 Poster: A snowHead
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science? |
I think healthy sceptism depends on true open-mindedness and a willingness to be informed. I think Mugen's stance is one of cynicism rather than scepticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| mugen wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science? |
scepticism and concern that we are going to impoverish a generation. |
But how can you be so sure that your concern isn't unwarranted without having a good understanding of the science?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
if big oil wanted to, as you say, stop it in it's tracks then surely they could. after all they have the funds.
let me explain my point of view. that way you will understand, hopefully, where i'm coming from.
when i was a kid (1970's) we were told we were heading for a new ice age. a few years later we are now going to burn up.
far years many ignored the elephant in the room, population.. previously disease and war controlled that. not saying it's right or wrong.. just saying.
now we have governments across the world looking for new ways to tax people. they are after all running out of excuses.
then suddenty GW, then changed to climate change as global warming for some in the winter sounds a bit ok.
so i'm sceptical. after all data can mean anything.
So far i'm not convinced. greedy governments trump big oil. |
There wasn't a global cooling consensus in the 70s and there wasn't GW 'suddenly'. It was the product of a lot of science over a long period of time. Maybe it appeared to be sudden to you because of how it was featured in the media.
Governments don't need excuses to tax, they have executive power. And if they did, why do (some of them) give tax breaks to green technology and tax fossil fuels so heavily? And why do some of them (the Bush government springs to mind) push back on AGW? |
if there wasn't a cooling consensus in the 70's then it was reported with similair alarm as gw now. i can only discuss what i know and think.
using bush is a bit like using the nazi's, bush was big oil. tax breaks on green energy are not what they seem. i'm involved in building a biogas plant and trust me they are not what they seem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| you hit on something here.. currently i believe science does use dogma, like religion. for me if everyone is saying it then where is the alternative and is anyone willing to listen |
The key word here is 'believe'. Have you got any evidence that you base your position on? |
i remember reading something on this, but can't quote as dont remember. i'll get back to you on that one
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science? |
I think healthy sceptism depends on true open-mindedness and a willingness to be informed. I think Mugen's stance is one of cynicism rather than scepticism. |
i'm willing to be informed, so far you haven't
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science? |
scepticism and concern that we are going to impoverish a generation. |
But how can you be so sure that your concern isn't unwarranted without having a good understanding of the science? |
that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| if there wasn't a cooling consensus in the 70's then it was reported with similair alarm as gw now. i can only discuss what i know and think. |
Here's a good summary:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643
| mugen wrote: |
| using bush is a bit like using the nazi's, bush was big oil. tax breaks on green energy are not what they seem. i'm involved in building a biogas plant and trust me they are not what they seem. |
Hang on, you can't argue that governments are using the 'AGW myth' to raise taxes then discount the government of the world's only remaining superpower because it doesn't support your point of view!
Ok then, what governments are raising taxes using AGW?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| i'm willing to be informed, so far you haven't |
Apparently you want to 'debate'. I'm responding to your statements.
| mugen wrote: |
| that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough |
Or the alternative hypothesis is that a) you haven't bothered to find out what the science is, b) haven't made an attempt to understand it and c) have taken the easy way out by taking everything that the lobbyists and idealogues and uninformed columnists and semi-plausible pundits tell you as gospel because it's more comforting and less trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| mugen, so is your position is based on a healthy scepticism rather than familiarity with the science? |
scepticism and concern that we are going to impoverish a generation. |
But how can you be so sure that your concern isn't unwarranted without having a good understanding of the science? |
that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough |
Is the New Scientist article clear enough to show that there was never a global cooling consensus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| i'm willing to be informed, so far you haven't |
Apparently you want to 'debate'. I'm responding to your statements.
| mugen wrote: |
| that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough |
Or the alternative hypothesis is that a) you haven't bothered to find out what the science is, b) haven't made an attempt to understand it and c) have taken the easy way out by taking everything that the lobbyists and idealogues and uninformed columnists and semi-plausible pundits tell you as gospel because it's more comforting and less trouble. |
there are lobbyists on both sides.
