Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Nickbat on 28 September 2009, 21:39:44
-
The internet is buzzing today! Not that you'll read any of it in the papers or see it on TV news, of course.
First a little background to what is a tortuous, but compelling story of skullduggery which blows much of the basis of "global warming" out of the water.
Basically, one of the ways that climate scientists have measured past temperatures is to look at tree rings (dendrochronology). They call this a "proxy" for temperature, since trees are not thermometers. Anyway, no doubt you've read all about how the last thirty years have been the warmest in 200 years blah, blah. That analysis had a strong basis in dendros and suited the views of the two scientists, Jones & Briffa, two Brits from the Met Office's Hadley Centre. Unfortunately, after taking literally years to get hold of the tree ring data, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit finally gold hold of the data and found they (pro-AGW scientists) had cherry-picked data from only a few trees that had the signal they wanted (a hockey stick showing a huge upswing in temperature in the late 20th century). When McIntyre got hold of the data for more of the same trees, he found that the graph did not swing wildly skywards - it went the other way! His site (Climate Audit) has been so overwhelmed that mirrors have had to be set up. This seems to drive a coach and horses through a major part of the IPCC. :y
It's all over the web, as I say, but here is a site (Joanne Nova) which gives a good summary.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/breaking-news-cherry-picking-of-historic-proportions/
-
It doesn't matter what the real truth of the matter is mate, 'They' have their own agenda and their version of the truth is the one they will ram down our throats and use to empty our pockets! :(
-
The saying "can't see the wood for the trees" springs to mind! About time the truth was out in the public domain!
-
The big question is why ?.......it isnt just a matter of a government using it as an excuse to raise taxes etc,the global establishment has become consumed by this and I dont belive that they actually buy into it (their actions say otherwise) so they have a big long term agenda but what is it.
Global government or similar ????????????? :-/ :-/
-
The big question is why ?.......it isnt just a matter of a government using it as an excuse to raise taxes etc,the global establishment has become consumed by this and I dont belive that they actually buy into it (their actions say otherwise) so they have a big long term agenda but what is it.
Global government or similar ????????????? :-/ :-/
The short answer Albs is that I'm unsure. Yes, there, certainly an international political class that has an interest. Read the "Background & Development" PDF on this site:
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/
It's written in couched terms, but the Club of Rome keeps cropping up. Wonder why?
On the other hand, there are big companies like Exelon in the States that stand to make huge amounts of money if the cap-and-trade bill is passed there and are actively lobbying for it.
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/07/28/uscap-members-spend-67-million-to-lobby/
My view is that it started as a push for power by the political elite (incl. the UN) but, as always, big business has seen an opportunity to make easy money. Unlikely bedfellows, it must be said.
However, the more I read about the science the more I see it as a gigantic hoax. But too much money and too many reputations are at stake. Expect much more skullduggery in the next could of months leading up to Copenhagen.
Incidentally, the report today from the Met Office that we'll all fry in 2060, is absolute hogwash.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8279654.stm
I'll quote Lubos Motl here: "..the net UAH warming between 1979 and 2009 has been around 0.4 degrees Celsius. If extrapolated, and such extrapolations of violent short-term trends are likely to be overestimates, that would produce 0.6 degrees Celsius by 2060.
Their figure, 4 degrees Celsius, exceeds this extrapolated figure by a factor of seven, despite the approximate constancy of the CO2 production since 1979. In reality, the warming by 2060 will almost certainly be smaller than 0.6 degrees Celsius.
These people must think that all the other people have the IQ of a pumpkin to buy such manifest nonsense. "
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/09/four-degrees-celsius-in-50-years.html#more
Exactly, Lubos!
Mind you, funny how the Hadley scientist's name mentioned in the BBC report above also appears in the earlier "apollo-gaia" PDF linked above. ::) ::)
-
It's written in couched terms, but the Club of Rome keeps cropping up. Wonder why?
Aah Rome, still the desire exists to dominate the world - 'aint history a wonderful meter by which we can adjudge the modern will ::) ::) ::) :y
-
The big question is why ?.......it isnt just a matter of a government using it as an excuse to raise taxes etc,the global establishment has become consumed by this and I dont belive that they actually buy into it (their actions say otherwise) so they have a big long term agenda but what is it.
