I don't know Ms Jackson nor have I ever heard of an "Independent Climate Research Group" from Bangor. How trustworthy such an organization is remains to be seen.

In any case, it's a mistake to equate climate change with global warming, the two things are different.

There's no doubt that we're having a negative impact on your environment due to the way we exploit the planet. That exploitation is already showing its effects around the world in increased floods, impact on the polar icecaps and the opening of shipping lanes in the Artic where there used to be none before.

If we don't change and start adapting to our environment instead of exploiting it we're going to very soon literally destroy the world we live in, something humans everywhere have shown themselves masters in accomplishing.

Simply denying that we're having a negative impact on our planet as it is, as people such as Sammy Wilson seem to be, is a dangerous folly which will lead to disaster in the coming years.

Posted by Serge | 26.09.09, 20:04 GMT

Good story Eamon. Until IPCC came along every study of carbon dioxide residence time in the atmosphere (and there have been many) has concluded it is in the range 4-14 years. The "summary" IPCC report mentioned a range of 50 - 200 years. This is of course necessary to maintain the importance of the anthropogenic contribution. You are of course right about the water vapour residence time is in the order of days. So what - it still is the reason that the average atmoshereic temperature is around 290 deg. K rather than a cool 255deg. K (google my article in IOP South Central Branch Newsletter April 2008).

Posted by Peter F Gill | 26.09.09, 11:18 GMT

Peter,

Water Vapour stays up in the atmosphere for a few days - CO2 stays up for hundreds of years.

If we cut CO2, temperatures will decrease, and water vapour will too.

We have no way of cutting Water Vapour - so the choice is simple.

Posted by Eamon | 25.09.09, 15:58 GMT

One point on the Ancient Egyptian's that the collaspe of there cilivaistaion was a localized event ie in to Egypt . Or even Africa. This global warming is an global event!

Posted by Sunny Jim | 25.09.09, 09:17 GMT

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. Its contribution to the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere is small compared to that of major greenhouse gas which is water vapour. Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere arises naturally and the contribution by mankind is small in comparison with natural inputs.
Water vapour is responsible for nearly all “greenhouse” global warming by absorption of certain frequencies of the infrared radiation emanating from the Earth’s surface. However water vapour is also responsible for clouds which can have warming or cooling effects not all of which are fully understood but that’s another story.

Posted by Peter F Gill | 24.09.09, 21:55 GMT

I love it when deniers all jump at once when one commentator makes an observation that may or may not contradict anthropogenic global warming.

The World they create in their heads is everything is constant and unchanging, a World where sufficient prayer will make all your ills and all the bad people go away.



Deniers, if Satan himself poppped up and claimed global cooling without citing any in-depth research would you all jump of a bridge for him too?

The comments below out you for being the unthinking reactionaries most of you probably are.

Posted by MS | 24.09.09, 17:02 GMT

How funny - just as the world's leaders including President Obama were saying how vital it was to reduce green house gas emissions when our local experts can prove that it's all a myth! Brilliant!

Would these experts just also happen to be the same folk who cheerfully believe that children frolicked with dinosaurs on Noah's happy Ark of every animal that ever lived?

Posted by man dingo | 22.09.09, 21:14 GMT

And I thought that "global warming" was a political fantasy of Al Gore to keep his name in the American news and on late night talk shows.

Posted by Robbie C | 22.09.09, 21:09 GMT

Well done Will for bringing religion into it...slightly obsessed

Posted by conor | 22.09.09, 20:31 GMT

Ya, what would have happened if the CO2 level back in the ancient times had been higher than anytime within the last few hundred thousand years previously. We would probably be breathing methane by now!

Posted by fireofenergy | 22.09.09, 19:05 GMT

What is with these non scientist going against the basic (i mean very basic) truth that CO2 is indisputably rising and CO2 indisputably has been proven to help prevent the release of electromagnetic radiation back into space.

Scientists can figure out why the Earth is so tricky (regarding apparent cooling blips) but why? Isn't it more important to lower CO2 back to 1970's levels! I don't mean through limitations, but through massive and complete solar (and other RE) automation.

Humanity has consumed ~ 40 cubic miles of oil let alone the mass of other fossils! This will take some time to erase glaciers but once they're gone, we get to breath methane! O Gee my grandkids can't wait!
All because people like you said we don't have to take action!

