Global warming

That nice Mr Gore, in his excellent film says (rather off handedly I thought) that Europe is going to freeze .....

Looking at the 'hockey stick' graphs for this, that & the other the only solution is for about , oh 90% of the entire human population to hold its breath for half an hour or so.

I personally think the giant mutant space goat currently out beyond Pluto will get us all first ...
 
I agree with you, but in trying to convince people I think you may be banging your head against a wall here. There are two things that annoy me particularly about the current climate change/global warming argument, and both are propogated by the so-called Green lobby and undermine their cause, ultimately.
(1) is that it is bad science, promoted mostly by media types, who believe that, as in politics, if enough people believe something, or say it often enough, then it must be true. Loads of journos, politicians and, yes, scientists have said that the planet is warming up and we're responsible for it, but none of that opinion will make any difference to what is actually happening.
(2) Is that it is used as the reason why we shouldn't pollute the planet. Anyone who needs a reason not to [--word removed--] on their own doorstep should never have been allowed to come down from the trees. Not using up finite resources and not making a mess of the place should not need an external reason: wanting to live on a nice clean planet, and leaving it that way for our descendants should be reason enough.
[/Meldrew mode].
 
"wanting to live on a nice clean planet, and leaving it that way for our descendants should be reason enough"
That's optimistic

Why is it "bad science"? And why are you so sure that none of this 'science' will do any good?

It seems to me that people who think there is nothing that can be done or indeed think that nothing is happening refuse to accept any tiny morsal of evidence that might prove them wrong.
 
If you read the analysis thoroughly you will see that the "period in question" that was referred to was from 1950 to now where that graph showed the sun in a steady state and therefore obviously not responsible for the really big rise in global temperature during that same period. Look at the graph again and you will see that it is not a steady increase it is an overall increase but flat during that period.
 
And then the text refers to a delay in effects.....

I'm not trying to be awkward, just recognising that there is an argument for both sides here..... and we tend to only hear one side with any volume.....

The very best science is one that is criticised, probed and prodded until it can no longer be denied..... and we ain't there yet....
 
Firstly I don't think I have a superior attitude chum, I am just having the temerity to agree with an analysis published by an institute consisting of some of the worlds leading scientists while you cling to a completely unsubstantiated load of drivel published by someone with no scientific qualifications whatsoever that puts a completely opposite view! But I do recognise that trying to get this argument onto a basis of scientific logic offends people like you who start with an opinion and then construct what they call facts around it to support the argument rather than doing it the other way around. Scientists may dissagree about the detail but generally agree that the climate is warming and has been doing so increasingly rapidly from about 1950 onwards. This increase cannot be correlated with the suns activity during the same period, or any other natural cycle. It can be correlated very closely with the increase in the level of CO2 and the greenhouse effect. This is just not arguable. It is fact. To suggest that there is a conspiracy that is generated by the government and supported by the met office and leading scientists and this is not in fact true is paranoia...
 
Actually I totally agree. I am not trying to be awkward either and the report is very clear about some data that cannot be interpreted accurately. Dead right. It's very complicated but if you download the complete report and text (which took nearly 20 minutes on my machine) it is very clear about some things that are not in doubt. We should always question science though, and "good science" will stand criticism. I would never seek to argue otherwise.
Throughout history however from Archimedes to Darwin science has had to overcome prejudice. Lets try to keep an open mind and not be prejudiced. Rabbiting on about taxation and implying the whole thing is a conspiracy is pretty sad.
 
You just have to accept that no matter how strongly you feel you are in the right and how much you denigrate other's opinions [ QUOTE ]
completely unsubstantiated load of drivel

[/ QUOTE ] you can't make people change their minds.

As I said "I am awaiting conclusive proof."

I've not seen it yet. But I have seen a train-load of bandwagon-jumpers adopt the theory for their own pet causes.
 
Fair enough..... but lets not forget that some established 'opinions' have had to be argued against as well.... and right now the established 'opinion' seems to be that global warming is man made....

for a long while photons were argued as a ridiculous idea by scientists that had converged on pure wave theory as their 'opinion' of the right answer..... and while they couldn't prove wave theory conclusively, they didn't easily shift their positions when confronted with contradictory scientfic evidence.... so the argument can work both ways....
 
OK lets be clear about terminology.

His contention that the rise in temperature (which all data shows as most extreme from 1950 onwards) is due to increased sun activity is unsubstantiated. He shows no data to substantiate his argument and it in direct conflict with the published Met Office data. Thats a fact. Thats why I call it unsubstantiated
My dictionary gives a definition of drivel as "to be foolish or speak like an idiot"
I think any non scientist that presumes to take a very complex subject and say everyone else is wrong and he has reached a completely different conclusion based on nothing at all that he can substantiate complies totally with this definition.

I do however have complete sympathy with your argument about not being able to make people change their minds if they don't want to. I agree entirely. There are none so blind as they who will not see.

I have in fact never argued that you had to change your mind. You obviously won't. All I have sought to do is express a minority opinion that agrees with the Met Office. How out of order is that?
 
And I would accept that too..... I just hold an opinion that agrees with the established opinion here. Others have a perfect right to their opinion too and if any new facts emerge from the doubters I will be happy to consider them.
"I dissaprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Who first said that?)
 
Quote

I think any non scientist that presumes to take a very complex subject and say everyone else is wrong and he has reached a completely different conclusion based on nothing at all that he can substantiate complies totally with this definition.

There once was a wee Patent Clerk who did exactly that. The Scientific Community ridiculed him for his theories.
He was right tho.

Beore that there was another foreign guy who was pilloried ( and excommunicated) for deviating from the (then) accepted facts that -

1 The Earth was the centre of the universe.
2 That the Earth was flat.

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Quote


"I dissaprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Who first said that?)



I think you were the first to say that.

If, however,the quotation was
" I disagree with what you say, but will defend......"

I can't remember...... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Quote"

"" but lets not forget that some established 'opinions' have had to be argued against as well.... and right now the established 'opinion' seems to be that global warming is man made....

Has anyone tried to co-relate the effect
1. of population increase since, say 1945 and
2. the increase in urbanisation and decrease in countryside

with global warming??
 
Oh yes? Not Bollix I think.

As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years....

From press release of Max Planck Instutite for Solar System Research, in 2003.
 
Re: Oh yes? Not Bollix I think.

That's it you see. The Met Office or anyone favouring the mankind effect wouldn't include that sort of info as it spoils part of their theory.

It's not an easy subject and probably won't ever get a straightforward theory that points to cause and effect.
In the meantime I remain unconvinced that we have much to do with climate change.
 
Re: Oh yes? Not Bollix I think.

Look. I've made my decision. I'm pleased that you have your own. If we're both still alive in 25 years time one of us may say. "Do you know? He was right"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Roberto
Herbal teas at night
Replies
13
Views
374
steve yates
S

Share this page

Top