Global government or similar ????????????? :-/ :-/
....all part of the design preparation for the NWO in my humble view ;) ;) :y
-
The internet is buzzing today! Not that you'll read any of it in the papers or see it on TV news, of course.
First a little background to what is a tortuous, but compelling story of skullduggery which blows much of the basis of "global warming" out of the water.
...gives a degree of credence to what we've been saying about the science being far from settled. :y
Will these revelations be allowed to gain traction however :-/ :-/
-
A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight. :y
-
Meanwhile >:( >:( >:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm
-
A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight. :y
Ah break :D
-
A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight. :y
Ah break :D
Yep.............but you supplied the link. :y :y :y :y
-
A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight. :y
Like I said. Utter drivel. Still as long as the masses see it on telly, it will be believed. >:(
-
Meanwhile >:( >:( >:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8279654.stm
Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.
But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.
....in spite of the concerned and furrowed brows, there's always a get-out clause
(taken from that BBC report)
-
]The big question is why ?.......it isnt just a matter of a government using it as an excuse to raise taxes etc,the global establishment has become consumed by this [/highlight]and I dont belive that they actually buy into it (their actions say otherwise) so they have a big long term agenda but what is it.
Global government or similar ????????????? :-/ :-/
....all part of the design preparation for the NWO in my humble view ;) ;) :y
But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.
...and these comments from such 'august' sources will be the instrument used to justify such revenue raising.
(latter text highlight taken from the BBC report referred to by Brick Tamland)
-
]The big question is why ?.......it isnt just a matter of a government using it as an excuse to raise taxes etc,the global establishment has become consumed by this [/highlight]and I dont belive that they actually buy into it (their actions say otherwise) so they have a big long term agenda but what is it.
Global government or similar ????????????? :-/ :-/
....all part of the design preparation for the NWO in my humble view ;) ;) :y
But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.
...and these comments from such 'august' sources will be the instrument used to justify such revenue raising.
(latter text highlight taken from the BBC report referred to by Brick Tamland)
-
A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight. :y
Like I said. Utter drivel. Still as long as the masses see it on telly, it will be believed.
>:(
I did not say............... that I necessarily believe that a four degree rise is inevitable Nickbat...........but we must not become complacent........best to keep an open mind. ;) ;)
-
A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight. :y
Like I said. Utter drivel. Still as long as the masses see it on telly, it will be believed.
>:(
I did not say............... that I necessarily believe that a four degree rise is inevitable Nickbat...........but we must not become complacent........best to keep an open mind. ;) ;)
....but by the same token Optio, we shouldn't buy into this in a doe-eyed state.
-
Read this, folks, and check the PDFs - especially the "CO2 REALITY CHECK". I can't find any fault with Norm Kalmanovitch's maths. If correct, another part of the scam is uncovered. :y
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4091
-
As I said many times, we need to
Plant more trees
Cut energy usage
Not waste energy trying to xuck up plant food
Plant more trees
GM modifiy plants including algii to produch fuels
I have quite a few conker trees in pots ;D ;D
-
Further news:
"A major misdirection was created when increased cost for hurricane insurance claims was incorrectly used to say hurricane frequency had increased. Zurich and Swiss Re both promote the false science of the IPCC without questioning its validity because it benefits them. Is it good business? Yes. Is it moral, scientifically accurate and good for society? No. It is pure, unadulterated, hypocritical, exploitation. Would they sponsor research that showed climate variations were quite normal and risk levels were not elevated? Of course not, any more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entertains climate skeptics.
Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments."
[US government funding on climate change research now exceeds $70 billion a year.]
...Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova found, “that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.” (Monopsony – a market situation in which there is only one buyer)."
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/09/climate-science-funding-hypocrisy.html
AND
"...the creation of an economic “Green Bubble” may be in the works."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA585.html
This may be a bit dry for many on here but, believe me, when the bubble bursts, it will be painful for us all.
