I don't understand why people seem so aggressive in jumping down those who disagree with man-made global warming.

Because if people who remain to be convinced fully understood the science, then they'd realise just how daft pretending climate change has nothing to do with humans really is.

If our money is going to be stolen in the name of green taxes then lets at least tax things fairly. If we tax based on most polluting then a Steak would cost double the price, people would only eat it once a week, our demand would decrease and the harmful gases from agriculture would decrease.

I agree on the fair tax issue, however as you have stated that you don't believe greenhouse gas emissions from cars and industry are the cause of global warming, and seem to present the luddite view that it's all 'a natural cycle', you then puzzlingly request that tax on meat should be increased because of 'harmful gases' from meat production. Granted, CH4 from cows is a huge issue to a person who believes in the anthropogenic causes behind climate change. However, you portray yourself as someone who questions whether anthropogenic emissions are affecting out climate. Either you believe anthropogenic activity causes climate change, or you don't – you can't try to use one half of the argument against the other.

If you follow the view that humans aren't causing climate change, then surely the only hazard posed by gaseous emissions from cows is the odour?

Zokes – there's a reason I called the thread "climate change" – if you knew anything about the subject you would realise what the reason is….

Zokes, again, i wouldn't understand you to see a debate from the other side because you are so resolute in your view.

I am not contradicting my argument in anyway, I don't believe that man-kind is responsible for global warming, HOWEVER, if they were, then the green taxes should be distributed evenly. It shows presently that the government who apparently understand global warming, don't, other wise they would put more tax on meat. Simples.

Exactly WHAT science proves global warming is due to man? There is no proof, just theories.

hainey, there is plenty of science out there for you to go and find and read…

try http://www.sciencedirect.com as a place to start your research 🙂

oh, and the reason why zokes may be 'resolute' in his view is that science is also 'resolute' in that view.

noone has yet explained why average joe is so resulte in their view that thousands of eminent scientists who spend years researching the subject are so wrong…

I thought this was a good programme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pft7c/The_Environment_Debate/

Goan – Premier Member

Zokes – there's a reason I called the thread "climate change" – if you knew anything about the subject you would realise what the reason is….

You don't need to understand much about climate change to understand why you would post a thread about anything, Goan / Smee. Something to do with the same reason you changed your name – the fact that you come on here, make an idiot of yourself, then wonder why noone sees your viewpoint. I'd guess you left it open-ended to goad people into discussion about it and to give yourself a pedestal for your flawed views delivered in a condescending tone.

Zokes, again, i wouldn't understand you to see a debate from the other side because you are so resolute in your view.

However, as someone else on the thread has pointed out, there's very little left to discuss when you look at the huge weight of evidence on one side, and the paucity of credible evidence against. That is why I am fairly resolute about it. The basic premise really is rather incredibly simple – the nuances of how much, when etc are the tricky bits. The problem is just that we like driving, flying, eating meat etc. This is, and will continue to have an effect on our climate. To mitigate this, governments tax these things (well, some more than others, granted – Hainey).

People don't like paying more for things, especially when the money goes to the government, so they get annoyed, become blinkered, and only believe what they are fed by the media. The media in turn are not climatologists, their job is to present a balanced view. There is no balance to anthropogenic climate change, it's real, it's happening. Those who deny that are either incapable of understanding the science, don't care, or have a vested interest in oil.

Find me a recent scholarly review from a credible source refuting anthropogenically-induced climate change, and maybe I'll become less 'resolute'. Funnily enough, my main task in my job is to consider new evidence, and adjust my thinking as appropriate…

Zokes – the debate is now called climate change, not global warming….

hungry monkey – Premier Member

oh, and the reason why zokes may be 'resolute' in his view is that science is also 'resolute' in that view.

noone has yet explained why average joe is so resulte in their view that thousands of eminent scientists who spend years researching the subject are so wrong…

Cheers! 😀

Zokes – the debate is now called climate change, not global warming….

And?

Hungry, there is no PROOF only theories.

If you have proof then please share it.

Science is not resolute is it? There are a great deal of scientists who disagree. That is why it is so heaviy debated.

No one is saying that science is wrong either or right. Its just not proven.

I quite like this article. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf

Zokes – the world has moved on from the global warming debate – they now realise that there is no such thing as "GLOBAL" warming – many placed such as Scotland will get colder…

Hungry, there is no PROOF only theories.

If you have proof then please share it.

Back to my original submission, re: no 100% proof.

Lets step back a bit. What would you consider to be 'PROOF'? If you state that then perhaps someone could point you to it.

Can you show me proof that mankind is responsible for climate change at the moment and its not due to a natural cycle?

I can't show you proof that its not, i can only go based on what we know. Yet for some reason you are basing your entire views on scientific theorems.

so why did the climate change the last time , if there were no friggen cars etc back then ,dino farts no dought,theres so much info that confuses stupid people like me,
ah well, jumps back into range rover.
heres an idea , its natural and its going to happen. (locks doors on range rover).

i think hainey, that you, being in the minority (certainly academically speaking), are the one who should come up with some credible evidence that it is wrong…

oh, and of course i don't have 'proof', only the backing of scientific consensus built by thousands of people who spend their lives studying it.

hell, even the US government now believe it!

lol @ scrap rider.

everyone knows it happens naturally. 'science' knows that the rate at which it is happening is due to humans.

hungry monkey – why are the minority the ones that should prove it? That's bullshit and you know it.

