i'm yet to see anything coming recently from the scientific community which infers 'reasonable doubt' in CC science… its only really the media which sprouts that (for reasons detailed a few pages ago).

anyways, i'm off to go and consume for a bit.

ciao

The IPCC give this as 90% probable of man made climate change
Science is never 100% about anything so if that is your view you must put no weight to any scientific explanation of the world. It is all on the balance of probabilities. Nothing is actually proved.

If we look at cancer then now does smoking cause cancer? Well some smokers smoke all their lives and don’t get cancer, and it only kills 2/3 rds of those that do. Some non smokers get lung cancer so we only have a probability here. It is the same thing with climate change and like smoking and cancer there is no credible counter explanation of observed data to either.

dunno about you junkyard, but i'm still waiting for some scientific evidence to support the stance that CC isn't anthropogenic… ?

8)

on the who has to try and prove something argument, if you disbelieved the presence of gravity, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for it, i think you would be required to find some yourself to BACK UP YOUR VIEW

Yes not exactly holding my breath …I assume that even frantic googling cant produce anything significant.

Gravity is proven.

There is proof of it.

Global warming due to man is not. The end.

Ok, I have one last question….

Is there PROOF of man made global warming?

Yes or No?

hainey mate – this is a mountain bike forum.

I rather suspect you should be posting this stuff on http://www.realclimate.org

Come back and let us know what the climate scientists have to say.

as has already been explained, in science there is NO proof.

can YO provide ANY credible, peer-reviewed evidence (paper titles, authors, journal please) which is available on google scholar, science direct or web of knowledge which gives ANY evidence to suggest that it has NOTHING to do with humans?

please?

i'm dying to read some…

otherwise you have NOTHING to back up your argument, which makes is irrelevant.

other than the IPCC stuff i already posted, i can't really be arsed to go through the motions to find yet more stuff for you to ignore or claim as rubbish, i've got some dinner to cook before i go out ont he piss you see.

Tried very hard not to put my view across regarding this specific subject. Was just offering an explanation at to why people still doubt. The smoking analogy is false framing the argument. We can state 'beyond reasonable doubt' that smoking causes cancer, we cannot state categorically how many people it will kill as there are too many other factors that influence the development of cancer.

Take for example Hooks Law (re: elasticity) or Boyles Law (re: pressure) and we can see that every time we run the experiments we will always get the same results. No matter how many times the experiment is run. (Boyles Law: If the volume is halved the pressure is doubled etc). Same as if you heat water it will boil at 100 degrees C, do it 10x, 50x, 100x, 100000x and you will always get the same outcome; 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Some elements of climate science (data sets used, computer modeling and projections) just does not stand up to this scrutiny

there is NO proof

thankyou.

can YO provide ANY credible, peer-reviewed evidence (paper titles, authors, journal please) which is available on google scholar, science direct or web of knowledge which gives ANY evidence to suggest that it has NOTHING to do with humans?

No.

HM – I gave you some evidence before. It was a link to the original manuscript of a published paper. Or did you just conveniently forget that bit…

not proof as you could compare to mathematical proof, (1 + 1 = 2 etc.).

but there is a MASSIVE stack of supporting evidence, from MANY sources.

of all the scientific theories you could pick on for being built on shaky evidence, you're barking in the wrong forest with your crusade against the theory of AGCC.

my support for the theory could be shaken, i am not dogmatic. show me evidence and i will let it change me.

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

May I ask what possible benefit scientists, whose job it is to investigate the truth in how things work could gain by colluding on such a vast scale to try to convince the world's government and its inhabitants that climate change is real? (Other than if it is real, and they'd rather not screw over their kids)

HM – I gave you some evidence before. It was a link to the original manuscript of a published paper. Or did you just conveniently forget that bit…

You gave us a link to a review, not primary research. All Lindzen's ramblings in there are his THEORIES, not PROOF.

moron

zokes – mmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

May I ask what possible benefit scientists, whose job it is to investigate the truth in how things work could gain by colluding on such a vast scale to try to convince the world's government and its inhabitants that climate change is real?

Who do you think pays their wages?
How do you think they are funded?
What happens to that funding if they said climate change had nothing to do with humans?

but the people who still doubt are those outwith the credible scientific community.

its true that models offer a range of results, but all of them point to damages to the world, and all of them point to humans being the cause.

if there were ANY scientist creating proper papers which contradict anthro CC then the argument against would be slightly more credible.

hainey, there is a large amount of scientific gumpff on the ethics of science. this isn't a conspiracy made up by thousands of scientists/governments…

if a scientist could prove that there is no such thing as anthro CC they would make a HELL of a lot more money, because it saves a hell of a lot of people/counries/governments a hell of a lot more money.
but of course, noone can.

"can YO provide ANY credible, peer-reviewed evidence (paper titles, authors, journal please) which is available on google scholar, science direct or web of knowledge which gives ANY evidence to suggest that it has NOTHING to do with humans?"

No.

and there goes your argument.

bye bye

I have never debated that i can provide evidence, i have debated that you can't! There is a difference.

if a scientist could prove that there is no such thing as anthro CC they would make a HELL of a lot more money, because it saves a hell of a lot of people/counries/governments a hell of a lot more money.
but of course, noone can.

