Global Warming

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I'm all for more scientific understanding. I just don't think that we ignore the bit that we currently have. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I'm not even going to dignify the last paragraph with an answer. Mental conspiracy theories have no place in this debate.

Where have I even made a hint of a suggestion for that?

Everyone's mental but you... I have little doubt your science is better than mine but I also reckon my knowledge of the history of scientists will match or surpass yours - especially when scientists have been used for the purposes of war, which is to say, since the dawn of recorded history. Science has a propensity to serve the truth but it is not incorruptible. What is your opinion of 'climategate' by the way? Also, what is your explanation as to why there appears to be such a strong correlation between positive forcings and higher LoSU and negative forcings and low LoSU?

you only have to look at that "the men who made us fat" programme on the iplayer to see examples where governments have quashed science and altered it to make it suit their agendas.

One such agenda is sustainability, but seemingly only in a way that makes certain people very, very rich and makes little actual difference to the world.

 

[Damocles]

I'm all for more scientific understanding. I just don't think that we ignore the bit that we currently have. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I'm not even going to dignify the last paragraph with an answer. Mental conspiracy theories have no place in this debate.

Where have I even made a hint of a suggestion for that?

None. I was trying to make a point regarding the idea of low LoSU means that we shouldn't do anything and wait around. I'm sure you understand exponential systems. Put simply, we don't have time to wait.

Everyone's mental but you

The idea that humanity has no effect on the climate is absolutely mental.

... I have little doubt your science is better than mine but I also reckon my knowledge of the history of scientists will match or surpass yours - especially when scientists have been used for the purposes of war, which is to say, since the dawn of recorded history. Science has a propensity to serve the truth but it is not incorruptible.

I don't claim that it isn't. I claim that there are systems built into the modern scientific method and enough skeptics about almost everything to expose any frauds. Especially such a hugely political subject.

What is your opinion of 'climategate' by the way?

Hugely misunderstood by both the media and the public. Independent report after report cleared them of any wrongdoing or collusion. I don't specifically recall exactly how many, but we're talking double figures. Some of the words which they used made sense in context but not when you snip bits out of an email such as the now infamous "Mike's trick". After reading the emails and reading expert opinion on them, I personally think that the scandal is a load of old tosh. You should look into it more, you'll see what I mean.

Also, what is your explanation as to why there appears to be such a strong correlation between positive forcings and higher LoSU and negative forcings and low LoSU?

I have none, I don't believe that a specific correlation denotes causality. As I say, I'm really not interested in discussing conspiracies. I'm not about to disagree with a 97% scientific consensus on what is pretty basic science.

 

[SWP's back]

Can someone change the title thread to:

"You're all mental and wrong and your grandchildren will drown/starve/burn"

 

[Damocles]

Can someone change the title thread to:

"You're all mental and wrong and your grandchildren will drown/starve/burn"

The idea that man doesn't have an effect on the world's climate is absolutely mental.

Would you like me to describe this INCREDIBLY basic, GCSE level science to you?

 

[gaudinho's stolen car]

Can someone change the title thread to:

"You're all mental and wrong and your grandchildren will drown/starve/burn"

The idea that man doesn't have an effect on the world's climate is absolutely mental.

Would you like me to describe this INCREDIBLY basic, GCSE level science to you?

Why did you set this thread up like this? Were you desperate for an argument?

 

[Damocles]

Can someone change the title thread to:

"You're all mental and wrong and your grandchildren will drown/starve/burn"

The idea that man doesn't have an effect on the world's climate is absolutely mental.

Would you like me to describe this INCREDIBLY basic, GCSE level science to you?

Why did you set this thread up like this? Were you desperate for an argument?

I'm sorry, I'll clear any threads that I have with you in the future.

 

[pauldominic]

Let me try and bring this down to more common language as we're getting into technical language here and this argument will go a bit mad.

You are stating that a Level of Scientific Understanding for the different factors that drive climate change are low, with the exception of the one that we understand the most, that points to a large warming. Then you provide a paper on radiative forcing.

And you think that despite have a large understanding of a primary cause of temperature and is showing a clear correlation, we should what? Ignore it? Say that we don't know?

I don't understand what you are trying to say, especially with "By marvellous coincidence"?

Erm, no, no that's not what I'm saying is it Damocles. I'm saying look at the margin of error for the cloud albedo effect. The cloud albedo effect could be a huge negative forcing but we do not have enough data to know either way. THAT, is what I'm saying. More balanced science aimed at building scientific understanding of negative forcings.