Though I, for one, will feel a certain sense of satisfaction that so many greedy hypocrites (and that includes so-called scientists) will be brought to book. :y
-
This may be a bit dry for many on here but, believe me, when the bubble bursts, it will be painful for us all.
Though I, for one, will feel a certain sense of satisfaction that so many greedy hypocrites (and that includes so-called scientists) will be brought to book. :y
....and there's the rub, few will realize until it's too late to do anything constructive about it.
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
Er, I hardly think so. >:(
Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... ::)
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
Er, I hardly think so. >:(
Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... ::)
i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course 8-)
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
Er, I hardly think so. >:(
Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... ::)
i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course 8-)
Attenborough studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in Natural Sciences in 1945. He makes telly programmes.
Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Reid Bryson and many others who question the "mainstream" view are qualified scientists involved in research climatology.
So the former should be a better source than the latter? I don't think so.
Your snarky remark about the moon landings doesn't warrant a response. >:(
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
Er, I hardly think so. >:(
Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... ::)
i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course 8-)
.......whether or not that is relevant has no bearing upon the legitimacy of their assertions bj. You're attaching a lot of credence to what is being said and it seems to be a very big step, as far as I'm concerned, to accept the line being doled out, without question.
Can you not entertain a contrary view, or are you convinced beyond doubt and consider those who question such fundamentalist ideas are not entitled to debate the science?
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
Er, I hardly think so. >:(
Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... ::)
i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course 8-)
Attenborough studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in Natural Sciences in 1945. He makes telly programmes.
Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Reid Bryson and many others who question the "mainstream" view are qualified scientists involved in research climatology.
So the former should be a better source than the latter? I don't think so.
Your snarky remark about the moon landings doesn't warrant a response. >:(
Shades of Capricorn one................only in1969 the Russians ....and the Chinese......were just not clever enough to figure out how the Americans faked the moon landings......spooky... ::) ::) ;)
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt[/i] theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
...that's very trusting of you bj - I'm surprised at the faith you put in these assertions :o :o will you be telling us that this level of faith has taken you to the point of agreeing with the great religious movements of the planet when they look towards the Supreme Being as the reason for existence? ;D ;D ;D
Insofar as your posed question is concerned, how could I be sure that the percentile figures are correct - where did the figure of 80% come from for example?
Would I blindly accept these figures without due investigation - at the very least should I not consider testing the water to establish whether or not I'm being deceived?
There's a lot more needs to be done before I can accept the current pronouncements - there's too many qualifications (appears to be, may do so and so on) for me to have much faith in the veracity of the message.
I’ll say it again, I accept that human activity especially in recent times has had an effect on the climatic balance of the planet, to suggest that this activity is the sole reason for such change is flawed and your suggestion that it is surprises me, quite frankly.
-
Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science ;D ;D
Er, I hardly think so. >:(
Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... ::)
i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course 8-)
...in overall terms that statement is inconsequential, the current push by the interested parties to promote the 'dire consequences' of climate change has more to do with restructuring the accepted prominence of the First World as the prevailing global movement.
The desire seems to be to overturn this notion by restricting continued development of the First World in a misguided effort to encourage greater development of the Third World, in short - we've had our go at it, time to let the others play.
That seems terribly short-sighted to me ;) ;)
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
Consensus has no place in science. It only takes one person with one fact to defeat the argument,
Remember that, once upon a time, the "consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took just one person - Copernicus - to refute that.
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
Consensus has no place in science. It only takes one person with one fact to defeat the argument,
Remember that, once upon a time, the "consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took just one person - Copernicus - to refute that.
thats still a theory actually (the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System - by bizarre coincidence - i happened to read that yesterday :)), but no sane person would disagree with the fact that planets revolve around the sun - scientific proof is way way more rigorous than you give it credit for, i'm looking at the balance of probabilities - and i say you're more likely than not, wrong - how's that? :y
-
thats still a theory actually (the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System - by bizarre coincidence - i happened to read that yesterday :)), but no sane person would disagree with the fact that planets revolve around the sun - scientific proof is way way more rigorous than you give it credit for, i'm looking at the balance of probabilities - and i say you're more likely than not, wrong - how's that? :y
....there's that faith thing again - is it based on fear, confusion or pragmatism :-/
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
Consensus has no place in science. It only takes one person with one fact to defeat the argument,
Remember that, once upon a time, the "consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took just one person - Copernicus - to refute that.