how have i haven't made an attenpt to understand it?, because i dont agree. Most info i read states that climate change is happening. so i maybe dont trust what i read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough |
Is the New Scientist article clear enough to show that there was never a global cooling consensus? |
so you show me one piece of evidence and now i'm meant to be a convert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| mugen wrote: |
| there are lobbyists on both sides. |
But one side is right and one side is wrong.
| mugen wrote: |
| how have i haven't made an attenpt to understand it?, because i dont agree. Most info i read states that climate change is happening. so i maybe dont trust what i read. |
Well there's a clue there. If you have read the science and you don't agree with it because you don't trust it, then you need to have some good evidence for a conspiracy theory of unimaginable proportions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| mugen wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
| mugen wrote: |
| that fact that i'm not convinced suggest the science isn't explaining it clearly enough |
Is the New Scientist article clear enough to show that there was never a global cooling consensus? |
so you show me one piece of evidence and now i'm meant to be a convert. |
I'm not trying to convert you. Firstly you made a statement that wasn't strictly correct so I showed you some evidence. Then you were complaining that the science was too hard for you to understand so I showed how clearly it is presented by using the same evidence as an example.
You were complaining that I wasn't debating, now you are complaining that I'm debating!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Seany wrote: |
Hang on, I'm arrogant for pointing out that there is no scientific evidence for the anti-AGW argument?
|
No, you are arrogant for saying "The science has been done and it's conclusive." and for claiming by implication that anybody who thinks otherwise is a "crank".
Incidentally, you are also simply wrong. The science is NOT conclusive at all. Most of it is based on theories which can unfortunately only be proved by what they predict coming to pass (or disproved by it not doing).
Having said which, regardless of whether mankind is significantly affecting the climate or not, we MUST stop using fossil fuels for energy, and replace them with effective renewable sources.
And the clue for that absolute need is the word "renewable". Fossil fuels are not renewable, and they will run out. Sooner rather than later. I find that a far more persuasive argument as to why we need to reduce or preferably completely eliminate the burning of fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| alex_heney wrote: |
| No, you are arrogant for saying "The science has been done and it's conclusive." and for claiming by implication that anybody who thinks otherwise is a "crank". |
It wasn't my intention to imply that. I think I made it clear that cranks, lobbyists, armchair pundits etc. either disbelieve AGW through ignorance or willfully misrepresent the science. It's arrogant to argue out of ignorance, which is what Mugen's first post on the subject did.
| alex_heney wrote: |
| Incidentally, you are also simply wrong. The science is NOT conclusive at all. Most of it is based on theories which can unfortunately only be proved by what they predict coming to pass (or disproved by it not doing). |
Well, firstly you are using the word 'theory' incorrectly. You mean hypothesis. Secondly, there is a consensus on the hypothesis. The evidence being gathered backs up the hypothesis. Secondly, if there isn't a scientific consensus, who are the climate science experts that are anti-AGW? Where's their peer reviewed science?
| alex_heney wrote: |
Having said which, regardless of whether mankind is significantly affecting the climate or not, we MUST stop using fossil fuels for energy, and replace them with effective renewable sources.
And the clue for that absolute need is the word "renewable". Fossil fuels are not renewable, and they will run out. Sooner rather than later. I find that a far more persuasive argument as to why we need to reduce or preferably completely eliminate the burning of fossil fuels. |
Agreed, good stewardship seems obvious to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Where does it say the effect is neutral? It says:
Reporting in the journal Geophysical Research Letters scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA say that while there has been a dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice, Antarctic sea ice has increased by a small amount as a result of the ozone hole delaying the impact of greenhouse gas increases on the climate of the continent.
It also says:
Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice. Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice.
I'm not sure that the Guardian article is taken from the BAS press release, as it quotes David Vaughan, who isn't mentioned in it. It looks to be a straightforward take on an AP article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
quote from bas
"So the consensus view is that the Antarctic continent is essentially in balance at the moment and not losing or gaining ice overall."
