Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: When logical argument fails... resort to abuse?

Surely not a suggestion to resort to violence to win an arguement...

Only if I can be sure of winning..... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
( There's only one "e" in argument anyway /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif)
 
Re: Non Blind denial

That's one interpretation .. bit like looking at these graphs and saying temperature and carbon emissions have no correlation.

Greenhouse%20gases.preview.jpg



Global%20mean%20temperature.preview.jpg
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
Now, let’s have a poll;
Assuming Global Warming exists, was it wholly created by homo-sapiens ?
You may choose only one
Baah.
No.




Votes accepted from (19/11/2007 12:25) to (21/11/2007 12:25)
You must vote before you can view the results of this poll


[/ QUOTE ] Good grief! Run everyone - Scuttlebutt has been overrun by superintelligent beings from Planet Lounge - there may yet be refuge in the PBO forum.
 
Re: When logical argument fails... resort to abuse?

Obviously like my son who was an enumerate genius but borderline dyslexic with the English language... Once asked me
Dad.....How do you spell Hexadecimal?
 
Re: When logical argument fails... resort to abuse?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously like my son who was an enumerate genius

[/ QUOTE ]

Was that number 1 son?
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Nice graphs....

Problem is Correlation does not imply Causation. If there is a cause and effect, which way round is it (One question I have yet to hear a convincing argument (sp) for is "Gas Increase triggers Temp Increase")
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Nice graphs....

Problem is Correlation does not imply Causation. If there is a cause and effect, which way round is it (One question I have yet to hear a convincing argument (sp) for is "Gas Increase triggers Temp Increase")

[/ QUOTE ]


correlation does not prove causation, however if a cause / effect is otherwise postulated then it is perfectly valid to show a proved correlation to support the hypothesis. This tends to lend credibility to the hypothesis ..


Oh and BTW there were many theories postulating carbon emissions would trigger temperature increases .. these theories tend to have the generic grouping of "Greenhouse gases"
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

________________________________________________________________
I still think that this subject is probably different from other areas of scientific study due to the huge media/government focus on it.
________________________________________________________________

Then you are still wrong!
Scientific methodology does not change with the subject.
What does happen ( and here we may agree) is that the subject HAS been politicised and there are so many unscientific comments made in the press and on the internet that it is not clear to the layman what is published by scientists and what is not. The fundamental science remains unchanged though. The rest is a smoke screen written mainly by journalists with an axe to grind.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Adding to that (as the argument is put in the negative) No one seems to argue that the recent increase in temperature is NOT extreme and unprecedented. In that case WHAT ELSE is causing it if NOT the increase in man made emissions? The suns cycle (a typical red herring) does not correlate with it. The elyptical orbit of the earth does not correlate with it. Tilting axis of the earth does not correlate with it In fact nothing else can be seen to cause it other than man made emissions. Why then would you NOT believe it?
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Because, Mike, the numpties don't want to, JIC they start to feel guilty about their heritage ...
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Adding to that (as the argument is put in the negative) No one seems to argue that the recent increase in temperature is NOT extreme and unprecedented. In that case WHAT ELSE is causing it if NOT the increase in man made emissions? The suns cycle (a typical red herring) does not correlate with it. The elyptical orbit of the earth does not correlate with it. Tilting axis of the earth does not correlate with it In fact nothing else can be seen to cause it other than man made emissions. Why then would you NOT believe it?

[/ QUOTE ] I have seen arguments that the recent increases are not extreme or unprecedented.
The sun's cycle appears to show a much closer correlation than CO2, but the argument is about the magnitude of the effect. That may be a question of the accuracy of the models.

Your argument is the classical one for the existence of God. If we don't know the cause, it must be God. What else can it be? Why then would you NOT believe it?

I'm off out. See you later.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Oh and BTW there were many theories postulating carbon emissions would trigger temperature increases .. these theories tend to have the generic grouping of "Greenhouse gases"

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory is that Greenhouse Gases and Temperature provide Positive Feedback i.e. Higher Temp causes Higher Gas Emission causes Higher Temp etc. The question is which came first?

Some of us Numpties are interested in the subject and would like answers to our questions. I look at any graph and start pulling it apart. I want to see the underlying data, how it's been put together, understand the assumptions that have been made and draw my own conclusions.

I have difficulties with the concept of scientific research and scientists as being totally unaffected by considerations as to reward, acceptance by peers and personal success.