thats still a theory actually (the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System - by bizarre coincidence - i happened to read that yesterday :)), but no sane person would disagree with the fact that planets revolve around the sun - scientific proof is way way more rigorous than you give it credit for, i'm looking at the balance of probabilities - and i say you're more likely than not, wrong - how's that? :y
No, you're not looking at the balance of probabilities at all. You're looking at what the mainstream media spout. For example, were you aware that the Guardian's "Comment is Free" website operates a seemingly strict policy of disallowing comments that disagree with AGW?
Were you also aware that Wikipedia has it's own editor, William Connolley, who censors any anti-AGW information on Wikipedia?
No, I thought not.
I know rather a fair bit about meteorology. When you can can come up with arguments about the effects on climate of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ENSO, the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, Jetstreams, Solar Irradiance (TSI), El Nino/La Nina, North Atlantic Oscillation, the Medieval Warm Period, the Urban Heat Island effect, thermohaline circulations, the Maunder Minimum and so on, then I'm all ears.
Until then, I would respectfully suggest that the balance of scientific probability would indicate that my views are, if not totally right, then at least not deserving of summary dismissal. :y
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
Consensus has no place in science. It only takes one person with one fact to defeat the argument,
Remember that, once upon a time, the "consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took just one person - Copernicus - to refute that.
thats still a theory actually (the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System - by bizarre coincidence - i happened to read that yesterday :)), but no sane person would disagree with the fact that planets revolve around the sun - scientific proof is way way more rigorous than you give it credit for, i'm looking at the balance of probabilities - and i say you're more likely than not, wrong - how's that? :y
No, you're not looking at the balance of probabilities at all. You're looking at what the mainstream media spout. For example, were you aware that the Guardian's "Comment is Free" website operates a seemingly strict policy of disallowing comments that disagree with AGW?
Were you also aware that Wikipedia has it's own editor, William Connolley, who censors any anti-AGW information on Wikipedia?
No, I thought not.
I know rather a fair bit about meteorology. When you can can come up with arguments about the effects on climate of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ENSO, the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, Jetstreams, Solar Irradiance (TSI), El Nino/La Nina, North Atlantic Oscillation, the Medieval Warm Period, the Urban Heat Island effect, thermohaline circulations, the Maunder Minimum and so on, then I'm all ears.
Until then, I would respectfully suggest that the balance of scientific probability would indicate that my views are, if not totally right, then at least not deserving of summary dismissal. :y
you're right - i shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, and thanks to you i've read a lot of diverse opinions on the causes of climate change but i still hold that the general accepted wisdom in this case shows a causal link, thats not to say that you're definitely wrong, and maybe i'll be shown to be wrong in the future - but right now, i know which scenario appears more likely to me, and unless or until something comes along to disprove this theory i'll stick to my guns :y
-
take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches :y
....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.
OK - as far as I'm concerned the case for mans liability for climate change has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt theres no such thing as an absolute truth outwith mathematics so we can spin in circles or we can examine the data and draw conclusions, now many great minds have looked at all the evidence and 80% decided that, yes,this theory appears to hold water.
i dont disagree that other viewpoints have to be taken into consideration, but i weight them accordingly, if 80% of people in a town said "don't drink the water - it's poisonous" and 20% said "go ahead - it's perfectly safe" do you think you'd drink the water?
Consensus has no place in science. It only takes one person with one fact to defeat the argument,
Remember that, once upon a time, the "consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. It took just one person - Copernicus - to refute that.
thats still a theory actually (the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System - by bizarre coincidence - i happened to read that yesterday :)), but no sane person would disagree with the fact that planets revolve around the sun - scientific proof is way way more rigorous than you give it credit for, i'm looking at the balance of probabilities - and i say you're more likely than not, wrong - how's that? :y
No, you're not looking at the balance of probabilities at all. You're looking at what the mainstream media spout. For example, were you aware that the Guardian's "Comment is Free" website operates a seemingly strict policy of disallowing comments that disagree with AGW?
