Forum menu
So are you qualified to comment on climatology what is your background etc
Don't think anyone on here has The above background, Qualifications so end of thread!
this is a large peer review gold standard piece of research
Gold standard? Do you really want to stand by that statement?
[b]C'mon guys, really its time to call a truce.[/b] No one is going to convince the other on their point of view. JY believes passionately (it seems) in the quality of the IPCC, so it seems does TJ ("gold standard research"), Mol seems less concerned. LHS and I happen to believe differently, but surely time to put the debate to bed. Its not going anywhere.
LHS - if you are interested refer to the IPCC debate over their June 2011 publication on renewable energy. I can only conclude that this is a either a well meaning body that is merely naive in its PR or an organisation that willfully sets out to deceive and distort public opinion. Interestingly this year they achieved the latter resulting in the BBC and Guardian incorrectly reporting the conclusions inaccurately. [b]And this has been my gripe right from the start.[/b] I will accept that this wasn't Berkeley's fault this week, but with the IPCC I am less convinced. (Google Mark Lynas to see what he has to say about that). JY criticised me for pointing out "one minor error/mistake" but really the IPCC is an organisation that simply cant help itself. Cue Lady Bracknell....
I really promise that this is my last post on the subject. MTB is far more fun than wasting time on this forum. But from Mark Lynas:
Good science, like life, is nothing if not a learning process. This is especially the case in a contested and controversial scientific discipline like climate change. Early predictions are often wrong, as one should of course expect them to be. Sometimes they are wildly conservative; other times predictions later prove to have been too alarmist.
[b]That seems like an open invitation to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism/critical reasoning.[/b]
p.s. JY - feel free to have the final word!! 😉
Thanks 😀
All you say is generally correct its just your absence of any data to refute its central claim or to account for the effects of increased C02 that is the weakness in your attack/view.
Every scientific view and theory may be wrong but that fact does not prove any particular theory is wrong. You are some way short of this but I am happy to read any evidence you may have.....Ok lets not 😀
I think many people look for an excuse not to believe AGW because it'll mean they are partly culpable in something bad, and they will either have to make compromises or feel really guilty.