[Closed] Global warming again...........

There never is LHS - however when the vast majority of climate scientists say one thing and the deniers are so lacking in rigour then its pretty easy to be 99% sure.

You seem pretty convinced about helmets with much less good data 😉

You seem pretty convinced about helmets with much less good data

I won't point out the irony in your statement! 😉

however when the vast majority

People used to think the earth was flat, the moon was made of cheese, the rain followed the plow and the earth was only 6000 years old.

I stated previously that I am not a climate sceptic (denier as the fools like to refer to it), however no matter how much you insist there is, there is no evidence to say that we are in nothing more than a peak in a natural cycle.

There is plenty of evidence - read the report referred to above for starters. The key bit IMO is the way the CO2 rise is leading the climate change when in natural cycles it lags.

If you don't want to believe its up to you but to say there is no evidence is frankly laughable

People used to think the earth was flat, the moon was made of cheese, the rain followed the plow and the earth was only 6000 years old.

If scientists could just prove 100% that burning huge hydrocarbon reserves over a couple hundred years has 0% effect on the climate, I could get myself a bloody car again!
The headwind today coming home...sheesh!

And to your point, there is no conclusive evidence available

No.. conclusive evidence is a luxury, however I personally am of the opinion that it is quite likely that AGR is a reality (hahah yes I know re the other thread of today).

however no matter how much you insist there is, there is no evidence to say that we are in nothing more than a peak in a natural cycle

Really? So how do you explain all the scientists saying that there is?

If you don't want to believe

I didn't realise it was a religion now? 😉

TJ, you have this 'belief' that helmets cause more accidents than without, you are entitled to your opinion.

To say something laughable is just a belittling (disappointing) statement, especially when you can't show me science that backs up that statement.

So how do you explain all the scientists saying that there is?

The same "robust" scientists made some pretty mind boggling, incorrect sweeping generalisations about glaciers, sea levels and quite a few other things.

TJ, you have this 'belief' that helmets cause more accidents than without, you are entitled to your opinion.

No I do not. I have never said that. 🙄

However its beside the point. Which is that you believe in the efficacy of helmets when the evidence is far from conclusive when on climate despite far stronger evidence that is far more conclusive you won't believe the conclusion.

That is not a rational position.

Evidence - lots been posted on this thread. Here is a link to teh gold standard
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

on climate despite far stronger evidence that is far more conclusive

That is where I will strongly disagree with you.

And LHS - there in a nutshell is your argument. Rubbish anyone who disagrees with you with a gross distortion of their position, ignore any evidence and data that does not agree with your position.

The same "robust" scientists made some pretty mind boggling, incorrect sweeping generalisations about glaciers, sea levels and quite a few other things.

What, all of them? How many scientists are we talking about here? The IPCC ones, or the others?

You do realise scientists are not one cohesive small group, don't you? Maybe this is why you are confused with all the different things being said?

And [s]LHS[/s] TJ - there in a nutshell is your argument. Rubbish anyone who disagrees with you with a gross distortion of their position, ignore any evidence and data that does not agree with your position

Fixed it for you.

Seriously though, if you ask for evidence, you point me to a website full of papers. Why can't you show me a single piece of information which categorically shows me that i'm wrong?

What, all of them?

No

The IPCC ones

Yes

You do realise scientists are not one cohesive small group

Yes

Maybe this is why you are confused with all the different things being said?

No confusion here.

Next belittling statement to try and strengthen your position?

The most popular are Denier and Daily mail reader.

Why can't you show me a single piece of information which categorically shows me that i'm wrong?

Cos there isn't any. However there's quite a bit of evidence that suggests likelihood.

If you only ever want categorical proof before acting then you are...well... daft.

Daft

I can re-phrase that if you like. Dismissing anything that is not categorical is daft.

Tell me why you're not daft..?

Are you saying that evidence has to amount to categorical proof before it can be important?

I know what your response will be to this statement, but I genuinely don't have the energy or see the point in discussing any further. We will never agree so best to leave it there.

You can add one final post if you like calling me a name, i'll even provide a space below for you

insert comment here___________________________

I didn't call you a name, I described your actions. I'd like to hear you describe mine, because I still don't understand your point of view.

there is no evidence to say that we are in nothing more than a peak in a natural cycle.

I dont see how you can debate that point tbh. You may debate the effects but I dont see how you can describe the current reliance on oil and subsequent release of stored carbon as a natural cycle - it is obviously man made. Given cause and effect and the natural cycle is still there we must be affecting it- how much and what are the consequences are the appropriate questions.

The same "robust" scientists made some pretty mind boggling, incorrect sweeping generalisations about glaciers, sea levels and quite a few other things.

