I am surprised that we are still all here to discuss this to be honest. Not too long ago the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all as I remember. Science and scientists are not beyond having a vested interest and we would be foolish to believe otherwise. If Exxon are funding research in order to throw doubt or to ridicule other lines of research then I presume that the scientists that THEY are funding also have a vested interest in satisfying the hand that feeds them ? The undoubted truth is that there is overwhelming evidence to support the view that the earth is warming up but the real $64.000 question is exactly what impact man is actually having on that climatic change. The answer to that question is far from being answered and allows cynics all over the world the luxury of thinking that the whole idea of limiting mans carbon influence is just another way of getting money out of joe public through dubious green taxes.
They should be more concerned about the Nat. Geo. programme I watched earlier about global colling. Apparently this very stable and boring period we are currently in only abnormally long and ice cores showing the last 160,000 years show that our planet does and will suffer more from freezing whether than hotter.
Scientists do have a vested interest in making predictions in order to maintain funding. Just an old cynics view perhaps but the 1970 stuff made quite interesting reading don`t you think ?[/div][/li]
I can't open the link unfortunately.
The funding issue cuts both ways though. Academia will only fund pro manmade warmists for phds and masters.
The funding issue cuts both ways though. Academia will only fund pro manmade warmists for phds and masters.
..........
Try and understand, it really isn't difficult, if you produce scientific research it has to be extensively peer approved. I'm not aware that Exxon and the denialists have produced anything that has been peer approved - except by other Exxon etc funded denialists, in the meantime the Flat Earth Society, Daily Mail and Torygraph are not considered scientific journals of record.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The funding issue cuts both ways though. Academia will only fund pro manmade warmists for phds and masters.
..........
Try and understand, it really isn't difficult, if you produce scientific research it has to be extensively peer approved. I'm not aware that Exxon and the denialists have produced anything that has been peer approved - except by other Exxon etc funded denialists, in the meantime the Flat Earth Society, Daily Mail and Torygraph are not considered scientific journals of record.
Belittle the source if it doesn't come up with the right conclusion or make accusations of vested interests.
Why are the pro AGW lot shamelessly manipulating the data if they don't similarly have an agenda?
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I am surprised that we are still all here to discuss this to be honest. Not too long ago the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all as I remember.
Which, as it happens, was probably solved by the phasing out of chlorofluorocabons after 1987 when scientists discovered the effect they were having.
[cite]Posted By: ShootersHillGuru[/cite]I am surprised that we are still all here to discuss this to be honest. Not too long ago the hole in the ozone layer was going to kill us all as I remember.
Which, as it happens, was probably solved by the phasing out of chlorofluorocabons after 1987 when scientists discovered the effect they were having.
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Their argument being that those involved in studying Climate Change would never dream of manipulating/cherry picking the figures to support their point of view and agenda and they are only ever interested in publishing peer reviewed, unbiased, statistically sustainable evidence. Hmmm...
...........
Don't cry foul...
You assert that AGW isn't happening, that the science for it is flawed, but won't accept that Exxon (amongst others) have been funding the denialist cause, why would they do that? And why do you choose to ignore it, while making the tired assumption that pro-AGW are baised in their research?
The researchers at East Anglia's Uni CRU have done a great deal of harm to scientific truth - not just global warming research and that has been seized upon with glee by those whi have an axe to grind, but I don't see any evidence that glaciers have stopped melting, that sea levels are falling, or that arctic/antartic ice shelves are growing thicker.
A bit of an over simplication of my point of view that, to be honest as well as being plain wrong, is a continuation of the old thread. I don't deny that climate change is happening rather that there are significant political, economic and media agendas at work and a lot of conflicting science on an issue that is increasing difficult to discuss properly.
Don't let the fact that the UK's leading scientist on climate change has been caught cooking the books stop you labelling me (and others of a more questioning nature) as being some sort of rabid, planet killing, Exxon loving, looney if it makes you feel better though.
Which sums up in a sentence why it is not worth trying to debate this subject on a forum like this...