Mass produce CHEAP RENEWABLE energy and storage systems. Just say yes to solar automation, Reforestation, and electric car battery research!

Posted by fireofenergy | 22.09.09, 18:58 GMT

Warming over the past 100 years has been approx 0.8 C - not exactly a heat wave and even this amount is disputed as data is unreliable in some perods and adjusted by those calculating the result....

This seems to be an out of date argument, that 0.8 C if it ever existed was only at the 1998 El Nino peak, the cooling ever since- esp. the last 2-3 years has erased this.

Posted by Anon | 22.09.09, 15:53 GMT

I'd side with the real scientists on this, not the politicians, journalists or celebrities

10's of thousands of independent scientists have put their name to peer reviewed studies utterly debunking the scientifically illiterate global warming scam..

Only a handful of political -scientific organisations are proponents, and even then, the political summaries and interpretations are not representative of the studies when you actually read them.

Posted by Steve L | 22.09.09, 15:34 GMT

Richard,

The key part of my argument is 'man-made', I apologise if that was not clear to you. I am not denying for one second that climate change is occurring, it has always occurred and will always continue to occur. If the planet was not in a heating phase then we would still be in an ice-age. The planet gets hot and it also gets cold, it never stays the same.

You mentioned 'sand' in your comment, the great Ancient Egyptian civilisation that we have all heard so much about came to an abrupt end due to climate change around 2000 years. Due to excess temperatures, droughts and starvation followed and the civilisation came to an end. Now I may be wrong, but I do not think that the Ancient Egyptians had Boeing 747s, Range Rovers, BMW X5s and everything else that nowadays gets blamed for climate change. The climate changed on its own, without human agency.

Our climate will always change, this change will benefit some and it will disadvantage others. Deal with it.

Posted by Will Hawkes | 22.09.09, 12:46 GMT

One of the best things that we can do is to start changing that thought that the Warmist are the authority on the effects of weather. One way may be to declare that they are now the "new deniers". Yes, each time that you hear or see a warmist saying that the earth is still warming or that global cooling is caused by global warming, you need to label that person as a "new denier". You should not be surprised by how far a label can influence other so please do you part when you can and lets reverse the tag that the warmist themselves have put on us of reasonable minds.

Posted by datadon | 22.09.09, 10:41 GMT

Mr man dingo, while you are at it call David Bellamy and he will tell you 'I told you so'. Warming over the past 100 years has been approx 0.8 C - not exactly a heat wave and even this amount is disputed as data is unreliable in some perods and adjusted by those calculating the result.
Anyway that is not the argument - the whole AGW hypothesis is centred on CO2 being the problem. Show me one piece of evidence that indicates if we increase the amount of co2 in the atmosphere tomorrow the world will get warmer (by the way computer models are not 'evidence').
If warming believers were really true to their beliefs they would cease all this huffing and puffing about the subject and consequently reduce the amount of co2 they emit themselves.

Posted by Murray | 22.09.09, 04:22 GMT

Richard, take your head out of the sand. We've always had droughts and famine. Most of the premature death's are due to continuing poverty and lack of economic development, not global warming.

Posted by Don | 22.09.09, 03:32 GMT

Richard, take your head out of the sand. We've always had droughts and famine. Most of the premature death's are due to continuing poverty and lack of economic development, not global warming.

Posted by Don | 22.09.09, 03:29 GMT

Will - have you stopped to consider what is and will continue to cause drought and therefore starvation, disease, child mortality?

Global warming / climate change might just have something to do with it all.

Take your head out of the sand.

Posted by Richard | 21.09.09, 20:13 GMT

Oh great, then there is no global warming after all. Must get on the phone to David Attenborough and his fellow colleagues to let them all know.

Probably still time to cancel that forthcoming conference on how to counter the man-made emissions that we used to think were causing it, and tell everyone that it was just a big silly mistake.

So - bone-fires of tyre mountains and hundreds of stinking coal-fired power stations belching billions of tons of co2s here we come. Terri Jackson has spoken, and we should fear not as we are actually getting colder!

Posted by man dingo | 21.09.09, 18:57 GMT