Piorot,
The only question that needs be asked is, Where is the proof that climate change is caused by human activity?

There is not proof, dispite billions spent trying to establish proof.

Lucky me, I do not have to keep up with the latest because if ever solid evidence comes to light I have faith that Tim will let us all know.

In the meantime mother nature will continue on her merry way.

And, the predictions of the warmists religion will continue to be shown up as false.

Dear Banjo,

As our "needs" increaase, our capacity for
exploitation expands. Many don't see our
ravaging of the environment as "ravaging"
at all; It is "progress" or "development."

We are so used to exploiting natural
resources and dumping our waste products
into the environment that we frequently forget
that resources are limited and exhaustible and
that pollution certainly can disrupt the
ecological balance on which our survival depends.

The effects of pollution may not show up for
many years, so severe environmental damage can
occur with little public awareness that it is
taking place. Plus preventing or correcting
pollution can be costly, technically complex,
and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible
impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are
now actively trying to limit the effects of
pollution, but the populous less developed societies
are more concerned with economic growth, and they
tend to see pollution as part of the price they have
to pay for it.

One thing is certain in all of this - we cannot
deny that the planet has a finite amount of
resources or that the planet can tolerate only a
limited amount of pollution.

If world population
continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation
spreads around the world, and if pollution and
resource depletion (burning of fuels and wastes,
razing of forests, dumping of noxious gases
and particulates into the atmosphere) continues at
an increasing rate - and all of these are happening -
human society will, one way or another, be in for
sweeping social changes. That is a certainty which
no amount of denial will prevent.

Anyway for your information the following link may
help:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-htm

My Dear Lexi,
Strange as it may seem, I agree with you about pollution and our need to limit that and look after the world we live in.

However that is a far cry from saying that human activity is changing the climate of the world. I have spent all my life out in my enviroment and i can appreciate the power of mother nature. I know there are certain things that humans have not control over, such as tides, earthquakes, volcanos and continental drift. I recognize that the climate changes from time to time but I remain sceptical that we humans influence that.

One of the things that increases my sceptasism is that there is no discussion about limiting world population at any of the many climate change talkfests that are held, in spite of the claim that humans are to blame for climate change. So I am sceptical of just how genuine the warmist brigade are, because if you reduce the number of humans you reduce the CO2 produced and the amount of pollution as well.

As i said earlier, in this thread, the wild and false predictions made by the warmist brigade, designed to frighten people, has backfired and the general public no longer has faith in what is predicted.

It will now take very solid evidence to change peoples thinking

Banjo,
I would take you back to the use of CFCs.
Back in the 80s, a substantial hole in the world's Ozone layer appeared, and each year grew larger.
It affected the world's weather patterns, and measurably increased the incidence of skin cancer.
What caused it? Human use of CFCs. Once this was understood, other products were quickly developed, CFCs were banned and within a few years the hole reduced in size.
Isn't this a clear example of human activity affecting the weather?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Banjo,

I'm glad that
you acknowledge that the planet can tolerate only a
limited amount of pollution. However the pollution
problem is an exceedingly difficult one to solve,
for several reasons.

First, some people and governments see pollution as a
regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired
economic development - "Where there's smoke, there's jobs."

Secondly, control of pollution sometimes requires
international co-ordination, for one country's
emissions or pesticides can end up in other countries' air
or food.

Thirdly, the effects of pollution may not show up for
many years, so severe environmental damage can occur with
little public awareness that it is taking place.

Lastly, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
and as I stated previously, it can be technically complex,
and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

Pollution however is not an inevitable outcome of industrial
technology; it derives also from political decisions to
tolerate pollution rather than to bear the costs - probably
including slower economic growth - of limiting it. Further
control of pollution is politically difficult, however, for
the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the task.

The threat of human-induced climate change, accepted as a
genuine and very serious threat - as a consequence of the
Stern Report released in October 2006 had the potential to
change attitudes worldwide. It even influenced Mr Howard
and his government in changing their attitudes and it made
it easier for our conservative (in the sense of being
hesitant to change) economists to act according to the
laws and understanding of their science.

However many people have a propensity to discount the future -
"a bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush."
Discounting the future is one of the most common practices
in the business world. The psychological reason has to do
with understandable risk aversion, for example, any one of us
might not be around to benefit from a good time in the future -
so let's have it now regardless of the long-term
consequences.

Poirot,

Banjo asks: “The only question that needs be asked is, where is the proof that climate change is caused by human activity?”

If one was really interested in seeking the answer/s; one need not look far.

Sadly, most people who ask that question get their science from ‘denialist’ block sites, media ‘shock-jocks’, or from a socio-political stance they adhere to – most often right-wing conservatism.

Typically, they do not believe (or do not want to believe) what the science is telling them.

Lexi provided a link about the empirical evidence. The 'Skeptical Science' site also gives an explanation of the human components:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm

The comments are also well worth a read.