Anyway, I give up. There is no such thing as climate change due to anthropogenic reasons. I know, because I have finally seen evidence of the global conspiracy:
From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
So there you have it. I thought that the whole scenario was fairly unlikely and that the scientists might be right, but obviously I was very, very wrong.
Don't let the fact that the UK's leading scientist on climate change has been caught cooking the books stop you labelling me (and others of a more questioning nature) as being some sort of rabid, planet killing, Exxon loving, looney if it makes you feel better though.
............
S Exxon funding climate change sceptics and denialists is irrelevant, but some scientist has been selective in what he presents is evidence that all global warming science is nonsense. Explain away the other 99.99 recurring % of evidence for global warming, or stay in ignorance if you prefer.
As is clear global warming is a reality, the rest is details.
BFR et al, firstly I've never said that all scientists looking at this issue are unreliable and not to be trusted - that would be plainly absurd, but I do believe that there are alternative views and data that are in danger of being overlooked. For instance over the page you state that you've never seen any research to the effect that sea levels aren't rising?
The guy writing above is a vastly experienced and respected, leading, authority on sea levels and as you can see has a different view on the issue in relation to the Maldives. There's almost certainly other studies that say the opposite of course and they'll be the ones on the front page, not ignored by the Maldives gov't because it doesn't suit their application for overseas aid.
Bigstemerra, I have no idea what your post is about at all but, having spent some time defending the view that Prof Jones, etc, were beyond reproach and myself and others were 'naive' conspiracy theorists (putting it politely) I'd be interested in your view on the recent email disclosures, which on the face of it, also point towards possible criminal activites on behalf of this particular group of climate experts? I think it's a reasonable question to ask given our previous discussion.
The papers reported a month or so ago that the arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year running, but that it was probably not as deep, you gotta laugh. Banning fluorocarbons did not stop the ozone hole at all. It has never been claimed by scientists to have done. The hole magically fixed itself, or more likely it was never as big a problem as they originally told us, sound familiar?
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Banning fluorocarbons did not stop the ozone hole at all.
Really? That would explain the international consensus on phasing them out then spoilsport hippy legislators Next you'll be telling us that scientists deny any link between banning CFCs and reducing ozone depletion.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]It has never been claimed by scientists to have done.
I have been sitting here for five minutes trying to come up with a "witty" summing up of the two sides of the argument. I got as far as "Some people want to carry on driving their uneccessarily big cars to the corner shop without feeling guilty" for one side, and then got stuck.
Why do people who believe in man made climate change have the attitude they do? Other than the tiny number of people involved in the research there seems to be no hidden agenda for the man in the street who wants to do his bit. The one thing we do know is that reducing the carbon footprint can do no harm, can it?
Pointless argument this. Since I don't have kids, and the effects of climate change will probably only truly be felt in about forty years or so (by which time I'll be nearly dead, if not dead already), I've decided I don't give a f*** about it all. Anyone who thinks man isn't affecting climate change is still either a f***ing wally, an imbecile who chooses to believe the 0.1% of 'evidence' trumped up by oil company shills that suggests the change to the climate that's going on now is cyclical, and not caused by man, or the sort of person who takes perverse delight in thinking they're somehow being 'edgy' by 'going against the flow' of scientific opinion (kinda like those morons who won't vaccinate their kids against measles - and end up raising the incidence of measles to record levels amongst children, or the sort of numpty you grew up with who refuses to listen to a decent band who've suddenly become popular because they 'liked them before they were cool')
Bollocks to the lot of ya - your kids can roast in a world where polar bears don't exist outside zoos, London is 200 feet underwater and the sixth mass extinction is in full swing.
Where, Nolly? Antarctica? Hope she's wearing two pairs of socks (and some factor 50 sunblock).
Bournemouth, of course it is a reasonable question. The reason I posted that great big load of gibberish (by a certain Mr Monbiot) is to illustrate the point that if anti-AGW theorists are to be believed, then there is an almighty worldwide conspiracy just to stop people driving their X5's 200 yards down the road to their local Spar every time they fancy a packet of Quavers. Please pause for a moment and consider what that would entail. Given that governments cannot even cover up the tiniest of things without their offices leaking like a damaged sieve - this puts those arguments in the same league as that suggesting that 9-11 was an inside job. No-one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why governments would think it was in their interest to buy into this conspiracy against their own citizens. If you know why, then please, by all means, enlighten me.
