MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
And what do you do with all the money you save? Give it to the starving? Plant forests? Or just spend it on other resource hungry commodities?
You may as well spend all your money on oil and set fire to it.
And breathe....
Do you feel better after that rant?
climate sceptics' biggest problem is that dellingpole has emerged as their spokesperson
Climate sceptics ? really ? a Skeptic is someone who challenges his opponents to provide evidence for their beliefs and insist that all claims be supported by high quality evidence. Delingpole is a denialist, he refutes the truth because it's against his ideology.
And breathe....Do you feel better after that rant?
Rant? 😆
And what do you do with all the money you save? Give it to the starving?
I'm sure there must be a proper term for this logical fallacy.
"Hey you haven't martyred your entire existence to making things better, so you're just as bad as someone who travels everywhere in a helicopter with ivory controls and snow leopard upholstery, dropping napalm on baby seals."
And what do you do with all the money you save? Give it to the starving? Plant forests? Or just spend it on other resource hungry commodities?
You may as well spend all your money on oil and set fire to it.
What are you on about? I'm fairly happy that we are able to be energy and resource efficient. What I currently do with the money we save is not earn it.
Of course he later changed his mind as per his wiki entry.
Is that a bad thing?
What are you on about? I'm fairly happy that we are able to be energy and resource efficient. What I currently do with the money we save is not earn it.
That's fair enough.
My point, for GrahamS, is that it doesn't matter how you spend your money in a carbon economy, it all ends up as using the same resources.
Turning your heating down and buying titanium toys with the money you saved (or anything else) doesn't save the world.
Of course, but whilst many people do that, not everyone does.
You make a good point though. I wonder if buying flights to the US for my family is more or less damaging than spending £2.5k on manufactured goods...? Hmm.
What I currently do with the money we save is not earn it.
My mantra for life 🙂 and the reason sustainability is unpopular.
My point, for GrahamS, is that it doesn't matter how you spend your money in a carbon economy, it all ends up as using the same resources.
Okay but I don't believe that is [i]necessarily[/i] true. Money saved in energy (e.g. by using the car less, choosing a more fuel efficient model, insulating your house, etc) can be used for things that are [i]less[/i] carbon intensive; things that aren't carbon related (like paying off the mortgage, saving for your child's education) or even used in saving further energy (like paying for solar panels, wind turbines, more efficient appliances, insulation, or paying a little extra for a "green" energy provider)
I could have a go at calling all of your examples just more carbon, but the mortgage one is the fattest target.
What do you think happens to the money you give to the bank for your mortgage? They magic up 10x as much and then that's used to buy more carbon.
What do you think happens to the money you give to the bank for your mortgage? They magic up 10x as much and then that's used to buy more carbon.
Great, so you agree that by putting my money towards paying off the mortgage early I'm denying the bank that cash and therefore saving a load more carbon?
Excellent news 😀
Great, so you agree that by putting my money towards paying off the mortgage early I'm denying the bank that cash and therefore saving a load more carbon?
It just means they can magic up more money quicker. Anything you do that moves money around generates carbon.
Stop earning. Stop spending and most importantly, stop breeding.
Or just stop worrying...
Rant?
Well, it was hardly a reasoned argument, was it?
In case you hadn't noticed, polar arguments full of hyperbole rarely result in constructive debate, as TJ used to demonstrate with predictable regularity.
Or just stop worrying...
Or, everyone does what they can, and the world becomes a slightly better place...
It just means they can magic up more money quicker. Anything you do that moves money around generates carbon.Stop earning. Stop spending and most importantly, stop breeding.
Or just stop worrying...
This can be applied to any type of situation, not just interpersonal relationships.
Splitting (also called all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring together both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It is a common defense mechanism used by many people.[1] The individual tends to think in extremes (i.e., an individual's actions and motivations are all good or all bad with no middle ground.)The concept of splitting was developed by Ronald Fairbairn in his formulation of object relations theory;[2] it begins as the inability of the infant to combine the fulfilling aspects of the parents (the good object) and their unresponsive aspects (the unsatisfying object) into the same individuals, but sees the good and bad as separate. In psychoanalytic theory this functions as a defense mechanism.[3] It is a relatively common defense mechanism for people with borderline personality disorder in DSM-IV-TR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29
Or, everyone does what they can, and the world becomes a slightly better place...
But they're not. They're just fooling themselves.
I believe you have some form there as well Mr Zokes 😉
That one as well is a mini rant that would have provoked an argument
TBH most of could make our points in a nicer way as you so ably demonstrated 😛
But they're not. They're just fooling themselves.
