Some interesting points made here. Without wanting to target individual replies, I would like to remark on the following...

- Some people may have difficulty in appreciating the difference between what they themselves don't know and what science itself doesn't know;

- The media twist and exaggerate all stories, there is always an agenda. It is indeed always necessary to see who funds what research. Academia is of course subject to market forces and differences in opinion;

- I'm not sure if science is a belief system, I think this depends upon how the individual approaches it; there is plenty of bad science out there (e.g. the pseudo-science theories that appeal to certain types of 'believer'), but somehow, as has been observed, the better science tends to last. Unlike religion, science relies on evidence and can evolve;

- Anyone coming from a religious standpoint is obviously happy to believe in certain things without having any evidence for them, so it seems odd to then come to the dialectic criticising others for their lack of evidence;

- I think we can all see that the climate is changing; most likely augmented to some unknown extent by anthropogenic activity, flippancy is easy in those whose homes and livelihoods are not affected by an increase in climate variability or rising sea levels.

- People have been predicting a 'population bomb' since at least the 1960s: mass famines, armageddon etc etc but so far it has yet to come to light. Almost everywhere in the world people are living healthier, longer lives now than ever before.

But back to the original thought; no, I don't think this will have any real effect on overland travel!

__________________
EurasiaOverland a memoir of one quarter of a million kilometres by road through all of the Former USSR, Western and Southern Asia.

Hans Rosling expounds on this very eloquently.

Meanwhile, Geldof the showman, et al other "celebrities", have a lot to answer for.

__________________
Dave

Matt Ridley's 'The Positive Optimist' is a good read, showing how various catastrophes have entered the public mind (e.g. the Millennium Bug), never to appear, and that despite all this, people are still better off living today than ever before.

Worth a read!

__________________
EurasiaOverland a memoir of one quarter of a million kilometres by road through all of the Former USSR, Western and Southern Asia.

He has published quite a lot I think including some TED talks.
"The rational optimist" perhaps?
Rational Optimist Book | Matt Ridley

__________________
Dave

That's the one, thanks

__________________
EurasiaOverland a memoir of one quarter of a million kilometres by road through all of the Former USSR, Western and Southern Asia.

In the perspective of climate change, motorcycle travel seems one of the least things to worry about.

Interestingly enough, the consumption of fossil fuels does not only contribute to the climate change, but it also sponsors the religion inspired violence in the middle east and far beyond (including 9/11, Paris and all those things in between, including boko haram, including why the Sahara currently is off limits for a very large part). Think of that when you fuel up... .

And yes, the world has seen climate change in the past. Much longer than 6000 years ago. And tempartures and sea levels can be very well correlated to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Maybe that doesn't proof anything, but... . Don't we wear protective clothing just in case... . Don't we treat our water, just in case... .

From the reading I have done elsewhere, the correlation is that the increases in atmospheric CO2 have followed the respective ice ages; in other words, they are a result of climate change rather than the cause.

Sea levels have changed by about 12 inches in a century I have just been reading, which provides more than enough time for man to adapt - London did so actually with the construction of the Thames flood barrier in the 1970s, a project that followed on from rational debate of the day.

Meanwhile, while the ice sheet of the Artic has decreased in recent times, that of the Antartic has increased, so I read.
I have seen this reported elsewhere and there is a concept in play that one compensates for the other i.e. over a long time, each one shrinks and expands in a form of Gaia-like balance.

I was amused by the research ship of a couple of years ago that visited Antartica with the express intention of "proving" the ice sheet there was shrinking (good idea; lets adopt an ideology and set out to prove it correct) - in short, the ship got stuck in the ice and the researchers had to be rescued, no doubt at great expense and expenditure of various forms of emissions by someone.

Finally, for now:
"One recent survey shows that 27% of US Democrats are in favour of prosecuting climate sceptics. This is the mentality of religious fanaticism, not scientific debate".
Five articles on climate change | Matt Ridley

No wonder the 50 states of the union have little faith in their federal government.

My thanks go to Mollydog for raising a great question for the new year.
If this whole subject were to be considered in court it might be thrown out as "not proven".

__________________
Dave

Ice age is really recent and CO2 levels where low and have been low since. If we want to compare with history, we'll have to go back to the miocene when carbon dioxide levels where comparable to what we see today, some 15 million years ago, and see levels closer to 1000 inches higher... .

More than once in this thread that perjorative, derogatory word has been used; I can't quite place when it first appeared in print anywhere else with regard to climate, separate from it's earlier, more established use for those who choose to exercise their right to free speech with regard to the holocaust.
However, see below for the way these things tend to go.

In Turkey, to this day, it is illegal in their law to discuss the genocide of the Armenians during WW1.
There is no difference.

__________________
Dave

No, I wouldn't say that I got nothing.
I was simply saying that it assists in grasping points made by contributors, assessing the validity of proposals and the like if only to be able to understand how these techniques are in use today.

e.g.
I made this statement on the basis of https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
(the UK criminal courts have a term something like "beyond reasonable doubt" or words to that effect; the civil courts have a lower burden of proof).
Anyone can scroll through that whole list of fallacious techniques to see further ways in which arguments are made.
All of that is without any recourse to actually tampering with the results of experimentation, direct political interference in the practice of science or any of the other issues raised in this thread to date.

