“I'm sure I saw somewhere that the spead of deserts - which has been goin on for a lot more than 30 years and even during periods of global cooling - was more related to global dimming which disrupts local weather patterns.”

“Mike - from what I have read, and I am under the impression that this is the accepted figure, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm 150 years ago.”

“I'm not a sceptic, I don't believe in AGW. Sure the climate may be changing but it has nothing to do with puny man. In planetary terms we are so insignificant. From what I have read there 150 years or so ago there were about 340 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, now there are around 380 PPM. CO2 only reflects about 8% of the inferred energy passing through it. Given that could an extra 40 Parts Per Million reflecting 8% really have this much effect. People need to stop being sheep do their own research and make an informed decision. The so called experts will fit the facts to further their own positions and careers, that much is clear from the leaked emails of the EAU.”

“Alan, Exeter - as long as you are prepared to accept that your last sentence might just as easily be applied to you and other sceptics. Why are you any more justified in calling us myopic than vice versa? My feeling is that there are far more accusations of stupidity coming from the sceptic side than from the other direction, but I may be wrong

Just because climate has varied greatly over millennia doesn't mean that the mean increase in global temperatures over the last century and a half can't be due to man's activities. If I leave my house unheated over the course of a whole year the temperature will vary greatly with the season, as well as day0to-day. Yet it still warms up within an hour or so if I light a fire, whatever the temperature is before I light it. Is that pure chance?

It's not a perfect allegory, I know, but I'm sure you can see my point.”

“Once upon a time the Sahara was lush forest with lakes and lots of wildlife. Once upon a time, the landscape of Devon was much like the current Sahara, which is why we have massive amounts of sandstone.
Once upon a time, you could walk to the continent from southern England.

Nothing is forever, there are no permanent features on the planet. You might argue we are accelerating things a bit, but at least we are still going in the same direction as the natural events. But to combat global warming we are setting ourselves directly against the most powerful forces this planet has. Which approach makes more sense, go with the flow and steer a bit, or dig your heels in and get dragged along with no control ?

Have you ever heard of King Canute ? The popular belief is that he tried to stop the tide from coming in by commanding it not to. The truth is more enlightening. He did try to command it but only to demonstrate to his subjects that even he, the mighty king, had no control over the forces of nature.
So, far from a figure acting like an idiot we actually have a man with lots of common sense, who knew how to put on a show and get the point across.

And it seems some people still haven't learned the lesson.

Carry on reducing CO2 emissions, use less energy if you can - they are both laudable aims. But please don't expect that by doing so you are somehow preventing the inevitable march of climate change. And don't ever suggest that somebody who doesn't agree with your myopic view is somehow an idiot or lacking in common sense.”