Global Warming? Pish.

[wavydavy]

I personally don't believe a word of anyone when they say 'humans will have a massive effect on the climate'. My arse. All life on this planet is here because of the natually-occurring climate change and that ain't gonna change.

But what about all these naturally occurring poisons that took millions of years to become benign and get emebdded under the crust?

We're all busy extracting them to burn/heat/piss about with and the by-products are released into the atmosphere, poisoning us all.

Regardless of your views on global warming/climate change, can you really argue that we're not pumping extra toxins into the atmosphere, over and above those that the planet would produce naturally?

The overall temperature of the planet may vary but, as just one tiny proportion, even I wouldn't try to claim that the shitting of so much two-stroke haze into the air in the past century isn't going to have some sort of effect, just as Mitch mentions WRT fags.

[Tomfoolery]

Krakatoa chucked more poisons into the atmosphere than the whole of human civilisation. And that was one volcanic eruption, admittedly a biggie.

The point is, there are hundreds of volcanos, geysers, fissures etc around the globe belching sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Always have been always will.

[driverchris]

Krakatoa chucked more poisons into the atmosphere than the whole of human civilisation[citation needed]. And that was one volcanic eruption, admittedly a biggie.

The point is, there are hundreds of volcanos, geysers, fissures etc around the globe belching sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Always have been always will.

Volcanic activity is 0.02 to 0.05 Giga-tons/year:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

and because of the particulate nature of those emissions they have a cooling effect (blocks out suns rays see).

[driverchris]

So Chris, what are your thoughts on climate change?

I really must read that book I designed last year about Climate Change (available from all good bookshops kids!) - but as it was written by scientists including climate specialists it's probably quite measured in its tone and unlikely to provide the kind of soundbites and easy answers that most lay-enthusiasts require in this area to shore up whichever end of the debate [sic] they prefer.

To be honest I have no idea - its a horrendously complicated area of science even before you try and do any analysis of the figures. Having attempted to do a very tiny piece of statistical analysis last week (economics) and gotten out of my depth so quickly it made my head spin it reminded me just how incredible the world do statistics is too - put both subjects together and well… fuggetaboutit.

Just remember you are not required to have a hard line opinion at either end of the debate [ha]. It's okay to say I'm confused and haven't made my mind up yet. Unless your name is Clarkson you won't actually profit from spouting some over the top opinion - unfortunately everybody seems to have signed up to be really really committed to their position however little they actually know.

[ZXRRDave]

Just remember you are not required to have a hard line opinion at either end of the debate [ha]. It's okay to say I'm confused and haven't made my mind up yet. Unless your name is Clarkson you won't actually profit from spouting some over the top opinion - unfortunately everybody seems to have signed up to be really really committed to their position however little they actually know.

Fair. I will admit to knowing very little about it, but one fundamental precept of the climate change thing strikes me as odd.

Supposedly the 'big thing' at the moment is CO2 production. Now I am all for reducing toxins and pollutants in our atmosphere, but CO2 doesnt fit that bill its not toxic and is naturally produced by any number of sources. Human activity is, according to the material in the textbooks for a mate's climatology degree, responsible for about 3% of global CO2 production annually. So if we spend billions of pounds on reducing our CO2 production by 50% we will only be reducing global CO2 production by 1.5 percent. Doesnt seem like a reasonable use of our resources. That money would be better off spent on combatting actual toxic pollution and reversing the trend of deforestation.

When it gets right down to it, my perception of the sensationalist claims of the dedicated environmental lobby is that they are under the impression that human activities, and therefore we as a species, are the most important thing on the planet and are capable of cataclysmic effects on every aspect of the planet's activity. There's a word for this kind of opinion.

Hubris.

[Tomfoolery]

Twatfish?

Oh, sorry.