I have even more difficulty with politicians, but that may be more common.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh and BTW there were many theories postulating carbon emissions would trigger temperature increases .. these theories tend to have the generic grouping of "Greenhouse gases"

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory is that Greenhouse Gases and Temperature provide Positive Feedback i.e. Higher Temp causes Higher Gas Emission causes Higher Temp etc. The question is which came first?

Some of us Numpties are interested in the subject and would like answers to our questions. I look at any graph and start pulling it apart. I want to see the underlying data, how it's been put together, understand the assumptions that have been made and draw my own conclusions.

I have difficulties with the concept of scientific research and scientists as being totally unaffected by considerations as to reward, acceptance by peers and personal success.

I have even more difficulty with politicians, but that may be more common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah right .. keep on looking until you find something that matches what you want to beleive.

I do that with weather forecasts .. unfortunately reality still catches me out.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
I have difficulties with the concept of scientific research and scientists as being totally unaffected by considerations as to reward, acceptance by peers and personal success.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do I. They are important motivations - although weirdly not for personal wealth but for more grants for more toys with more flashing lights.


But as I keep tying to explain, that is a driver for novel observations and interpretations, not for conforming with everyone else. I find it strange that this idea is hard to understand. For me a really novel, revolutionary paper is the holy grail and that is true for all scientists. I get no brownie points or shiny toys for agreeing with someone else


Whenever I am asked to referee a paper or a grant application, the accompanying form says, essentially,

How novel is it?
How important is its contribution to the field? (ie novel and significant)
Were an unnecessary number of small furry animals distressed in the process?
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah right .. keep on looking until you find something that matches what you want to beleive.

I do that with weather forecasts .. unfortunately reality still catches me out.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I think it is more of questioning until I am happy with what I am being sold...
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Total Crap!
I am an Atheist and don't believe in God, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, or anything else that has no evidence supporting it.
When evidence exists I question it's source. The source for data since 1926 is the Met Office and internationally collected data by Meteorologists. Data before that has other sources which one might question but 1926 onwards is solid data. That is the period of maximum rise. That is the period in question. Stating that "you have seen arguments" is unhelpful. I have seen arguments that the earth was created 6000 years ago but I don't believe the source of the data. I challenge you to show the data that you claim exists that the suns cycle shows any relation to the increase in global temperature at all over this period. As I stated before it does not.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Oh dear ( & I am not picking on you jimi)

Nobody has picked up on my argument - Basically who the fing hell cares about GW?
Don't you all see, the science good, bad or indifferent is totally irrelevant to Joe public.

We must surely all agree that we are polluting the enviroment, so it dose not matter about GW, if we come up with some inspired policies to get the general public onside & help with cleaning up the planet, the GW issue will go away.

To say, like our dozy politicians that "we are cutting green house gases & helping to decrease global warming" by taxing Transport & then wasting the dosh, is really not the way to solve the problem, some sensible government initiatives like promoting a clean car or environmentally friendly housing, & green nuclear power & many other initiatives, must be the way to go.

Raising taxes on Transport, cars & wasting money on HIPS, is not the answer IMHO
whether you believe the scare stories & science for GW or more likely the science for alternative possibilities is irrelevant. We have to clean up our act NOW. just look at the seas, as boat people you must all see the pollution & over fishing at sea, but it can be controlled & cleaned we are getting better at it & science will help, but the Politicians have to start thinking about positive measures to hep not negative.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Mike, I think you're both right. Global temperature change does correlate to sunspot cycles, tilt,distance, volcanic activity etc and that correlation is proven, and until recently these were the only variables that were required to explain temperature change. However since (from memory)?1950? they ceased to explain it fully and a further factor was required, this factor seems to be carbon emissions. I'll try and dig out facts, figures and graphical analysis later.
 
Re: Oh for goodness sake - what will your grandchildren say about you?

[ QUOTE ]
A general comment - not directed to any particular poster..

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Ken - possibly directed at me!

do 95% of all scientists agree? that is what we are told - but what are they in agreement with. I think most accept that global warming is happening - that might be 95% - but 95% believe it to be human led? where did that come from?

Some interesting post here, however, from my original post saying how can such a tiny amount of trace gas effect the position? - the only answer appears to be "it is so, so believe it" It would be really great to have a scientific answer somehow....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top