To put in laymans terms, as you seem to want, the climate is a scale balance, with weights on either side, some make the temperature go up, some make the temperature go down. We currently have no idea what the ones that make the temperature go down weigh so we don't know where we stand. The climate could be very close to balance or heavily stacked on the warming side. I want science to end the uncertainty through trying to plug that gap in knowledge. I would have thought you, least of all people, would disagree with the prospect of more scientific understanding.

By marvellous coincidence I mean I'm not naive enough to believe that scientific funding comes with no strings attached, or, that, for instance, it isn't easier to secure funding for research on greenhouse gases than aerosol effects.

I'm all for more scientific understanding. I just don't think that we ignore the bit that we currently have. Do you disagree with this?

Also, I'm not even going to dignify the last paragraph with an answer. Conspiracy theories have no place in this debate.

The brain is an evil organ isn't it :)

Even scientists have emotions and prejudices.

Maths is the best without doubt because it underpins all sciences.

Is debt good or bad? Economics is a science - trust me.

The best book I've read in many years is this one - <a class="postlink" href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Gods-Remarkable-Story-Risk/dp/0471295639" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Gods-Re ... 0471295639</a>

 

[SWP's back]

Can someone change the title thread to:

"You're all mental and wrong and your grandchildren will drown/starve/burn"

The idea that man doesn't have an effect on the world's climate is absolutely mental.

Would you like me to describe this INCREDIBLY basic, GCSE level science to you?

That wasn't your opening gambit though was it. You asked if there was "Global Warming" and was it "man made". You didn't state "Do you think mankind have an effect on the world's climate?", to which I would have answered "yes".

Would you like me to explain the difference between the two and the nuances of the English language, no doubt to key stage level 3. You see I'd hate you to build a strawperson.

And you can't patronise me fella, I'm above that sort of thing.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

Can someone change the title thread to:

"You're all mental and wrong and your grandchildren will drown/starve/burn"

The idea that man doesn't have an effect on the world's climate is absolutely mental.

Would you like me to describe this INCREDIBLY basic, GCSE level science to you?

that's like saying "Yes, well we clearly wouldn't have won the league if we'd chopped Aguero's right leg off seconds before he scored the winning goal v QPR".

 

[Skashion]

None. I was trying to make a point regarding the idea of low LoSU means that we shouldn't do anything and wait around. I'm sure you understand exponential systems. Put simply, we don't have time to wait.

The idea that humanity has no effect on the climate is absolutely mental.

... I have little doubt your science is better than mine but I also reckon my knowledge of the history of scientists will match or surpass yours - especially when scientists have been used for the purposes of war, which is to say, since the dawn of recorded history. Science has a propensity to serve the truth but it is not incorruptible.

I don't claim that it isn't. I claim that there are systems built into the modern scientific method and enough skeptics about almost everything to expose any frauds. Especially such a hugely political subject.

Hugely misunderstood by both the media and the public. Independent report after report cleared them of any wrongdoing or collusion. I don't specifically recall exactly how many, but we're talking double figures. Some of the words which they used made sense in context but not when you snip bits out of an email such as the now infamous "Mike's trick". After reading the emails and reading expert opinion on them, I personally think that the scandal is a load of old tosh. You should look into it more, you'll see what I mean.

I have none, I don't believe that a specific correlation denotes causality. As I say, I'm really not interested in discussing conspiracies. I'm not about to disagree with a 97% scientific consensus on what is pretty basic science.

We don't understand the extent of what we need to do until we have that data. We have to reduce our positive forcings, increase our negative forcings, or both of course. The degree to which this is true, we have no idea as you can see by the margins of error involved.

I have made the opposite claim but you still called me mental simply for believing scientists are corruptible, and, if there is funding available for one thing and not the other they may just still go ahead and research anyway...

They were still guilty of trying to delete data, delete emails etc. It is a very very unscientific notion; the idea of getting rid of data. Of course the situation was exploited, I'm not disputing that at all.

The science that greenhouse gases are a positive anthropogenic forcing? Yep, that's pretty well established, stop going on about it as if it's the only facet to the debate. Now it's established how about some research on anthropogenic aerosol effects and see if we can reduce those margins of error just a tad, eh? Let's see where we are and what we need to do about it.