Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

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 

....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?

[Dishevelled Den]

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 

....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 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?

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.

[Dishevelled Den]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

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

[Nickbat]

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 

....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.

[Banjax]

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 

....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? 

[Dishevelled Den]

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? 

....there's that faith thing again - is it based on fear, confusion or pragmatism :-/

[Nickbat]

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 

....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? 

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. 

      

[Banjax]

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 

....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? 

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. 

      

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 

[Nickbat]

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 

....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? 

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. 

      

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 

Your perogative, BJ. 

[Banjax]

thanks zulu and nickbat - i'm off to bed now - a pleasure debating the issues as always - hope theres no hard feelings 

[Ken T]

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

[Dishevelled Den]

thanks zulu and nickbat - i'm off to bed now - a pleasure debating the issues as always - hope theres no hard feelings 

...sleep the sleep of the just my son, you held on rightly

[Banjax]

   

 

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 

...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)

[Dishevelled Den]

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 

...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

[Dishevelled Den]

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)

...I'm gratified to learn of your balanced position bj