So.........this weather is getting a bit boring now?

Ah, but for those who believe that the planet is catastrophically warming, and that it's all our fault, warming and climate change are synonymous. I doubt if they'd be so keen to discuss a changing climate if it were getting cooler, which it will, inevitably.

But unlike the climate scientists you deny, your statement has nothing other than apocryphal opinion to support it - which is equivalent to no support at all. Science is built up piece by piece, science can't pick and choose what it builds upon. If there were any real proof a scientist would accept it. However what we g=have is vested interests muddying the water for everyman to be confused by. Yes there are many cause of climate change today and throughout the past and we do not know all the factors that affect it but we have a damn good idea and it is based upon careful observation and measurement, not upon outspoken uninformed opinion such as those websites you cited.

Wake up to the real world not just the politics of i

Climate "science" is merely political agenda, dreamed up by those who were desperately searching for a vehcle to use to scare and control the population. None of it has anything to do with science, or with "saving the planet". It's hooey, a scam, and a lot of people are making a substantial amount of money. The only thing I deny, is the idea that they're going to pull the wool over MY eyes, like they apparently have over yours.

You wake up.

i'm a bit puzzled by your idea that climate "science" is a conspiracy, can't see what the benefit is for them but as with most conspiracy theories, there is little basis in fact there is no way a conspiracy that large could hold. Too many people involved... I don't really see where the money is being made either. On the contrary deniers are those with the money interests because it costs to not contribute to climate change. I'm glad you're not wearing a woolly hat though. You clearly have an unswervable opinion and nothing I can say could convince you otherwise. I've actually studied the science which you clearly have not but that doesn't of course preclude an opinion.

You might find this article interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/

and I quote " climate change: while the most recent international scientific assessment report (receiving input from over 2500 independent scientists from more than a 100 countries) concluded with 90 percent certainty that human-induced global warming is occurring, the severe consequences and implications of climate change are often too distressing and overwhelming for people to deal with, both cognitively as well as emotionally. Resorting to easier explanations that simply discount global warming as a hoax is then of course much more comforting and convenient psychologically. Yet, as Al Gore famously pointed out, unfortunately, the truth is not always convenient. "

Probably a good note to finish this and lets agree to differ

I had decided upon south west france but hadn't narrowed it down further. I used a map of sunshine hours in france that guided me to a 100km wide band that stretched from La Rochelle to Perpignan. I also made lots of reference to rainfall charts for Sussex in the UK (where I moved from) In the end though I went off-piste slightly and ended up in southern Haute Vienne. It rains here quite a bit but then its hardly been clement in the UK. Here though (as in the charente where i stayed for 6 months whilst house hunting) it clears quickly and even in near zero winter temperatures a blue sky is still better than the steel grey of the UK most of the time it seemed. Confirmation bias and English negativity can always creep in and when winters are cold and wet or summer doesn't arrive we think we've made a mistake. But it rains less and the sunshines more here than in the UK. Its a better climate (weather permitting) :-)

Oh by the way, one of the things that melting arctic ice caps can cause (so the geological record shows) is a shut down of the north atlantic drift (gulf stream) which will mean that yes northern Europe will actually get colder. But that won't mean that climate change isn't happening

Nothing is going to happen to the Great Ocean Conveyor. More scaremongering, I'm afraid. Cooling WILL occur, in the fulness of time, as it always has - the current interglacial (the Holocene) will end, sometime, and it in turn, is less warm than the last (the Eemian). There will be another Ice Age, and probably another Little Ice Age, in the more immediate future, brought on by falling solar activity. It's all happened before, sans human help, and will do again.

In the meantime there's this, for your delectation and delight:

http://www.thegwpf.com/never-trust-doom-mongers-earth-day-predictions-that-were-all-wrong/

I agree. We should be worrying about our rat like reproduction rates rather than our infinitesimal impact on global warming.

It already has happened, the downflow of cold current in the arctic has almost shut down, of course we don't know the consequences yet. And it has happened before, though not in human history due to break up of ice sheets on the canadian shiled. Its a pity climate scientists don't have your uninformed certainty. Oh by the way, if we are in an interglacial then technically we are still in an ice age. The "little ice age" was a short period of about 500 or so years. In fact there were three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. The current "interglacial" is already warmer than any point in the Eemian and it has also lasted longer than any interglacial. Interestingly some of those actual interglacials were actually warmer than long periods outside of an ice age. However the onset of an interglacial happens over a matter of 10s of thousands of years, not the decades we have actually measured the radical climate change, this is key to the current agreement on human caused climate change, the changes we are measuring are so much faster than anything we have seen in the geological record.