"neutral" = "in balance"
The stuff about 1/3 less isea ice s a prediction on expectations of ozone in another 90 odd years. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| waynos wrote: |
quote from bas
"So the consensus view is that the Antarctic continent is essentially in balance at the moment and not losing or gaining ice overall." "neutral" = "in balance" |
Sorry, thought you said the overall effect was neutral but you referred specifically to the Antarctic. However, it does say that there in inceasing evidence that the Arctic sea ice is shrinking due to AGW.
| waynos wrote: |
| The stuff about 1/3 less isea ice s a prediction on expectations of ozone in another 90 odd years. |
Prof Turner probably thinks it's a reasonable assumption to make based on the data he has. I'm not saying he's right becasue I don't have any data. Do you think he's wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I've re-read the Guardian artice and can't really see where the bias is. It reports the facts about the Wilkins ice shelf then quotes the BAS: "There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
I've re-read the Guardian artice and can't really see where the bias is. It reports the facts about the Wilkins ice shelf then quotes the BAS: "There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming." |
The article only mentions dramatic figures of shrinking icesheets nothing about the average 100,000 square kilometres a decade of new sea ice formed in Antarctic, to quote the BAS press release. Well whether there's an intended bias, omission of useful information or bad reporting I don't know but seems to me the guaridan article only highlights one side of the bigger, very complex, story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seany, See here's the thing that puzzles me.............................
1) Mans production of CO2 is causing global warming. Mans production of CO2 has gone up in a fairly linear fashion for the last decade or so.
2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly.
How do you reconcile these two "facts".
Don't ask me to support this argument, it'll clog up the thread completely. Go Google. But do yourself a favour. Open your eyes.
The science has not been done, and it's far from conclusive. So if you believe in your new "religion", fine, just don't try to force it on others.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| waynos wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
I've re-read the Guardian artice and can't really see where the bias is. It reports the facts about the Wilkins ice shelf then quotes the BAS: "There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming." |
The article only mentions dramatic figures of shrinking icesheets nothing about the average 100,000 square kilometres a decade of new sea ice formed in Antarctic, to quote the BAS press release. Well whether there's an intended bias, omission of useful information or bad reporting I don't know but seems to me the guaridan article only highlights one side of the bigger, very complex, story. |
So would you prefer that the news (and the Wilkins ice shelf story is news) not be reported? The story was from a wire service and originated from the BAS, which, along with Nasa, are very clear about AGW. The unrelated BAS press release you quoted yourself states that the Arctis sea ice is reducing due to AGW and that the Antarctic is likely too as well. Why would the inclusion of some unrelated information provide 'balance'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree with BCjohnny. There are so many conflicting stories out there, it's clear there's a lot that science hasn't discovered let alone proved or disproved.
I don't deny that reducing our use of CO2 would be beneficial all round and that over-population has caused far more problems than it has solved, but until Western governments stop sitting in the back pockets of the oil companies, nothing much will change.
I'm not that keen on fake snow either, Like so many fake things in life, it's just not the real deal. But a means to an end I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Seany, See here's the thing that puzzles me.............................
1) Mans production of CO2 is causing global warming. Mans production of CO2 has gone up in a fairly linear fashion for the last decade or so.
2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly.
How do you reconcile these two "facts".
Don't ask me to support this argument, it'll clog up the thread completely. Go Google. But do yourself a favour. Open your eyes.
The science has not been done, and it's far from conclusive. So if you believe in your new "religion", fine, just don't try to force it on others.
John. |
I don't reconcile the 2 'facts' because 1) is barely a fact and 2) isn't.
So you aren't going to p[rovide any evidence for your position because it wil 'clog up the thread'? Really? How about you suggest some specific search terms then? Climate science is a big discipline and if I go off on a google hunt how can I be sure what I'm reading isn't the work of cranks, nutters, lobbyists and the uninformed?
As I've stated before:
1) There is a consensus about the science. If you think there isn't show me the credible climate scientists who disagree.