I don't believe (and have never said) that all scientists are beyond reproach (that's a whole lot of people to lump into one statement) as there are plenty who are prepared to pimp themselves out to the highest bidder (i.e the likes of Cliff Arnall - Mr marketing formula man) which in some cases is no doubt the oil industry. However, the argument that two idiots have been caught falsifying data (for which they should obviously pay the consequences) does not make all the rest of the data wrong - unless of course there is a massive worldwide conspiracy involving ALL of them. I'm sure that there must be a few e-mails about that knocking about if indeed they did exist. Do you really think that that is possible? Really?
And I also think that Algarve's comment is the best summary of the situation we have so far.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Pointless argument this. Since I don't have kids, and the effects of climate change will probably only truly be felt in about forty years or so (by which time I'll be nearly dead, if not dead already), I've decided I don't give a f*** about it all. Anyone who thinks man isn't affecting climate change is still either a f***ing wally, an imbecile who chooses to believe the 0.1% of 'evidence' trumped up by oil company shills that suggests the change to the climate that's going on now is cyclical, and not caused by man, or the sort of person who takes perverse delight in thinking they're somehow being 'edgy' by 'going against the flow' of scientific opinion (kinda like those morons who won't vaccinate their kids against measles - and end up raising the incidence of measles to record levels amongst children, or the sort of numpty you grew up with who refuses to listen to a decent band who've suddenly become popular because they 'liked them before they were cool')
Bollocks to the lot of ya - your kids can roast in a world where polar bears don't exist outside zoos, London is 200 feet underwater and the sixth mass extinction is in full swing.
It's not pointless whilst there are still people stubbornly sticking their fingers in their ears, or scratching around in right wing blogs to cling to anything that means they don't have to face up to change. These people vote afterall, and the steps that need to taken may be delayed whilst the government to some extent panders to them.
Cracking post though, and I hope it got through to at least somebody
[cite]Posted By: Sussex_Addick[/cite]These people vote afterall, and the steps that need to taken may be delayed whilst the government to some extent panders to them.
Cracking post though, and I hope it got through to at least somebody
These people? By that I assume you mean people who take a different view than you. Presumably you'd take the vote off anybody who didn't happen to concur with your point of view to ensure the smooth running of our carbon reduction policy. Nice.
Anyway, despite the disrespectful nature of your post I can't be bothered right now to take the time to explain why your sycophantic post is wrong in so many ways. The lads have clocked up another 3 points and there's a nice glass of red with my name on it so I'm afraid we'll have to leave it there for now.
Some of the posts by climate change advocates on here are exactly the point that sceptics are making. By calling anyone who disagrees wallies or retards you are plainly losing the argument. Science backing climate change, or warming as it was called until it started cooling, was clearly over stated or lies, one or the other, you decide. When losing an argument, turning to abuse, again, does your project no good at all and just turns people against you. But hey, as you clearly keep pointing out, we are just thick and the ones fiddling figures to show us the 'facts' are the ones we should listen to then we should be happy to pay more in taxes.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Some of the posts by climate change advocates on here are exactly the point that sceptics are making. By calling anyone who disagrees wallies or retards you are plainly losing the argument. .
Nice rant and attempt to claim the moral high ground...now go back and have a look at the title of this thread again...and what does it refer to climate change advocates again??
The start of this thread was a bit strong and about the soap dodgers we support with our taxes, but good point, even if it is deflecting from recent events.
Thesepeople? By that I assume you mean people who take a different view than you. Presumably you'd take the vote off anybody who didn't happen to concur with your point of view to ensure the smooth running of our carbon reduction policy. Nice.
Anyway, despite the disrespectful nature of your post I can't be bothered right now to take the time to explain why your sycophantic post is wrong in so many ways. The lads have clocked up another 3 points and there's a nice glass of red with my name on it so I'm afraid we'll have to leave it there for now.