On the positive side, there is a school of thought that "global warming" could hold back the onset of the next cooling. The problem is that the climate is being disrupted and it is difficult to predict how it will change as a result of the gradual surface warming.

But I must rush off now and write to all thiose climate scientist asking for some of the vast sums of money they've been making out of this "scam".

I'm aways puzzled why people hold attitudes like yours. I feel such statements as you made first need to be challenged or more people will think that there is actually any doubt about climate change. Whats your gain on this? Do you feel less gullible than us poor scientists? Perhaps you think the animal cunning that can dismiss the findings of people much better informed than both of us, will help you survive the next ice age? By the way well done for a bit of research, don't stop there though, you might stumble across more actual facts.

How many children have you got then?

One, a girl. I'm very proud of her. Apart from being a very nice person she recieved a first in her primary degree in International Business (including an Erasmus year in Nantes) so she has pretty good French and now she's only a year away from qualifying as a doctor and startimg her internship. I think she'll make a positive contribution to the World :-)

I've got three, one a junior doctor, another working for marine conservation and another, well lets say the other two make up the balance.

OK so I've exceed my quota. But the issue of population is difficult, the developed world's birth rate is declining for the most part and that is what happens once the benefits of "development" come into play, or perhaps more likely, children are less of a resource than they are in the third world. Whilst starvation and disease controls so much of the world's death rate, who are we to dictate the morals or birth rate of the less fortunate. The ghost of Malthus still haunts us but his predictions are much slower to come to fruition than he thought. Personally I feel the way ahead is to help the third world plus India and China to bypass our industrial revolution and all its pollution and social disruption and encourage them into the technological age (perhaps the "silicon" age?). Which will also help lessn the impact on climate change too.

Well I've got four kids, but as there are two each from two marriages and both husbands are French and I'm English, is that okay for the non-overpopulation quotas for the UK and France...? ;)

Well 2.4 is the cliché average - but that would also mean stanbility I guess assuming some loss from accidental death and all. So lets do the arithmetic 3 parents 4 children, sounds good. But I guess it depends upon whether your first husband can go on to have any more? I think you're safe form the population control police, for now. :-)

I'm sure you love all three of them equally :-)

I agree with most of your comment especially tegarding assistance for third world countries. My three top priorities would be education, education and education, closely followed by fighting corruption.

I'm not really sure there is a technological age. Sure, we now use a lot of technology but commece is still based on buying and selling products, be it iron ore or iPads, and these have to be produced somehere. The technological age for the US seems to me to be no more than they design it and the Chinese manufacture it so the pollution and dodgy work practices are nicely off shored, they don't go away.

I think population growth is the really intractable issue.

I suppose I just meant help them bypass all the social disruption of factories, power, and mass population movements that happened for us in the 19th century. Population growth is a major issue and its all interlinked... development, climate change, population control nothing stands in isolation. Education is all very well but it can just breed unrest. I worked in Tunisian villages and whilst they could all read, the kids all watched the village tvs and just saw what they couldn't have. Their parents were goatherds and that was probably what they'd be. Tunisia possibly isn't third world but it gave me a hint of the issues.

I've no doubt that education is the solution. Sure, there will be intergenerational issue initally but that's always been the case? Also I fon't think there is much one can do about population movement. People will alway chase a better life. I just wonder what Foxconn "cities" are like. A new version of industrial revolution sweatshops perhaps.

I get very, very angry when people deny climate change and downplay the impact of man's activities which are contributing heavily to the rate of change. So I'm not going to say anything, because it will likely get me banned from this site!

You get as angry as you like, but try thinking first. I know of nobody who denies that the climate changes, but I do know of many who believe that the changes are largely (but not exclusively) natural, have occured ever since there has been a climate, and will continue to do so, with or without the assistance of man. You sound like someone else who is easily led by the falsehoods, fiddled data, and agenda driven rubbish put about by alarmists who really should know better.

Find yourself a few minutes to view this video, it may help to calm you down:

http://www.thegwpf.com/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say/

It's not even worth my effort to argue with you, it really isn't, FFS!