By the way, I have been reading your blog entries: not all of them by any means but some of the more recent.

__________________
Dave

Following links from one to another, as one does, I came upon this as part of todays' reading:

"As some of you will already know, I am one of 7 US academics being investigated by US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Rep. Grijalva has sent a letter to the president of my university requesting a range of information, including my correspondence, the letter is here in PDF. Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.
For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research"
Abstracted from:
https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/

I am aware of other blogs which have closed down following Twitter-based campaigns and similar "witch hunts", but this guy has pulled out of the research all together albeit he has other interests and has not lost his livelihood.

__________________
Dave

Correct, but it is not just big oil, that is nonsense perpetuated by the left to demonize. From sweatshops to oil, to diamonds lots of reason for conflicts, most of which do not need to be happening. However leave it to a government to make sure YOU the consumer are at fault, you are not.
you like anyone else need to exist, you do not put forth the rules which dictate horrible or good corporations. There was a time when we could choose with our pocket books, now you are forced to buy from a handful of corporations boo on them.

Co2 is also part of our atmosphere which saves us from being baked from the Sun, that convenient part is left out.
Things which need to be worried about is pollution in general, mostly from organic Chemicals.

I actually held his theory although on the Biblical fear end (If anyone at this point thinks I am a holy roller, your reading comprehension is very much lacking) as a means of control. However the premise of his thoughts are correct, please do your own research, it is how I came from the global warming side.

I grew up in what is now the worlds largest reclamation site, so I hvae a very different view of pollution than most. For your consideration
Thoughts of the Ages: When will it end?

State of Fear - MichaelCrichton.com

I didn’t want to write it. I decided I wouldn’t write it. I had breakfast with a friend of mine who I hadn’t seen in 30 years and I told them my dilemma and he said no, you have to write it. I said I might get killed for this. He said, no, you have to write it. I would like to be able to say that as a result of that conversation I decided to write it. I didn’t. I went home and I thought, you know, I’m not writing this. It doesn’t matter. Keep my opinion to myself. I started to work on something else and I felt like a coward and I thought what are you going to do? You have looked at the data and you really believe that it’s in effect but not something that we as human beings should be worrying about. […] It’s low on the totem pole. We ought to be taking care of disease. We ought to be taking care of world hunger. We ought to be taking care of a lot of things before we do this.

I cannot believe I am the first to point out, that Hollywood has proven we will ride on!

Well said young man (you have to be younger than me ).

On your final point, you are not alone - until today I had forgotten or never knew (that age thing again!) that Viscount Ridley has a blog.
Here is an extract from about 4 weeks ago: as I say, you are not alone.

"The Paris climate has attracted about 40,000 conference delegates and camp followers, ranging from politicians and civil servants to journalists and campaigners. I don’t have the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that a very small number of them paid their own air fares or hotel bills. A goodly proportion will have sent the bill to taxpayers in various countries, either directly or via the grants that governments give to green pressure groups.
Perhaps the politicians should stop listening to the vested interest of the Green Blob begin asking what long-suffering taxpayers and real voters think about hitting poor people today so as to raise the incomes of very rich people by 1.3% in 2100?"
It is the summary of his blog entry here, for reference:
Five articles on climate change | Matt Ridley

ps
I didn't read your earlier posts as coming from the perspective of a "bible thumper" but it can be easy to misread the written word.
Of course, there was an era when it was forbidden, on pain of death, to print the bible and disseminate it to the common man - such would never do for the simple reason that it would undermine the power of the church of the day.

__________________
Dave

I am slightly surprised that your theme here has not been taken up.
Leaving aside the pollution aspect (probably a given that it is a highly important, tangible and relatively easy factor to quantify) I have continued to read the earlier links supplied in this thread - it is noticeable that the "pro-posts" do not cite their sources. I guess that is the settled science syndrome at work.

"Today’s gentle warming, progressing much more slowly than expected, is also accompanied by generally improving conditions. Globally, droughts are declining very slightly. Storms are not increasing in frequency or intensity: this year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons. Floods are worse in some places but usually because of land-use changes, not more rainfall. Death rates from floods, storms and droughts have plummeted and are now far lower than they were a century ago. Today, arid areas like western Australia or the Sahel region of Africa are getting generally greener, thanks to the effect of more carbon dioxide in the air, which makes plants grow faster and resist drought better"
That quote is drawn from Ridleys' blog of about a month ago.
i.e. it is as current as any other view.
Five articles on climate change | Matt Ridley

This summation paragraoh from the same source is also of interest.
"The 40,000 people meeting in Paris over the next ten days are committed to the view that the weather is certain to do something nasty towards the end of this century unless we cut emissions. In this they are out of line with scientists. A survey of the members of the American Meteorological Society in 2012 found that only 52% agree that climate change is mostly man-made, and as to its being very harmful if unchecked, only 34% of AMS members agree. The rest said they think it will be either not harmful or not very harmful."

I have read elsewhere that there is an absolute minimum amount of CO2 that must exist in the atmosphere or plant life will die because the chlorophyll fails to function correctly.
Logically, all animal life would cease after such an event, or is that a fallacious logic?

__________________
Dave