Nahh don't buy it, you're another one suffering from an impairment. This time from a cognitive distortion as opposed to possible psychopathy.
But they're not. They're just fooling themselves.
The only person being fooled here is you,...
There are many options between doing nothing and regressing to a caveman. Most would be preferable for the environment than doing nothing.
The trouble with arguing in absolutes is it leaves you very little wriggle room to defend your stance.
> "I'm denying the bank that cash and therefore saving a load more carbon?"It just means they can magic up more money quicker. Anything you do that moves money around generates carbon.
So when you give banks less money they actually make [i]more[/i] money? Wow I'm in the wrong job. On the bright side I think you've solved the global banking crisis. 😀
Sorry your argument just isn't credible. It's based on trying to spot a hypocrisy that doesn't exist. I don't expect to make myself carbon-neutral by a few simple life choices. My aim is simply to do a bit less harm, not eliminate harm entirely and survive in a cave living on free fallen fruit.
So, if I get this thread right -
anyone who talks about the climate is a loony
buying a pair of bombers will kill polar bears
saving money in the bank is as eco-friendly as digging up a coral reef using a spade made from lonesome george's shell
So, if I get this thread right -anyone who talks about the climate is a loony
buying a pair of bombers will kill polar bears
saving money in the bank is as eco-friendly as digging up a coral reef using a spade made from lonesome george's shell
A beautiful summary of green issues and the carbon economy.
A beautiful summary of green issues and the carbon economy.
But only if you're a class one nincompoop.
I really appreciated what the article was saying about it being time that the deniers hold a conference and 'set out their scientific stall', that really helped to clarify things for me, but I felt that it was on shakier ground when talking about the characteristics of the 'conservative mind'. Not sure if making sweeping generalisations helps the author's arguement at all tbh.
It's the Guardian, firstly it's never going to be read by conservatives and secondly to get published in the (Champagne) Socialist Workers paper you have to bash some tories!
Haha!
On a side note it looks like Ed Miliband has been prodding an index finger at what seems to me, as far as the media coverage of the floods is concerned, to be the elephant in the room
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/15/ed-miliband-stark-warning-climate-change ]Link[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
reassuring....
climate change is now an issue of national security that has the potential not only to destabilise and cause conflict between regions of the world, but to destroy the homes, livelihoods and businesses of millions of British people.
No shit, sherlock...
Seems like the two major parties are in a rare moment of agreement
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26213919 ]Link[/url]
It's a relief to know that we have now pinned movements in the jet stream to AGW. We can stop all the unnecessary spending on research now and spend it solely on the resolution - the case is that clear cut. Brilliant.
But climate scientists says floods not caused by global warming.
Mat Collins, a Professor in climate systems at Exeter University, said the storms have been driven by the jet stream – the high-speed current of air that girdles the globe – which has been ‘stuck’ further south than usual.Professor Collins told The Mail on Sunday: ‘There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge.’
That's a pity, looked like it was all wrapped up for a moment. Still it was reported in the wail.
It makes more sense than listening to Lord lawson or delingpole [ spell]
I agree we cannot be certain what weather [ intentional use]] events are weather and what are climate[ intentional use] change related events
It does seem increasingly clear though that we are getting more variety in weather patterns and more extreme events. It might just be bad luck but it may also be the beginning of clear signs of AGW
only time will tell - problem is by the time we are certain we wont be able to act.
It does seem increasingly clear though that we are getting more variety in weather patterns and more extreme events
Not to me it doesn't. Anecdotally the biggest UK storms I can remember are the 1987 Michael Fish one and the 1968 Glasgow hurricane that killed 20 people. I remember that one. trees down everywhere in my local area.
The 1968 Scotland storm (or Hurricane Low Q)[1][2] was a deadly storm that moved through the Central Belt of Scotland during mid January 1968. It was described as Central Scotland's worst natural disaster since records began and the worst gale in the United Kingdom.[2][3][6] Some said that the damage resembled what happened during the Clydebank Blitz in 1941.[4] 20 people died from the storm, with 9 dead in Glasgow.[7] 700 people were left homeless.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Scotland_storm
People have short memories for weather.
http://euanmearns.com/so-foul-a-day-and-the-jet-stream/#more-2099
Hang on a minute- is that the [i]American government[/i] saying that it's time to do something?!
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26214135 ]Well, yes[/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26214135 ]it appears it is[/url]
John Kerry and Milliband in agreement. Now there's a good reason to head rapidly in the other direction.