Himalayan glaciers: In a regional chapter on Asia in Volume 2, written by authors from the region, it was erroneously stated that 80% of Himalayan glacier area would very likely be gone by 2035. This is of course not the proper IPCC projection of future glacier decline, which is found in Volume 1 of the report. There we find a 45-page, perfectly valid chapter on glaciers, snow and ice (Chapter 4), with the authors including leading glacier experts (such as our colleague Georg Kaser from Austria, who first discovered the Himalaya error in the WG2 report). There are also several pages on future glacier decline in Chapter 10 (“Global Climate Projections”), where the proper projections are used e.g. to estimate future sea level rise. So the problem here is not that the IPCC’s glacier experts made an incorrect prediction. The problem is that a WG2 chapter, instead of relying on the proper IPCC projections from their WG1 colleagues, cited an unreliable outside source in one place. Fixing this error involves deleting two sentences on page 493 of the WG2 report.

Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error.

From the IPCC: "Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas" ...Ok I was going for a bit of selective editing there (!!) because we then get.."carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one".

There is positive feedback with both gases:

IPCC again: "as the atmosphere warms due to rising levels of greenhouse gases, its concentration of water vapour increases, further intensifying the greenhouse effect. This in turn causes more warming, which causes an additional increase in water vapour, in a self-reinforcing cycle."

and interestingly....

"This water vapour feedback may be strong enough to approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone."

All of which is entirely consistent with what I said. So what's your point?

Too selective. Too be fair you would need to argue, "if there were no greenhouse effect, it would be too cold for life to exist on earth."

Next!

Blimey JY - you are being harsh on raising the benchmarks on a mtb forum.

THM it is pretty pointless you taking little extracts from the IPCC report when their conclusion is pretty clear about what they think is the cause of the current warming and the role of man made C02 in it.
I assume you are not suggesting that they dont think the cause is AGW so why use selected extracts to "prove your point" or counter its own conclusions.

On the previous page you (1) imply that I haven't read the IPCC and (2) that is refutes my point about the relative importance of water vapour vs CO2. All I did was the quote the IPCC conclusions on this point. The post was already far too long, so excuse me for not taking it too more rigorous levels.

Ransos - the point is that you choose the emphasis CO2 in isolation. The IPCC doesn't do that. It acknowledges that water vapour is more important and explains the interaction of them both and the positive feedback involving them. So I was simply correcting you misplaced emphasis to incorporate both in exactly the same way as the IPCC does. Whereas deliberately or not you cleverly chose to highlight one part of it - CO2.

[i]*pops head in*[/i]

Damn, I see this thread has dissolved into flaming and name calling. Shame we had a fairly interesting discussion going on there for a bit.

I'll leave you to it.

[i]*leaves*[/i]

Yep, as I thought!

Armchair climatologists abound!

So, can someone then quickly post up the cure for leukaemia or tell us about where mass comes from, since we have such geniuses around? After all all those scientists researching these subjects every day seem to have missed an awful lot of stuff. I'd remove their PhD's and Nobel Prizes, bunch of idiots.

And don't get me started on Louis Pasteur! Bacteria? What a load of cack! Did he take into account the locality of cheese when he came up with that load of rubbish! We should ban all of these so-called "antibiotics" and replace them with very small mice!

So, can someone then quickly post up the cure for leukaemia or tell us about where mass comes from, since we have such geniuses around?

Well, of course not, as the human body is a [i]really[/i] complex system, and we don't really understand all the systems within it, o how they work... similar with the universe... fortunately, the global ecosytem is really really simple, so we know all about it 😉

you are being harsh on raising the benchmarks on a mtb forum.

I never refuted water
I said it was possible that the non main driver can have an effect and gave an example. Again no one disputes that water is a factor but the IPCC report you cite concludes that warming is highly likely due to AGW whatever it says about water. Unless you want to agree with its whole conclusion it is not actually supportive of your view unless you agree with AGW or you selectively cite it.
I think Graham is correct so I shall leave it now ....must resist.

JY - I missed the smiley. It was meant as a joke (the benchmark thing)

Time to leave this thread now - as there is little room for further debate. I'm afraid that any slight knowledge of the IPCC would lead any normal person to adopt a healthy degree of scepticism. But the post I like today most is AdamW's for being so (unintentionally) spot on:

[b]Armchair climatologists abound![/b]

How true you are Adam. Thank you!

"The IPCC had reported, as highly probably, that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt, due to global warming, by the year 2035. Expert glaciologists said the claims were total rubbish. But the IPCC was refusing to back down....

...The head of the IPCC, [b]who has no degrees in the fields over which he presides[/b], launched some very public attacks on people who actually are experts on glaciers...

...the IPCC “expert reviewer” responsible, Murari Lal, cited several sources for this startling claim—not a one of them considered a legitimate scientific source...

...Lal is trying to excuse his bogus claims, published by the IPCC as fact. He says: “[b]I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. [/b]The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about.” So, Lal admits he published this extreme claim about glaciers on nothing more than the hearsay report from a political lobbying group like the World Wildlife Fund. There was no attempt to verify the claim, there was no scientific data investigated, no peer reviewed reports read. It was published simply because one IPCC office “assumed” it must be right. Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC."