2) I don't take anything on faith so it's not a religious position. If your credible climate scientists from 1) have some good evidence to disporive the AGW hypothesis then show it to me. One. single. piece. of. peer. reviewed. evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
I tend to agree with BCjohnny. There are so many conflicting stories out there, it's clear there's a lot that science hasn't discovered let alone proved or disproved.
|
You're right qb, there is a lot of contradictory information out there and it is confusing, but it's not all of the same quality. The hard part is to separate the credible sources from the not so credible. You need to have fully functioning bs detectors because sometimer certain blogs and sites have a veneer of plausibility about them but are just as wrong as the completely barking ones.
Amongst climate scientists and those in related disciplines, the science is pretty much over, it's a case of refining models and collecting evidence. The fact that some governments have resisted the science (notable the Bush government) and that there is no conflicting research from oil companies sort of indicates that it's not a big conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's all this 'consensus' rubbish? Science isn't about consensus, it's about the rigorous testing of hypotheses. Try asking Galileo about bloody 'consensus'. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Of course it is. But if the majority of scientists test a hypothesis (that mankind causes global warming) and reach the same conclusion ...
... that's known as a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Seany wrote: |
| waynos wrote: |
| Seany wrote: |
I've re-read the Guardian artice and can't really see where the bias is. It reports the facts about the Wilkins ice shelf then quotes the BAS: "There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming." |
The article only mentions dramatic figures of shrinking icesheets nothing about the average 100,000 square kilometres a decade of new sea ice formed in Antarctic, to quote the BAS press release. Well whether there's an intended bias, omission of useful information or bad reporting I don't know but seems to me the guaridan article only highlights one side of the bigger, very complex, story. |
So would you prefer that the news (and the Wilkins ice shelf story is news) not be reported? The story was from a wire service and originated from the BAS, which, along with Nasa, are very clear about AGW. The unrelated BAS press release you quoted yourself states that the Arctis sea ice is reducing due to AGW and that the Antarctic is likely too as well. Why would the inclusion of some unrelated information provide 'balance'? |
I'd simply prefer more information be presented in context. How do you know specifically which BAS press release the AP story originated from? The article I quote from BAS, the latest press release from their webstite, states the antarctic icesheet is expanding and the prediction that it will shrink is nothing more than a prediction. The FACT that the icesheet is both crumbling on the western edge due to AGW but growing to the east at a faster rate is current fact, if the data from BAS is to be beleived. So you'd prefer selective out of context information be reported on? I fail to see how the expanding icesheet information is unrelated in the context of a global warming - icesheets all melting type article. Would you be happy to read an economics article for instance reporting new jobs being created in town X whilst not mentioning the rest of the country is seeing massive job losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
As for "consensus", a couple of weeks ago, I heard a scientist on R4 state that "consensus" was one of the most dangerous concepts in science and was/is used by many as a way of stifling debate. He reminded the listeners that validity of Eugenics was the accepted consensus of scientists (and governments) in the early part of the 20th century, and was only generally abandoned after WW2.
More recently, those physicists who challenged the consensus view of string theory were treated as pariahs before their views were properly reviewed and their doubts were accepted as being valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| waynos wrote: |
| I'd simply prefer more information be presented in context. How do you know specifically which BAS press release the AP story originated from? |
I don't. You said you thought the AP/Guardian articel was taken from the BAS press release you linked to. I don't think it was because the former included a quote from a David Vaughan whose name wasn;t mentioned in the latter.
| waynos wrote: |
| The article I quote from BAS, the latest press release from their webstite, states the antarctic icesheet is expanding and the prediction that it will shrink is nothing more than a prediction. The FACT that the icesheet is both crumbling on the western edge due to AGW but growing to the east at a faster rate is current fact, if the data from BAS is to be beleived. |
Firstly, the press release you quoted states that:
"Our results show the complexity of climate change across the Earth. While there is increasing evidence that the loss of sea ice in the Arctic has occurred due to human activity, in the Antarctic human influence through the ozone hole has had the reverse effect and resulted in more ice."