John Kerry and Milliband in agreement. Now there's a good reason to head rapidly in the other direction.
Why?
"We just don't have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation," he said."I'm talking about big companies that like it the way it is, that don't want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.
"We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists... and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact.
"The science is unequivocal and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand."
[/url]
The man speaks a lot of sense... Unless you're one of the ideologues he's on about?
There is no sensible debate on climate change. The debate should be on what we are going to do about it, and how much it might influence feedback effects from terrestrial and marine sources and sinks.
And IRC, to help with your short memory, the industrial revolution started in 1760. 1968 and 1987 are some time after we started releasing fossil-CO2 into the atmosphere. Hope that clears things up for you.
Yep, the way I see it if the US government is starting to talk about not letting the large corporations get in the way of pushing forward with environmental issues then its probably time to start breaking out the man nappies.
There is no sensible debate on climate change.
That's a bit harsh. Our understanding is starting to get better these days. We'll even understand the oceans one day.
There is no sensible debate on climate change.
Not really, there is a huge amount of credible, peer reviewed and accepted science on one side, the other side seems to still use maps that have sea monsters on it and would probable not go on a round the world cruise for fear of falling off the edge.
You went to see 100 doctors about a very nasty cough you had. 98 of them said 'lung cancer - we need to treat you' and 2 of them said 'nasty cough - just chew this gum and ignore it because it might not be cancer', what would you do?
I don't see how anyone can object to reducing pollution and trying not to burn up everything we can in our own lifetimes. I don't see how 'reducing the damage humans do' would be a bad thing no matter what the motivation.
That's a bit harsh.
Harsh, but true. See the medical science analogy above.
I don't see how anyone can object to reducing pollution and trying not to burn up everything we can in our own lifetimes. I don't see how 'reducing the damage humans do' would be a bad thing no matter what the motivation.
Now [i]that[/i] I have no argument with. Good point, well made.
zokes - MemberHarsh, but true. See the medical science analogy above.
That analogy rather falls down in that is relatively easy to directly observe cancer in the lab. The climate of the Earth is vastly complex and the timescales upon which it operates are enormous.
There is nothing wrong with taking a view on the balance of probabilities and saying 'yes the likelihood is that mankind is affecting the climate let's look at what we can do to reduce the impact'. Our confidence in the theories strengthening as time goes on.
However that does not mean that this should be a closed book- already decided and set in stone. And anyone who questions anything related to it derided as a 'denier'.
Very true Retro83 but we also need to be careful when we differentiate between Climate Scientists, Scientists and people making comments and speculation.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
Source http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
There are a large number on the "denial" side that are not working in the climate area. The point raised earlier is a very valid one - if you don't agree with the theory do some research and come up with a credible alternative. Shouting it's not happening is not a valid counter argument.
We are the only living thing in this planet that destroys our own habitat... I am beginning to think we do not come from this planet afterall 🙁
You went to see 100 doctors about a very nasty cough you had. 98 of them said 'lung cancer - we need to treat you' and 2 of them said 'nasty cough - just chew this gum and ignore it because it might not be cancer', what would you do?
speaking from personal experience I got packed off to a consultant who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn't lung cancer. With climate science there isn't a definitive test
I don't see how anyone can object to reducing pollution and trying not to burn up everything we can in our own lifetimes. I don't see how 'reducing the damage humans do' would be a bad thing no matter what the motivation.
whilst I am a cynic I actually have quite strong views that chucking lots of nasties into the environment (air or water) is actually quite stupid. But pollution and long term public health issues aren't sexy, climate science is and it attracts lots of valuable grants hence the current science fashion
Not really, there is a huge amount of credible, peer reviewed and accepted science on one side, the other side seems to still use maps that have sea monsters on it and would probable not go on a round the world cruise for fear of falling off the edge
what was Charles Darwin's experience when he published [b]On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [/b] ❓
this is further reinforced in regard to climate science) when scrutinised:
http://order-order.com/2014/02/11/sketch-peter-lilley-v-tim-yeo/#more-160667
You mean when Darwin published a theory based on a large amount of information he had collected and put it up against the idea that the world was created in 7 days and everything no is as it was at the beginning of time?