You HONESTLY believe that? You honestly believe that our government would be willing to give up on all the billions of pounds they collect each year in so called "green taxes" Wake up!!!

Its almost become a religion climate change, the non believers are labelled as heretics, shouted down from the hills, how dare they question the gospel according to Science Chapter 1. And the scarey thing is, that without proof, it really is like a religion.

what is the IPCC report and all the stuff in it if it is not evidence then?

Reading the list of names on this link and their background would suggest that the claim of there being no reputable scientists that question anthropogenic climate change is utter nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Yes Hungrymonkey, but you have to admit it looks very bad when some of the 'credible scientific community' have been shown to have conspired to falsify some of the data used and results.

It raises some serious questions as to the validity of the science, no?

JacksonPollock – Member
Yes Hungrymonkey, but you have to admit it looks very bad when some of the 'credible scientific community' have been shown to have conspired to falsify some of the data used and results.

It raises some serious questions as to the validity of the science, no?

No, not at all. After all, to raise even the slightest sceptism means you are as bad as a holocaust denier. Therein lies the problem. The "pro" lobby have effectively stifled any debate.

Y'all do realise that all you ever get to see of the IPCC report is the executive summary dont you… Not really much in there about the good stuff.

No, not at all. After all, to raise even the slightest sceptism means you are as bad as a holocaust denier. Therein lies the problem. The "pro" lobby have effectively stifled any debate.

Sad to say, but it does actually feel that way.

soops asked a very good point earlier,

he asked "what happened to the hole in the ozone layer?"

well, we spotted the problem, and we did something about it.

The problem is far from 'gone away' – but the ozone layer thing is a great example of humans listening to scientists, and taking inconvenient global action to save the planet.

same with acid rain, scientists told us about it, and we sorted it out.

we've done it before, we'll do it again. i'm on one of my SAD highs right now and i genuinely believe that we will fix this, and come out stronger (we'll be less wastefull, and more mindfull).

humans can do great things when they try, i'm choosing to have faith in us.

yeah man, those green taxes are evil! my car/road tax is now, like, er, really cheap thanks – cos my car's really efficient innit.

and i don't really care about the high price of diesel, cos, er my car doesn't use much.

and all those grants you can get to help insulate your home, it's just another way to tax us dude!

jason, as previously stated, any climateology from the dept that sent out those emails could be totally disregarded and it would make no difference to the CC argument, as there is so much other evidence.

hainey, i can't see quite how you can argue that there is no evidence supporting the argument than humans are having an efect!! there are literately thousands of papers on it! you are more than welcome to go and look for it, it is impecibly easy to find. and as junkyard said, the IPCC is some pretty strong evidence, regardless of what goan might say about it.

secondly, hainey, do YOU really belive that the whole CC thing could be a conspirocy?!
do you REALLY think that thousands of independant scientists, and quite a few governments that ARE GOING TO LOSE OUT BIG STYLE THANKS TO CLIMATE CHANGE (through env damage, land loss, productivity loss etc etc etc etc etc) could keep a little secret like 'its not true'?!
do you not think that there might be a slight leak at some point over the past 20-25 years of science!?

crikey…

right the gf is demanding we go out for a drink…

oh, and goan – you used to work in an industry which relied on everyone learning to drive… hardly unbiast yourself.

Goan – lets see a wiki-list of those scientists agreeing with current climate change theory then…

Serious question for those who believe that the current warming trend is unprecedented and as such must be down to anthropogenic causes.

Do you think that the manipulation and adjustment to which the raw temperature data has been subjected can be entirely underwritten with justifiable scientific reasoning for every monitoring station?

yea wot zulu said 🙂

I'm a fan of the urban heat island theory on why the temperature has changed so much recently.

Who pays their wages?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/recruitment/vacancies/001879.html

Starting at 25k – and top whack less than 37K for someone with a "Strong track record of peer-reviewed papers"

there's British Airways trolley dolleys earning more than that.

If you want to make money stay out of Climate Research

Goan

Urban heat islands…how do they affect temperature records over the sea then?

Goan – Premier Member

Y'all do realise that all you ever get to see of the IPCC report is the executive summary dont you… Not really much in there about the good stuff.

Horseshit

Here's the full Physical Science Basis

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

The Executive summary is a seperate document here

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

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). … Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.[42]

IPCC report – see how I use evidence to make my claims – have you though about trying that … adds more weight to your argument …[Mrs Doyle voice ah go on go on go on ou
Perhaps you could just read it and save me the time of posting it up paragaraph by paragraph.

Yes it is a factor but not exactly huge

The other urban heat island theory – the one where temperature measurements at weather stations are increasing because people are building houses etc closer and closer to them – that one.

Goan, Hainey – you're right, it's all a fuss over nothing.

James Watt, Brunel, Henry Ford….they all did lots of research, checked the satellites, and did the computer modelling hundreds of years ago. And they knew we can't possibly have an effect.

The other urban heat island theory – the one where temperature measurements at weather stations are increasing because people are building houses etc closer and closer to them – that one.

Just how many houses are there near the ECN site on Yr Wyddfa than?