Hardly a ringing endrsement of anti-AGW. It goes on to say:
"Although the ozone hole is in many ways holding back the effects of greenhouse gas increases on the Antarctic, this will not last, as we expect ozone levels to recover by the end of the 21st Century. By then there is likely to be around one third less Antarctic sea ice."
Prof Turner probably thinks it's a reasonable assumption to make based on the data he has. I'm not saying he's right because I don't have any data. Do you think he's wrong? And if you do, what do you base your assumption on?
| waynos wrote: |
| So you'd prefer selective out of context information be reported on? I fail to see how the expanding icesheet information is unrelated in the context of a global warming - icesheets all melting type article. Would you be happy to read an economics article for instance reporting new jobs being created in town X whilst not mentioning the rest of the country is seeing massive job losses. |
I don't really see the connection between the 2 links you posted so I'm struggling to see why there is out of context reporting or bias in the first. The first link reports on the Wilkins ice-shelf, the second reports on the sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic and states that there is shrinkage due to AGW in Arctic and a neutral position in the Antarctic due to a hole in the ozone layer at present which will probably change over time.
To incude the former in the latter, if I followed your analogy, would be to report on job losses in town x while reporting that there are some losses and gains that balance each other out in town y, but that there is likely to be a net decrease in jobs in town y over the longer term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Seany,
You need to open your eyes a bit. There is plenty of "peer reviewed" papers that dispute everything from the amount humans effect the globalwarming, to global warming not existing, to even so call "peer reviewed" papers that we are heading fast into the next ice age.
Google is your friend.
I can find a wonderfull page that lists 132 papers (peer reviewed research) ... took me all of 10 mins .. let me see if you can work google?
The "consensus" used with AWG is the IPCC's consensus. Im sure you know they are not scientists or climatolagists or even "weather men". They are a panel that cherry picks data from others papers to formulate a consensus of there own to advise governments. The IPCC does not give the power of approval to the owners of the original research.
I, personally, am a skeptic. Nothing is completly proven.
Worringly, I see us heading tward an Iceage eventually. A drop in temperature is FAR worse than a rise in temperature.
Tux
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| tuxpoo wrote: |
Seany,
You need to open your eyes a bit. There is plenty of "peer reviewed" papers that dispute everything from the amount humans effect the globalwarming, to global warming not existing, to even so call "peer reviewed" papers that we are heading fast into the next ice age.
Google is your friend.I can find a wonderfull page that lists 132 papers (peer reviewed research) ... took me all of 10 mins .. let me see if you can work google?
|
Why don't you just link to it?
| tuxpoo wrote: |
| [The "consensus" used with AWG is the IPCC's consensus. Im sure you know they are not scientists or climatolagists or even "weather men". They are a panel that cherry picks data from others papers to formulate a consensus of there own to advise governments. The IPCC does not give the power of approval to the owners of the original research. |
Really tuxpoo? You see, I typed 'ipcc' into my friend google and came up with this link:
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm
It says that:
The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :
The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals
And:
The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing viewpoints within the scientific community. The comprehensiveness of the scientific content is achieved through contributions from experts in all regions of the world and all relevant disciplines including, where appropriately documented, industry literature and traditional practices, and a two stage review process by experts and governments.
In what way aren't the IPCC scientists or climatologists? Because you say so?
| tuxpoo wrote: |
[I, personally, am a skeptic is completly proven.
Worringly, I see us heading tward an Iceage eventually. A drop in temperature is FAR worse than a rise in temperature.
Tux |
What evidence are you basing your ice age hypothesis on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I take the position that if GW turns out to be true and we do nothing then we're in deep, deep poo-poo. If it turns out to be false and we've reduced CO2 emissions, deforestation, pollution etc, then where's the harm?
From this, the only responsible conclusion is to act to reduce GW until the evidence is irrefutable, which it clearly isn't yet to the satisfaction of several folk above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| andyph wrote: |
| I take the position that if GW turns out to be true and we do nothing then we're in deep, deep poo-poo. If it turns out to be false and we've reduced CO2 emissions,.......... then where's the harm? ...... |
Excessive zeal on reducing CO2 emissions will damage economies, so there is quite an incentive to make CO2 reduction proportional to a real threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I ran a program on my PC and it said next year around sat 9th jan.
