Climate Change
Just for the historical record, I want to say that it kinda feels like the whole c-change debate has escalated a LOT lately, in terms of public visibility.
Even since my post below (10th October).
Not sure whn I went to see Inconvenient Truth, but I'm tipping that it was quite likely the catalyst for the recent upturn in discussion in the news I read on a daily basis.
I think Murdoch's decision to "back" climate change may predate the release of Gore's movie - the Sun (newspaper) going green etc etc.
History (and Google) will no doubt sort out the precise timeline.
This is just a personal note to myself that about now is when people started becoming ever so _slightly_ more interested/involved.
FYI - At this stage I'm completely convinced that warming is occurring...I _was_ even convinced that it was all attributable to CO2 emissions and other manmade influences.
Today I'm not so sure that the case really is wrapped up.
Now I'm not a practicing scientist, so of course this is purely me verbalising my current internal conversation on the subject.
Since talking to Treek, a friend who has a few geophysisist mates, I've done a lot of reading on the specific topic of the level of contribution _reliably_ attributable to CO2 etc. From what I've read (which may not be broad-ranging enough, and indeed may well be a biased sample itself) it seems that there _is_ still debate on this causal link.
I am well aware of the figures quoted in the Gore Slideshow (TM) regarding the number of peer-reviewed papers etc...however I have read at least one paper which questions the validity of the statistical methods used in the original study itself.
I really should stop here as I can't cite references; I'm not inclined to look them up either.
I haven't crossed to the c-change skeptic's camp, by any means.
I'm just unsure what it will take to prove either side of the argument.
Please is you're going to comment, try to be less vague on sources than I have been in this post!
Dave