I apologise if I offended you BA, and I to some extent regret referring to a type of person, as that only ends up leading to name calling. However, whilst I really, really wish we could avoid this back and forth, I have to respond to being patronised in such a way.
I have to defend myself as you've strung together some vague misrepresentations of what I said, and used it to unnecessarily personally insult me. The idea that I'm 'sycophantic' is particularly strange. Because I agreed with Leroy? Should I disagree just to escape your concept of sycophantic?
Incidentally, why didn't you reply to Leroy? I assume if you took my post personally, you must have also believed him to call you a "f***ing wally, an imbecile".
This isn't personal, this isn't 'I win or you win', the potential consequences are much more important than silly bickering. Global warming isn't my opinion, it's scientific opinion, opinion strong enough to be a international consensus, and as someone who sees evidence that science works all around me, I'm surprised by those who vehemently oppose it.
'These people' doesn't necessarily refer to everyone who are cautiously skeptical, I understand nothing is ever absolute, but those who are completely swept up in their suspicion and resistance to change, and will oppose it, no matter what science tells them. I found Leroy's reference to MMR vaccine particularly salient, as that too went against major scientific opinion and created a storm based on very little evidence. And it had consequences, just as I believe the current propensity to completely disbelieve climate science amongst some will have consequences. Potential environmental disasters are kind of a big deal, so I'm allowed to be concerned about them.
I don't know how you somehow extrapolate that I'm trying to ban the vote for those who don't believe in Global Warming, that's quite a classic use of straw man. It'd be unfortunate if there are people who keep rejecting science, but I can't force them and they can still have their vote, same as any other stance I find illogical. That doesn't mean I can't hope they'll come round to it, as we'll all suffer the consequences if the projected disasters happen due to sufficient preventative measures being held up.
Ok let's end this muddying of the debate now. I apologise if you felt personally offended, and I'm genuinely interested in your view if you don't believe in global warming:
The evidence is almost all on one side, so why pick the other side? That's what I don't understand, why purposefully pick a minority opinion and work backwards from there to justify it with mostly blogs and the occasional individual scientist, as opposed to all the major international scientific bodies that say the opposite? What compelling reason do you have to undertake such a task?
Look, either
a) It's a conspiracy (in which case explain the reason you know this)
b) The scientists are wrong (in which case explain through your detailed scientific knowledge why you know something they don't)
I genuinely can't see any other option. If you have one, I'm open to it.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Some of the posts by climate change advocates on here are exactly the point that sceptics are making. By calling anyone who disagrees wallies or retards you are plainly losing the argument. Science backing climate change, or warming as it was called until it started cooling, was clearly over stated or lies, one or the other, you decide. When losing an argument, turning to abuse, again, does your project no good at all and just turns people against you. But hey, as you clearly keep pointing out, we are just thick and the ones fiddling figures to show us the 'facts' are the ones we should listen to then we should be happy to pay more in taxes.
Ok, expand and explain that. Give the compelling evidence that first made you doubt what the majority of world scientists were telling you. You're right about name calling or arguing getting the debate nowhere, so outline the reasons without reference to what the 'other side' is saying or what you think they're saying about you, just give the reasons why you know it's over stated or lies.
Comments
They should be more concerned about the Nat. Geo. programme I watched earlier about global colling. Apparently this very stable and boring period we are currently in only abnormally long and ice cores showing the last 160,000 years show that our planet does and will suffer more from freezing whether than hotter.
Please note usage of the word "apparently"
I can't open the link unfortunately.
The funding issue cuts both ways though. Academia will only fund pro manmade warmists for phds and masters.
..........
Try and understand, it really isn't difficult, if you produce scientific research it has to be extensively peer approved. I'm not aware that Exxon and the denialists have produced anything that has been peer approved - except by other Exxon etc funded denialists, in the meantime the Flat Earth Society, Daily Mail and Torygraph are not considered scientific journals of record.
Belittle the source if it doesn't come up with the right conclusion or make accusations of vested interests.
Why are the pro AGW lot shamelessly manipulating the data if they don't similarly have an agenda?
Link below.
