Is Goan's clear obsession with harping on about his quaint and misguided views on climate change a man made phenomenon or entirely fueled by natural causes?

Has some 'person' or group of 'experts' affected his thinking, or is it just a phase he'll grow out of without human intervention?

why does it always have to be black and white, where's the muddy grey?

In what way are they misguided?

yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn…………………………….

Can we repeal laws on particulate emmisions?

It worked in the 70's, why not today?

Go on then IDave – answer my question.

All cycles are natural (except those 29ers).

When 99.something prcent of peer reviewed research agrees, its failry likey that its right.

Go on then IDave – answer my question.

Go on then IDave – answer my question.

As he's dissapeered I'll answer on his behalf, ever since Regan comissioned a 3rd report into climate change for the US administration, by a man known to be as patriotic as they come and a firm supourter of the free market prinicples. Now seeing as the first report was by J.A.S.O.N and the second by climate speciaists, both agreeing that it was an anthropognic occourance, you'd have to question Regan's motives. Especialy when he went back and famously asked how long before it became an issue that could impact the USA (answer 40 years) he retorted "well come back to me in 39".

Now when youve got 3 comissioned reports all giving varying degrees of suppourt to anthropogenic climate change (yes it is, yes it is, yes it is but its slow and we will cope with it). You'd have to agree that Regan's viewpoint and subsequent skepticism is just a tad 'misguided'.

Don't have to agree with anything.

Now IDave – answer my question. I'll take your silence as being proof that you are a the thick cousin of neanderthal man.

Inever said you had to agree, I just said they'r probably right as they all seem to agree…………..

It's just attention seeking.

Goan / Smee: a man so stupid I'm surprised he can turn a computer on.

Let alone type.

To take a recent example – there were hundreds of thousands of bankers and politicians telling us that the financial state of the planet was all hunky dory – there were only a very limited number telling us that the planets financial system was about to shit its pants. Who turned out to be correct?

errrrrrrrrrrrr…………..

Thats not realy comparable,

Scientific method:
Think up a hypothesis (climate change is anthropogenic)
Gather evidence (ice cores, the last 35 years of atmspheric CO2 data, mean gobal temperatures sice istrumented recordings began)
Draw conclusions (hypothesis is correct)

Stock market:
Our companies doing great, please buy our shares

n.b. plenty of people farsaw the property bubble busting as no one could afford mortagages

Maybe if we listen to the analysts next time (possibly baout climate change?) we might avoid another diaster?

Why aren't they comparable? It is the perfect example of how the majority **** up now and again, when they stop listening to the minority.

A quote that I like

"There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action." Bertrand Russell.

Why aren't they comparable?

because as i just said, one is folowing the scientific method, the other was just the banks telling us everything was fine. The 'scientists' or economists in this case working in acedemia but largely following the same methods were saying it would all end it tears and lo and behold it did.

sorry everyone, i didn't mean to cause him to erupt again. it was a man made disaster of my making.

I'll take your silence as being proof that you are a the thick cousin of neanderthal man

You can take like that or, that I was out doing a bit of shopping. I'm not quite thick enough to cast pearls before swine though.

We'll just have to disagree on our definitions of comparable.

You're missing huge chunks out of your scientific method btw:

Define the question
Gather information and resources
Form hypothesis
Perform experiment and collect data
Analyze data
Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest.

Go on then IDave – answer my question. Or are you worried that I'll tear any response to shreds?

Or are you worried that I'll tear any response to shreds?

I don't think 'worry' is a term I'd personally have used.

Lots of people have suggested that your approach to 'science' ain't all that….

I'd like to see their theory put to the test.

Goan. I'm going to go out on a limb here…

You appear to be so incomprehensibly stupid that I reckon you must actually be quite clever. There's no way anyone could be that brain dead and still be alive.

Still a very poor troll though….

Oh, and i'm not quite sure which "huge" bits of scientific reasoning methodology you mean – the fillers you've put in are just that – fillers.

Lets try again:

Identify research area and chose hypothesis
Identify, and use methods that will effectively test said hypothesis
Collate data and analyse in the presence of other work
Conclude and identify areas of further work

Just how many papers have you published Goan?

If you aren't worried why not answer the question? Is it because you cant?

My approach to science is simple – question everything. I have been blessed with the ability to think – I like to get my moneys worth.

I have been blessed with the ability to think

Why don't you use it then?

And answer my question – as you're obviously a leading academic, just how many papers have you published?

Your approach to science does you credit, but your approach to posting on here does not.

Lately you pick subjects that are a matter for debate then proceed to argue without providing any attempt to support your view, instead you badger those with the temerity to disagree.

You are being a pain, basically.

Zokes – more than you. Many thousands – I used to work for an academic publisher. 😀 Academically I have been a named author on two.

Crikey – I never try to prove anything, I just question what others say. If they cant come up with a convincing argument whose fault is that?

Climate change theory is something that I am passionate about and spent a number of years studying. I hate to see poor science being used to convince people to take opinion as scientific fact.

Academically I have been a named author on two.

First or last, or just someone who out of pity was put in the middle to keep them quiet. Actually, you're not our useless and annoying lab technician are you?

Crikey – I never try to prove anything, I just question what others say. If they cant come up with a convincing argument whose fault is that?

Give over.

You do it to cause a bit of a row, and stoke the fires ever so often to keep it going.

The thing is, you are actually a bright fella, but you come across as a plonker because you constantly try to kick off arguments without the required knowledge or background reading to support which ever side you've chosen to take today.

'I never try to prove anything' …then grow a pair and argue properly or stop being a pain. Get some self respect, learn to argue like grown ups do, by chosing a side and providing evidence to back up your assumptions.

Well said Crikey

crikey – there is one person on the planet knows why i do things and it's not you.

In the climate change debate I have enough knowledge to know that a lot of what is written is not exactly rigorous. Why does questioning things and not trying to prove anything necessitate growing a pair? I have stated my case many times, it's just people like to make fools of themselves by jumping in with two feet and not reading my point of view.

To demonstrate this tell me what my views actually are on climate change – go for it.

Again with the diversionary tactics, with the confrontational approach. You are brighter than that, you are more intelligent than that, but most of all you need to stop protecting your ego.

I'm not much of a one for psychoanalysis, but you are very interesting to observe in action through the forum.

My tips…

Don't be afraid to describe a point of view and support it with evidence.

It's only a forum.

Use this place as a gentler version of real life; make your mistakes here…

See you cant do it because you haven't read a word of what i've written. How do you know if what I've written is crap or not if you haven't read it?

I read very little of what you write because it is usually trollish and under supported with evidence.

But you can change. I know you can….

Crickey is making far more sense than Goan here I would say.

But how do you know if it's trollish if you dont read it?

I'm not a vet, but I know what an elephant looks like..