Were you also aware that Wikipedia has it's own editor, William Connolley, who censors any anti-AGW information on Wikipedia?
No, I thought not.
I know rather a fair bit about meteorology. When you can can come up with arguments about the effects on climate of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ENSO, the Inter-tropical Convergence Zone, Jetstreams, Solar Irradiance (TSI), El Nino/La Nina, North Atlantic Oscillation, the Medieval Warm Period, the Urban Heat Island effect, thermohaline circulations, the Maunder Minimum and so on, then I'm all ears.
Until then, I would respectfully suggest that the balance of scientific probability would indicate that my views are, if not totally right, then at least not deserving of summary dismissal. :y
you're right - i shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, and thanks to you i've read a lot of diverse opinions on the causes of climate change but i still hold that the general accepted wisdom in this case shows a causal link, thats not to say that you're definitely wrong, and maybe i'll be shown to be wrong in the future - but right now, i know which scenario appears more likely to me, and unless or until something comes along to disprove this theory i'll stick to my guns :y
Your perogative, BJ. ;)
-
thanks zulu and nickbat - i'm off to bed now - a pleasure debating the issues as always - hope theres no hard feelings :y :y
-
I think reality shows that something is happening to the climate. The ice caps are melting, water levels are rising, look at the poor sods in bangladesh, and even scotland is feeling the effect. A few years ago, there were abnormally high tides and water was coming over a wall that is normally at least 3m above water level. If it rises a couple more metres, the town of Troon will be under water.
Is this due to all the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere ?. I don't know, and I suspect scientists are not sure, no one can be. We can theorise all we like, but will not know for certain until the water starts lapping around our door (like recently in Sheffield ?)
One thing about the climate change lobby is a slow move towards better isulated housing and more efficient cars, so the response is not all bad. We still waste a tremendous amount of resources and I worry that we are not getting ourselves into one of these Blade Runner/1984 futures. Looking at recent laws we seem to be heading there pretty quick.
Ken
-
thanks zulu and nickbat - i'm off to bed now - a pleasure debating the issues as always - hope theres no hard feelings :y :y
...sleep the sleep of the just my son, you held on rightly :-* :y
-
you're right - i shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, and thanks to you i've read a lot of diverse opinions on the causes of climate change but i still hold that the general accepted wisdom in this case shows a causal link, thats not to say that you're definitely wrong, and maybe i'll be shown to be wrong in the future - but right now, i know which scenario appears more likely to me, and unless or until something comes along to disprove this theory i'll stick to my guns :y
...I think the association being made between human activity and climate change is being referred to as rather more than a casual link by those concerned - which is the kernal of this argument :([/quote]
damn - just about to hit the hay! :) - the problem as i see it is theres extreme positions on both sides, i'm probably somewhere in the middle, erring towards the "greenies" point of view (although i'm not a greenie) :y
-
you're right - i shouldn't dismiss them out of hand, and thanks to you i've read a lot of diverse opinions on the causes of climate change but i still hold that the general accepted wisdom in this case shows a causal link, thats not to say that you're definitely wrong, and maybe i'll be shown to be wrong in the future - but right now, i know which scenario appears more likely to me, and unless or until something comes along to disprove this theory i'll stick to my guns :y
...I think the association being made between human activity and climate change is being referred to as rather more than a casual link by those concerned - which is the kernal of this argument :(
-
damn - just about to hit the hay! :) - the problem as i see it is theres extreme positions on both sides, i'm probably somewhere in the middle, erring towards the "greenies" point of view (although i'm not a greenie) :y
...I'm gratified to learn of your balanced position bj :y :y
-
damn - just about to hit the hay! :) - the problem as i see it is theres extreme positions on both sides, i'm probably somewhere in the middle, erring towards the "greenies" point of view (although i'm not a greenie) :y
...I'm gratified to learn of your balanced position bj :y :y
i'm totally balanced - i've got a massive chip on each shoulder!! ;D ;D