Which, as it happens, was probably solved by the phasing out of chlorofluorocabons after 1987 when scientists discovered the effect they were having.
Agreed probably ;0)
A bit of an over simplication of my point of view that, to be honest as well as being plain wrong, is a continuation of the old thread. I don't deny that climate change is happening rather that there are significant political, economic and media agendas at work and a lot of conflicting science on an issue that is increasing difficult to discuss properly.
Don't let the fact that the UK's leading scientist on climate change has been caught cooking the books stop you labelling me (and others of a more questioning nature) as being some sort of rabid, planet killing, Exxon loving, looney if it makes you feel better though.
Which sums up in a sentence why it is not worth trying to debate this subject on a forum like this...
Anyway, I give up. There is no such thing as climate change due to anthropogenic reasons. I know, because I have finally seen evidence of the global conspiracy:
From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29 October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistance was encountered (and swiftly dispatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the 10 warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001. From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, birdwatchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been established: world government will be established under the guise of controlling man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus? Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.
So there you have it. I thought that the whole scenario was fairly unlikely and that the scientists might be right, but obviously I was very, very wrong.
Sorry everyone. We all make mistakes.
............
S Exxon funding climate change sceptics and denialists is irrelevant, but some scientist has been selective in what he presents is evidence that all global warming science is nonsense. Explain away the other 99.99 recurring % of evidence for global warming, or stay in ignorance if you prefer.
As is clear global warming is a reality, the rest is details.
Bah! Humbug!
Recent open letter in the Spectator
The guy writing above is a vastly experienced and respected, leading, authority on sea levels and as you can see has a different view on the issue in relation to the Maldives. There's almost certainly other studies that say the opposite of course and they'll be the ones on the front page, not ignored by the Maldives gov't because it doesn't suit their application for overseas aid.
Bigstemerra, I have no idea what your post is about at all but, having spent some time defending the view that Prof Jones, etc, were beyond reproach and myself and others were 'naive' conspiracy theorists (putting it politely) I'd be interested in your view on the recent email disclosures, which on the face of it, also point towards possible criminal activites on behalf of this particular group of climate experts? I think it's a reasonable question to ask given our previous discussion.
Really? That would explain the international consensus on phasing them out then spoilsport hippy legislators Next you'll be telling us that scientists deny any link between banning CFCs and reducing ozone depletion.
WHAAT? Are we reading the same scientists? Mad scientists talking bollox again
I mean, I know it isn't a simple yes or no answer, life is never that simple, but do you think ozone depletion just fixes itself by magic?
Hang on - you're being ironic aren't you? Nearly got me there. But it clicked when you said -
Although of course that is based on the premise that ozone depletion is 'fixed' as distinct from showing signs of recovery pesky ozone hole
Anyway, whoever said this discussion is futile was right. back to the football.....
That fits in with this theory, which, to me, seems to have no faults
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
The graph needs updating to include these figures
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/001857.php
Why do people who believe in man made climate change have the attitude they do? Other than the tiny number of people involved in the research there seems to be no hidden agenda for the man in the street who wants to do his bit. The one thing we do know is that reducing the carbon footprint can do no harm, can it?
Probably the best and most relevant comment so far!
Bollocks to the lot of ya - your kids can roast in a world where polar bears don't exist outside zoos, London is 200 feet underwater and the sixth mass extinction is in full swing.
Bournemouth, of course it is a reasonable question. The reason I posted that great big load of gibberish (by a certain Mr Monbiot) is to illustrate the point that if anti-AGW theorists are to be believed, then there is an almighty worldwide conspiracy just to stop people driving their X5's 200 yards down the road to their local Spar every time they fancy a packet of Quavers. Please pause for a moment and consider what that would entail. Given that governments cannot even cover up the tiniest of things without their offices leaking like a damaged sieve - this puts those arguments in the same league as that suggesting that 9-11 was an inside job. No-one has ever come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why governments would think it was in their interest to buy into this conspiracy against their own citizens. If you know why, then please, by all means, enlighten me.