Google "interglacial state".
from IPCCs own homepage ...
"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
Tux
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| andyph wrote: |
| I take the position that if GW turns out to be true and we do nothing then we're in deep, deep poo-poo. If it turns out to be false and we've reduced CO2 emissions,.......... then where's the harm? ...... |
Excessive zeal on reducing CO2 emissions will damage economies, so there is quite an incentive to make CO2 reduction proportional to a real threat. |
Drop in temps !!! man made Ice age!!!
BAD!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Seany, See here's the thing that puzzles me.............................
1) Mans production of CO2 is causing global warming. Mans production of CO2 has gone up in a fairly linear fashion for the last decade or so.
2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly.
How do you reconcile these two "facts".
Don't ask me to support this argument, it'll clog up the thread completely. Go Google. But do yourself a favour. Open your eyes.
The science has not been done, and it's far from conclusive. So if you believe in your new "religion", fine, just don't try to force it on others.
John. |
I don't reconcile the 2 'facts' because 1) is barely a fact and 2) isn't.
So you aren't going to p[rovide any evidence for your position because it wil 'clog up the thread'? Really? How about you suggest some specific search terms then? Climate science is a big discipline and if I go off on a google hunt how can I be sure what I'm reading isn't the work of cranks, nutters, lobbyists and the uninformed?
As I've stated before:
1) There is a consensus about the science. If you think there isn't show me the credible climate scientists who disagree.
2) I don't take anything on faith so it's not a religious position. If your credible climate scientists from 1) have some good evidence to disporive the AGW hypothesis then show it to me. One. single. piece. of. peer. reviewed. evidence. |
Number one is "barely a fact"? It's a core argument for MMGW.
Number two "isn't" a fact? Are you really serious?
Believe what you like.
There are none as blind as those that won't see.
John.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Seany wrote: |
| BCjohnny wrote: |
Seany, See here's the thing that puzzles me.............................
1) Mans production of CO2 is causing global warming. Mans production of CO2 has gone up in a fairly linear fashion for the last decade or so.
2) It is grudgingly accepted Earths temperature since at least 2000 has not increased at all, in fact has probably decreased slightly.
How do you reconcile these two "facts".
Don't ask me to support this argument, it'll clog up the thread completely. Go Google. But do yourself a favour. Open your eyes.
The science has not been done, and it's far from conclusive. So if you believe in your new "religion", fine, just don't try to force it on others.
John. |
I don't reconcile the 2 'facts' because 1) is barely a fact and 2) isn't.
So you aren't going to p[rovide any evidence for your position because it wil 'clog up the thread'? Really? How about you suggest some specific search terms then? Climate science is a big discipline and if I go off on a google hunt how can I be sure what I'm reading isn't the work of cranks, nutters, lobbyists and the uninformed?
As I've stated before:
1) There is a consensus about the science. If you think there isn't show me the credible climate scientists who disagree.
2) I don't take anything on faith so it's not a religious position. If your credible climate scientists from 1) have some good evidence to disporive the AGW hypothesis then show it to me. One. single. piece. of. peer. reviewed. evidence. |
The Hadley Decadal trend is flat and contrary to what the Met Office confidently predicted in their forecast for 2007, global temperature did not reach the level of 1998. So, point 2 is fact.
However it has no bearing on comment 1, because AGW is not, never has been and never will be the only show in town. Climate is always changing and whatever underlying trend may occur due to increasing CO2 concentrations does not stop natural cycles and natural variability.
Thus it was imo extremely short sighted, if not damaging and downright stupid to have engaged in AGW scaremongering and predictions of always getting warmer. The reality was always going to be different because of climate variability and immense damage has been done to the credibility of climate science in the public eyes, that is hugely destructive to the cause of dealing with the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