I got packed off to a consultant who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn't lung cancer. With climate science there isn't a definitive test
I love the idea of fairly definitive testing, still yes/no/maybe then 😉
I love the idea of fairly definitive testing, still yes/no/maybe then
best you will ever get from a Dr 😉
speaking from personal experience I got packed off to a consultant who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn't lung cancer. With climate science there isn't a definitive test
It's a 'fairly definitive test' because there is scientific consensus that the majority of the time it gives the correct diagnosis. Pretty much like there is scientific consensus that climate change is strongly influenced by anthropogenic emissions, which is a 'fairly definitive conclusion'.
FFS. Stop the planet, I want to get off.
Yep, the way I see it if the US government is starting to talk about not letting the large corporations get in the way of pushing forward with environmental issues then its probably time to start breaking out the man nappies
I'll be keeping my diapers dry until they actually DO something. They're good at talking - closing Guantanamo Bay, cleaning up Wall Street, making peace in the Middle East; meantime they're looking the other way on Gitmo, employing Goldman Sachs alumni as economic advisers, and sucking Netayahu's cock.
And, if you're happy to be a 'denier', [url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/17/tony-abbott-dismisses-link-between-drought-and-climate-change ]you're placing yourself in the same category as the Prime Moron of Australia, whose intellectual ability wouldn't worry an amoeba...[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn't lung cancer. With climate science there isn't a definitive test
Nor is there for Alzehemiers until post mortem....I assume you think we should stop diagnosing it then and ignore the fact that all the symptoms match and just stick to our guns that their is no definitive test
that is relatively easy to directly observe cancer in the lab
Indeed and it is realtively easy to observe AGW as the data shows
Your right we cannot predict every single event or what will happen exactly. Then again we cannot with cancer. if 100 million folk start smoking we will have more cancer. i cannot tell you who, where, when, how it clusters, when they die etc. Apparently this means there is no definitive proof it causes cancer
the point is no other area of science has this very high set bar where if we cannot give complete information then we must assume it is not true.
Lots of things in life dont have this we are 100% sure it cannot be anything else - FFS even gravity may be magic fairies.
However you cannot just deny you must explain what is happening with the additional stored energy cause dby the greenhouse effect and explain why this additional input of energy does not lead to warming
There is nothing credible here as a counter explanation that matches the know science or the observation hence they just deny and shrug - the fact they are a long way from experts on the subject further diminishes this dreadfully weak starting point..
Indeed and it is realtively easy to observe AGW as the data shows
The problem is that some of the data doesn't match the script, hence the exchange in the select committee
The question should always be "cui bono " which should apply to both sides of the discussion
Junkyard - lazarus
Nor is there for Alzehemiers until post mortem....I assume you think we should stop diagnosing it then and ignore the fact that all the symptoms match and just stick to our guns that their is no definitive test
The symptoms present readily and are relatively easily tested for. Modelling the climate of a planet is orders of magnitude more complex, if even possible at all. Alzheimer's disease has also had over 100 years of study.
Indeed and it is realtively easy to observe AGW as the data shows
No, that's the point. It isn't. We are looking at the output of a very complex system which we do not fully understand and of which man's contribution is but one of the inputs. Look at how accurate the models are. Hint: [url= 
]Not 100% accurate.[/url]
the point is no other area of science has this very high set bar where if we cannot give complete information then we must assume it is not true.
Yes it does, bio-science/medicine springs immediately to mind, materials engineering, some areas of computer science. Many more, I'm sure.
Who is to say that the current obsession with co2 is not diverting attention from other more critical issues. NOx, methane, water vapour etc. NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.
As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.
I've missed a couple of pages, so apologies if this has already been posted.
I suppose the (poor) analogy is that one of the reasons you get your car serviced each year is to stop things catastrophically falling off at speed on the motorway, or when you're driving in a built up area. It might not happen, but it's nice to be prepared if it does, eh.
Alzheimer's disease has also had over 100 years of study.
So has climate science.
As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.
That's fine. But the questions should be intelligent, well thought out, and backed by evidence. As was said in one of the Guardian articles linked above, if there really is a strong scientific basis that is a credible counterpoint to current theory, then lets hear it. Let's have a conference or a summit to communicate these important data and their implications. You'd have thought with all the oil money the denier camp has they'd be able to organise something suitable, surely? Get it published in [i]Nature[/i] or [i]Science[/i], with press releases communicating these new exciting data in a form the general public can understand. We could have documentaries, perhaps even a film!
Oh? That is unless they don't have a credible argument to discuss, of course...
The question should always be "cui bono " which should apply to both sides of the discussion
No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world's qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity. On the other side of the argument there are a few qualified skeptics, often funded by fossil fuel companies, and a whole lot of loud denialists funded by big business to obfuscate and make it appear like it's a 50-50 discussion.
