate .
Well what about what the climate scientists are saying on the documentary "the great global warming swindle" .
Earth's protective layer was damaged by aerial nuclear tests in the 50s and early 60s and ever since the goverments have been trying to blame anything they can tax for changes in the climate caused by radiation pouring in .

espinolman

espinolman wrote: »

Carbon dioxide is a minor green house gas , water vapour would be a real greenhouse gas , it is not proven that carbon dioxide drives the climate .
Well what about what the climate scientists are saying on the documentary "the great global warming swindle" .
Earth's protective layer was damaged by aerial nuclear tests in the 50s and early 60s and ever since the goverments have been trying to blame anything they can tax for changes in the climate caused by radiation pouring in .

Thats the reason they started spraying the skies in the early 80s , they were desperately trying to block radiation from coming in and that is still going on today and its very observable , chemtrails .
It is the damage to earth's protective layer which is causing climate change, now it is very convenient to blame co2 .

Húrin

espinolman wrote: »

Carbon dioxide is a minor green house gas , water vapour would be a real greenhouse gas , it is not proven that carbon dioxide drives the climate.

Indeed, all climate scientists agree that water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, and their conclusions take account of that. However, we are not adding water vapour to the air in large quantities, we are adding carbon dioxide. It has been established science for over one hundred years that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. These gases are good because without them Earth would be a ball of ice. However, adding more is destabilising the climate.

Well what about what the climate scientists are saying on the documentary "the great global warming swindle"

Most of them were not climate scientists. Others were misquoted by Durkin, in order to make them appear to deny the man-mad climate change hypothesis.

bonkey

espinolman wrote: »

Carbon dioxide is a minor green house gas , water vapour would be a real greenhouse gas,

Correct. We can see what the effect of the "real" greenhouse gas is by looking at the nighttime temperature of the moon to see what temps we would have if we had no heat retention....about -230 Celcius.

No-one is questioning that water-vapor is the largest single contributor to the fact that we don't have a night-time temp anywhere near that.

Lets assume for a second that water vapor is responsible for 99% of warming. That still leaves a good 25-ish degrees of warming due to other factors such as CO2.

If we assume a 10% increase in the CO2 contribution...that would be 2.5 degrees. Its paltry in comparison to the hundreds of degrees of greenhouse-effect that we have in total, but in terms of a shift in climate, its not all that significant.

Now, I'm not saying those figures are accurate, but this argument that water vapor is the "real" greenhouse gas is - quite frankly - old, tired, and misleading.

it is not proven that carbon dioxide drives the climate .

No, its not proven....mostly because science doesn't prove things to be true.

Its pretty-well established, though, that changes in CO2 concentrations must effect the climate, just as changes in water-vapor must effect the climate. We're also pretty certain that concentrations of particulate matter effect the climate.

Going one step further, we have fairly-well established that water-vapor levels tend to be a "trailer" of climate change...if the temp goes up, more vapor ends up in the air, causing a certain amount of positive feedback. Thus, water-vapor - that "real" culprit - can exacerbate the effects of anything else which causes changes.

Well what about what the climate scientists are saying on the documentary "the great global warming swindle" .

What about them?

Two of them - professor Carl Wunsch and Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen have gone on record saying that they were misrepresented in the documentary.

It is, in short, a dreadful piece of work.

derry

You see Bellamy was right it snowed in Dublin today.In your face it hasn't snowed in a decade here and along comes Bellamy who says the weather for the next three decades is gonna be cooler and guess what
:pac::pac::pac:

So if eneough of us get together and say boo to the boggie man global warming we can chase it way and enjoy a Alpine climate and not need to fly to europe for the sking

Think of all the CO2 we would save

Derry

espinolman

This global warming is freezing me to death .

derry

espinolman wrote: »

This global warming is freezing me to death .

you should blame all those global warming nut balls who use bikes and walking and dont put eneough CO2 up there to keep us warm .:D

It some new idea to kill us all off in new big freeze event :pac:

Derry

espinolman

derry wrote: »

you should blame all those global warming nut balls who use bikes and walking and dont put eneough CO2 up there to keep us warm .:D

It some new idea to kill us all off in new big freeze event :pac:

Derry

Blame those gullible enviro mentalists .

Espinolman

espinolman

Global warming hoax , planned in 1961 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk

espinolman

THE PRICE OF DISSENT ON GLOBAL WARMING BY DAVID BELLAMY :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C24700827-7583%2C00.html

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

I prefer to take the pragmatic view we always since the 1920s we keep finding enough of the stuff and the known reserves are enough for 45 years at today's consumption .The probability is extremely high that OP is is an oil industry engineered event to keep oil prices high.

You accept that there is a finite supply of oil, yet you dismiss the peak oil theory? Either the supply of oil is finite or it is not; which is it?

Also, why would the oil industry push the peak oil theory? Surely that would erode confidence and encourage a shift away from an oil-based economy?

derry wrote: »

Local pollution is huge issue .Never mind Beijing there are many cities around Europe and ROI that suffer extreme pollution.On less windy days as you come in on the Stillorgan road you can see a green colored haze cover Dublin .As a commuter I can tell you that Dublin is on average one of the most air polluted cities I have been in and I have lived and worked in over twenty plus city's around Europe.

World Bank statistics suggest otherwise:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/table3_13.pdf

Air quality in Dublin (measured as particulate matter per unit volume) is far better than it is in the likes of Cairo, Delhi and Jakarta. Even European cities such as Amsterdam, Athens, Turin and Warsaw have poor air quality compared with Dublin.

derry wrote: »

The stone age didn't finish because they run out of stones…

Maybe not, but large swathes of Europe were deforested to satisfy civilisation's demand for wood fuel. The resultant scarcity of trees, together with an ever-increasing demand for energy, led to a need for other fuels, such as coal and oil.

derry wrote: »

Bellamy has less chance to regret this interview as he is older and for practical purposes it wont really dent his future science prospects so he can champion science debate and science truth and not worry about its long term effect on his carreer

Monibiot took a big risk and and he is a lot younger and the tides of time are stacking against him.He might come away from this with the loss of a few feathers

Might you be prepared, at some point during the course of this thread, to discuss the actual claims made by Bellamy, rather than constantly rambling on about the character of both himself and Monbiot? Or is that too much to ask?

derry wrote: »

You see Bellamy was right it snowed in Dublin today.In your face it hasn't snowed in a decade here and along comes Bellamy who says the weather for the next three decades is gonna be cooler and guess what

Climate ≠ Weather

djpbarry

espinolman wrote: »

Well what about what the climate scientists are saying on the documentary "the great global warming swindle" .

Indeed; what about them? What was it that they said?