Hungry,

When someone is flagging in a debate they tend to turn to personal insults to try and deflect away from them the fact that they can't back up there claims. – Good job on proving that trend!

I have openly stated that i can not prove that science is wrong, but you can not prove it is right, what i have said from the beginning.

personal insults? erm, not yet. i pointed out that your argument, academically speaking, is far in the minority (which is FACT).

anyways, some light reading for you…

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

here is a more technical version if you want

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

and here is a link so that you can access the full report

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

worth pointing out that it is coming up to 3 years old though, and is therefore relatively out of date…

and finally, on the proof thing… i think that i'd give more attention to the thousands of people who study the subject than to someone on an internet forum when it comes to believing stuff about CC…

IPCC – what does that stand for again? No bias in there at all is there….

btw, if you go to science direct, search for 'climate change' then refine search to 2009 and then journals only, you'll find 22,673 entries. these, bradly speaking, have something to do with CC.

a quick trawl through the 1st 200 of them reveals nothing scientific (as far as i can find) which argues against anthropogenic CC…

thats only papers published in 2009 of course, there are a fair few more…

an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

a Panel to discuss Climate Change between Governments perhaps?

i'd say that in a lot of governments opinions a lack of CC is a good thing… and a panel is there to DISCUSS things… if they can come to a consensus such as IPCC4 then i think that there may be something to think about…

just thoguht it would be some easy reading there for you guys.

That is entirely your opinion and who am i to say differently. Again, you have provided me to a link of theories, none of which are proven.

double post

theories which are heavily backed up by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community…

but yes, you are correct. you are entitled to your opinion.

as wrong as it might be 😈 😉

right, i'm off. got to do some research (on agriculture's impact on the environment as it happens…)

8)

I agree where was he rude to you?

I have openly stated that I can not prove that science is wrong, but you can not prove it is right, what I have said from the beginning

We know that Hainey we understand science and we don’t need the basic axioms of science explained to us.
We know we can only look at the data and formulate theorems and probabilities by quantifying these observations. Given all the data available if you want to conclude that nothing is happening then you will need to explain a few things please.

Why have all the people in the world who have dedicated their lives to doing this and presented a huge amount of peer reviewed evidence to support man made global warming got it all wrong?
What data do you have that the harmful gases , as you call them, has no effect on climate?
Why is there an increase in temperature above the natural cycle of climate change ?
What natural mechanism is neutralising the effect of the increased harmful gases?

On the balance of probabilities you still think nothing is happening as a result of all the harmful gases?

you have provided me to a link of theories, none of which are proven

by that standard everything we know is unproven and of equal weight is that what you really think?

I've had a look at science direct and dont see many papers that discuss man's activity and climate change. plenty papers on the effects of climate change and hundreds of literature reviews. Could the ridiculously large number of lit reviews be one of the reasons that people claim consensus? Basically there is heehaw in the way of relevant primary research evident in the first several hundred papers.

*floats away*

gravity ain't proven yet, is it?

😉

Hainey,

You'll be spinning out that crap old line about the world being flat next.

Just admit you're wrong and say goodnight.

HM – You sir are a Tube.

Junkyard, you are lecturing at me to provide proof and yet you can provide none yourself. Just chill out, relax and accept that that people have different points of view.

If you want to worship your theorems then that is your choice, but just remember that scientists once postulated that the world is flat!

Good night.

tube

me (sorry for those without FB…)

edit: perhaps a slightly more representative vision of me

with a wig on.

Whatever happened to the ozone layer?
You never hear it mentioned anymore!

I know I cannot offer proof but I can offer you evidence can you?
You have nothing but your opinion and you are entitled to it as you are entitled to ignore all the questions I asked you about your view…some might think it is because you have no evidence or data to support your position

Worship my theorems is that what you think scientists do
The thing about all scientists is that you really could change their minds and their entire paradigm with evidence and data and a theroem that better explained the observations ….you just don’t have any to offer…. To the extent that you wont even try

soops – Member
Whatever happened to the ozone layer?
You never hear it mentioned anymore!

Can't be taxed the basis of a low carbon economy sollyoooshun.

here is another nice one of me. and below, another nice tube picture

8)

soops, the securitization of the ozone hole issue (whereby ozone depletion was visibly causing physical damage to the populous through cateracts/cancers) meant that governmental action happened quickly, with the effect of a unilateral action on CFC use.

partly helped because the owners of the CFC patents (dupont iirc?) also held the patents for the new 'cleaner' chemicals which would be used (and therfore provide a nice little money earner for dupont (or whoever it was).

CC is a longer term issue, and as yet is not a security issue for most states (exceps small island states such as the maldives, tuvalu etc). it'll become one when millions of environmental refugees start moving in…

iirc some of the pacific states such as tuvalu etc already have agreements with NZ and aus to migrate populations when their islands become uninhabitable in the next 20-30 years or so.

'On the balance of probabilities'

This to me strikes at the heart of the debate Junkyard. To many people, this standard of proof is too low.

To get closer to the truth of the matter (one way or another) the standard of proof should be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. There is still reasonable doubt therefore there will still be doubters (strongly dislike the label 'deniers' as it infers a willful and ignorant disregard of what some consider a fore gone conclusion).

As there is still 'reasonable doubt' the science should be continued to be questioned. Previously held 'consensus' with regard to quantum mechanics is still being questioned and certain aspects are being shown to be untrue. Why is climate science so different?

The debate is far from over!