I don't believe (and have never said) that all scientists are beyond reproach (that's a whole lot of people to lump into one statement) as there are plenty who are prepared to pimp themselves out to the highest bidder (i.e the likes of Cliff Arnall - Mr marketing formula man) which in some cases is no doubt the oil industry. However, the argument that two idiots have been caught falsifying data (for which they should obviously pay the consequences) does not make all the rest of the data wrong - unless of course there is a massive worldwide conspiracy involving ALL of them. I'm sure that there must be a few e-mails about that knocking about if indeed they did exist. Do you really think that that is possible? Really?
And I also think that Algarve's comment is the best summary of the situation we have so far.
It's not pointless whilst there are still people stubbornly sticking their fingers in their ears, or scratching around in right wing blogs to cling to anything that means they don't have to face up to change. These people vote afterall, and the steps that need to taken may be delayed whilst the government to some extent panders to them.
Cracking post though, and I hope it got through to at least somebody
These people? By that I assume you mean people who take a different view than you. Presumably you'd take the vote off anybody who didn't happen to concur with your point of view to ensure the smooth running of our carbon reduction policy. Nice.
Anyway, despite the disrespectful nature of your post I can't be bothered right now to take the time to explain why your sycophantic post is wrong in so many ways. The lads have clocked up another 3 points and there's a nice glass of red with my name on it so I'm afraid we'll have to leave it there for now.
Nice rant and attempt to claim the moral high ground...now go back and have a look at the title of this thread again...and what does it refer to climate change advocates again??
So...
I apologise if I offended you BA, and I to some extent regret referring to a type of person, as that only ends up leading to name calling. However, whilst I really, really wish we could avoid this back and forth, I have to respond to being patronised in such a way.
I have to defend myself as you've strung together some vague misrepresentations of what I said, and used it to unnecessarily personally insult me. The idea that I'm 'sycophantic' is particularly strange. Because I agreed with Leroy? Should I disagree just to escape your concept of sycophantic?
Incidentally, why didn't you reply to Leroy? I assume if you took my post personally, you must have also believed him to call you a "f***ing wally, an imbecile".
This isn't personal, this isn't 'I win or you win', the potential consequences are much more important than silly bickering. Global warming isn't my opinion, it's scientific opinion, opinion strong enough to be a international consensus, and as someone who sees evidence that science works all around me, I'm surprised by those who vehemently oppose it.
'These people' doesn't necessarily refer to everyone who are cautiously skeptical, I understand nothing is ever absolute, but those who are completely swept up in their suspicion and resistance to change, and will oppose it, no matter what science tells them. I found Leroy's reference to MMR vaccine particularly salient, as that too went against major scientific opinion and created a storm based on very little evidence. And it had consequences, just as I believe the current propensity to completely disbelieve climate science amongst some will have consequences. Potential environmental disasters are kind of a big deal, so I'm allowed to be concerned about them.
I don't know how you somehow extrapolate that I'm trying to ban the vote for those who don't believe in Global Warming, that's quite a classic use of straw man. It'd be unfortunate if there are people who keep rejecting science, but I can't force them and they can still have their vote, same as any other stance I find illogical. That doesn't mean I can't hope they'll come round to it, as we'll all suffer the consequences if the projected disasters happen due to sufficient preventative measures being held up.
Ok let's end this muddying of the debate now. I apologise if you felt personally offended, and I'm genuinely interested in your view if you don't believe in global warming:
The evidence is almost all on one side, so why pick the other side? That's what I don't understand, why purposefully pick a minority opinion and work backwards from there to justify it with mostly blogs and the occasional individual scientist, as opposed to all the major international scientific bodies that say the opposite? What compelling reason do you have to undertake such a task?
Look, either
a) It's a conspiracy (in which case explain the reason you know this)
b) The scientists are wrong (in which case explain through your detailed scientific knowledge why you know something they don't)
I genuinely can't see any other option. If you have one, I'm open to it.
Ok, expand and explain that. Give the compelling evidence that first made you doubt what the majority of world scientists were telling you. You're right about name calling or arguing getting the debate nowhere, so outline the reasons without reference to what the 'other side' is saying or what you think they're saying about you, just give the reasons why you know it's over stated or lies.