Hi again,

you are all right, I think we all agree that global warming is occuring, its a question of magnititude. Yeah, there is even a fairly high chance that warming will be benign, but;

We do not know where the 'tipping point is' - once warming hits this point there is a chance that either the thermohaline circulation may be drastically slowed or even stopped, or very large sources of methane may be released from thoring permafrosts or the ocean floor, once that happens, warming is likely to spiral out of control. No one knows if this will happen or when, but its not really something to mess around with in my opinion.

Also, even if not much happens, there could be redistribution in rainfall and other patterns which are likely to cause crop shortages and drought. This is one aspect particularly relevant for us - we can hardly afford to lose any more rainfall.

Regarding the economic modells. Well, regardless of the economic assumptions underlying the IPCC scenarios, we have still seen a rise from 280 odd PPM to 380 PPM or so over the past century and given that economic/industrial/CO2 output will not be linear due to at least some growth (probably alot) im sure we will hit 500 PPM before too long.
Clearly sooner or later there will start to be some very significant warming...

Some of the responses are excellent, LisaMaree, I am impressed, really, I am the Dingbat et Al, and it is good to see some Academics working towards a better future with the environment and some long hard truths surfacing after many years of Academic fraud and Phonies.
For some of the other Challenged Pseudo scientists, and Academic Phonies here is a web link.
http://www.junkscience.com/

Hahah All,

Junk Science eh? That is one sight I had a look at a little while ago and I was not very impressed.
It cuts down anything that is not based completely on science. Let me tell you, there is alot in this world that cannot / has not yet been explained by science but nonetheless exists. That site is designed to eraddicate any trace of openmindedness amongst people it seems to me.

We worship science in our society, and I concede that there is a great deal that it has given us. But all the same, just as we look back with scorn at what was scientific fact 1000 years ago and how primitive people were, so they will to us in 1000 years. By this I mean there is alot as yet undiscovered/unproven by our science, and thus we cannot rely on it as the only authority.

Of course many of you will disagree with me, and these things are all a matter of opinion, so its interesting to have these discussions..

Yes, science can not explain many things, but as mankind and with consciousness will strive further with science and advancement.
It is good to have an open mind, more so these days with so much propaganda and self serving interests about.
Perhaps Astro physics would be a phenomena , etc, with Global warming as it would appear to be a thousand odd year occurrence, the planet was at the similar temperature in 10th century, with a mini Ice age in the 13th or 14th century, this is documented in my family chronicles from the UK, translated from Latin of course. They called the phenomena,” The Freeze over”. Many chronicles of the time are in the British Museum. Documented evidence exists if science did not at that time.
There are natural forces greater than man, so science is great to try and prevent disasters if that is possible or at the very least, try and understand.

Even more interesting, Funkster. You claim to be an impartial scientist and then admit that you make a living from the Global warming business. And now you advise us that your brand of science is all just a matter of opinion.

The scientific method may produce the odd ambiguous result but that is nothing more than a signal to more finely tune the line of inquiry or assessment methodology. It is still far superior to the alternatives, prejudice, superstition and voodoo.

But still, your faults are only a shade on those of the disgraceful British Science Advisor to Tony Blair, who, on ABC TV last night (13/10/05) had the unmitigated gall to claim that he only knew of two people who were sceptical of Global Warming that were actual scientists. The rest, he claimed, were either lobbyists, whom he compared to tobacco company representatives who still claim there is no link to ill health from tobacco, or just plain ideologues.

The man is nothing more than a propagandist of the first order.

Persues,

Actually no, I never claimed to be a scientist, I am not one. I have repeated this on many occasions, saying 'I am no scientist, but.."

And I have never claimed to be impartial either, no one is, we all have our various personal beliefs and stances that we bring to the debate.

I am a researcher, not a scientist, and I do try to keep an open mind, but I would never claim to be impartial.