Forum menu
I quite like this article.
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 [i]rate[/i] 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...
here is a more technical version if you want
and here is a link so that you can access the full report
worth pointing out that it is coming up to 3 years old though, and is therefore relatively out of date...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 [i]think[/i] 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 [i]think[/i] that there may be [i]something[/i] 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?
by that standard everything we know is unproven and of equal weight is that what you really think?you have provided me to a link of theories, none of which are proven
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.
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
tube
[img] 
[/img]
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 [s]taxed[/s] the basis of a low carbon economy sollyoooshun.
[img] 
[/img]
here is another nice one of me. and below, another nice tube picture
[img] 
[/img]
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!
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 [b]PROOF[/b] 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 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.