Good night!!

Ransos - the point is that you choose the emphasis CO2 in isolation. The IPCC doesn't do that. It acknowledges that water vapour is more important and explains the interaction of them both and the positive feedback involving them. So I was simply correcting you misplaced emphasis to incorporate both in exactly the same way as the IPCC does. Whereas deliberately or not you cleverly chose to highlight one part of it - CO2.

Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC."
Good night!!

You are placing hugely disproportionate weight to one minor error/mistake
I am going to claim we are in global boom times based solely on China.
I am quite surprised you would go down this road tbh.

Who gets the last word 😉

Why that assumption? Because skepticism is discouraged by the IPCC."
Good night!!

What terrible selective quoting? That is really poor even by your standards! 😯

I note you don’t mention the previous quote I gave or the section of the IPCC report that covers glaciers in details rather than this regional section. I note that you fail to mention that it was an IPCC contributor who first noted this and commented.

Is that the same report written by a new intern graduate without his masters degree yet? 🙄

Is that the same report written by a new intern graduate without his masters degree yet?

What's that got to do with anything?

3 zombies and counting!

What terrible selective quoting? That is really poor even by your standards

Was it really terrible to quote their conclusion and then refute it? Odd reasoning or are you just doing digs now?

Is that the same report written by a new intern graduate without his masters degree yet?

so what you are saying is you cannot attack the science so you will attack the person

Nice try, but answer the question, do you think the author of a report should be:

a) A graduate intern with no masters / PHD / credibility within their field or

b) The opposite!

I have answered [they should be correct in what they report], the fact you dont like the answer is not my concern.
As i said you cannot attack the science so you attack the person.
Ps following your logic as you are not a graduate in the field I assume I can give even less weight to what you say than what they said then - see it not agreat point you are making is it.

Defeat the science not the person.
play the ball no the person
etc

see it not a great point [s]you[/s] you are making

FTFY kinda

You are side-stepping the question, a report from the supposed robust experts in their fields which is concerned with the complex climatic interactions of our planet which is influencing political policy for many nations around the world was authored by a trainee!

How is that robust?

I am side steeping ok fine then

It would be better if everything had been written by a noble prize winner but the main issue is whether what they said was right not whether they had completed a PhD.
1.Can we just ignore the criticism of anyone not qualified in the field as it does remove most [99% minimum]of objectors or is their lack of knowledge ok

2.Are you happy now your own argument means you no have to stop talking as I can just point out you lack of qualifications

3.The central issue is whether what they said [ peer reviewed and doubtlessly approved/signed off by a number of people with a PhD] is true
Do you wish to refute any of these three points?

its all said show because you cannot attack what they said. That is obvious hence why you just labour this point.

I would say that the credentials of the report's author in the field of climatology are not important. I'm sure he or she did not dream it all up a few hours before the deadline. I would hope that the report grew out of a process of collaboration (of respected scientists) and the intern simply typed it all out.

You'd have to have some pretty good evidence that the qualifications of the author directly influenced the content.

In other words, don't shoot the messenger.

not least when they know more than you and are better qualified yet you want to discount what they said based on lack of qualification ...surely you see the irony/contradiction in your position.

I would say that the credentials of the report's author in the field of climatology are not important

😯

If you were waiting for a heart bypass operation and an insurance salesman came up to you and introduced himself as the person performing your operation, would you be slightly concerned?

Yes, but this isn't anything like the same.

If I told you to write down that Rule Studio and Team Sever call the extractable property handler in different ways, could you do that?

If I told you to write down that Rule Studio and Team Sever call the extractable property handler in different ways, could you do that?

Relevance?

Reduce the planes in the sky and i might take it serious

It doesn't matter who wrote it - what matters is what the content is and who the contributors / analysts of the data are.

I am so looking forward to quoting all this back at you. 😈

this is a large peer review gold standard piece of research and you deny its conclusions not because you can find any fault with them, not because you have any data that is counter to it but because you think the minion who did the data entry is underqualified.

who is avoiding the issue now LHS ???

So are you qualified to comment on climatology what is your background etc - that argument works against anything you say and that is why you are not answering.
Its a poor point that you are still labouring , if we apply it to this thread it means we can ignore all you have said on this issue and everyone else as well obviously.

who is avoiding the issue now LHS ???

Answering a question with a question - good work, still side stepping as usual!

So are you qualified to comment on climatology what is your background etc - that argument works against anything you say and that is why you are not answering.

I have a background in science/engineering/statistical analysis. I don't need to strut around an internet forum stating my qualifications to have an opinion. What qualifications do you hold to tell me I am wrong?

Its a poor point that you are still labouring , if we apply it to this thread it means we can ignore all you have said on this issue and everyone else as well obviously

You can ignore what you want, it doesn't concern me. I have seen nothing on this thread which tell me anything different from what I have seen before, just blind faith.