As for who benefits? We clean up our act: some rich people become poorer, we stop destroying the planet, a lot fewer people die, and our children and grandchildren might have somewhere worth living. Or, we carry on BAU: A few rich people get richer, the rest of us get poorer, and the most vulnerable die from starvation and disease as a result of failed harvests, whilst hundreds of millions of people become homeless due to inundation.
Unless you're one of the rich few (who could easily make money from renewable energy if they had the gumption), nobody benefits from carrying on as we are.
Cui bono is quite easy to demonstrate here.
Yes it does, bio-science/medicine springs immediately to mind, materials engineering, some areas of computer science. Many more, I'm sure.
This is so incredibly not true. There is only one 'science' that can be 100% proven and that is mathematics, because it is pure abstract.
That's fine. But the questions should be intelligent, well thought out, and backed by evidence. As was said in one of the Guardian articles linked above, if there really is a strong scientific basis that is a credible counterpoint to current theory, then lets hear it. Let's have a conference or a summit to communicate these important data and their implications. You'd have thought with all the oil money the denier camp has they'd be able to organise something suitable, surely? Get it published in Nature or Science, with press releases communicating these new exciting data in a form the general public can understand. We could have documentaries, perhaps even a film!Oh? That is unless they don't have a credible argument to discuss, of course...
I read this in Stewies voice....
Yes it does, bio-science/medicine springs immediately to mind, materials engineering, some areas of computer science. Many more, I'm sure.
i can assure you that there's loads still to learn about the world of 'materials engineering'.
and bio-science...
etc.
we know our computer models of 'residual stress in forged components' are far from perfect.
but they're good enough to build a jet engine that doesn't explode on take off.
(imperfect/incomplete science is in use all around us)
AdamW - Member
This is so incredibly not true. There is only one 'science' that can be 100% proven and that is mathematics, because it is pure abstract.
ahwiles - Memberi can assure you that there's loads still to learn about the world of 'materials engineering'.
and bio-science...
etc.
we know our computer models of 'residual stress in forged components' are far from perfect.
but they're good enough to build a jet engine that doesn't explode on take off.
(imperfect/incomplete science is in use all around us)
I obviously didn't explain my point very well though because your counter examples illustrate what I meant.
We can say with close to reasonable certainty that used within these parameters, this material will take loadings A,B & C and not fail. In drug creation, we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.
What we don't do is say, here you go, I've made a model of this compound and it looks okay. Chug this down your neck and let's hope it doesn't paralyse you or cause birth defects in your child.
We absolutely cannot do this at the moment with the climate, it is far too complex to model accurately. I'm not saying that this means we should not try though. It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.
zokes - Member
No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world's qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity. On the other side of the argument there are a few qualified skeptics, often funded by fossil fuel companies, and a whole lot of loud denialists funded by big business to obfuscate and make it appear like it's a 50-50 discussion.
I assume you mean MMGW as opposed to climate change, but in any case the consensus doesn't matter in a way. The consensus was the Aether theory was correct before Einstein came along. Just because a lot of people stand behind it, does not make it certain, and this is why we must remain open but skeptical.
We are looking at the output of a very complex system which we do not fully understand
As opposed to the human brain which we understand in every single detail?
We dont fully understand the human brain either
. Look at how accurate the models are. Hint: Not 100% accurate.
the point was on observe and you mention how we cannot predict 🙄
this is the level of debate with deniers
If 100 million people start smoking I cannot accurately model who gets cancer, where they cluster, when they get it so therefore I can safely assume smoking does not cause cancer
Who is to say that the current obsession with co2 is not diverting attention from other more critical issues. NOx, methane, water vapour etc. NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.
If only the IPCC had thought to look at these issues and say write about them.
As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.
No one says it is as you paint it [ all scientists will be swayed by evidence and date its only the journos/polemics who think and speak like this]but if you wish to counter it it is not unreasonable to ask for
1. Theoretical explanation of why increade C02 and forcing does not lead to a temperature increase
2. that this observation [ and temp is rising] matches observed data and makes predictions
We have neither not even close just a denial without an explanation
we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.
Sometimes despite all this the real human trial results in actual real side effects we neither predicted not knew. Occasionally these are fatal occasionally just birth defects like thalidomide. Its not the perfect ly well understood science you claim it to be and again clearly the human body is an very complicated thing that no one fully understands - would you really like to claim otherwise?
If you must use this "principle" apply it equally to all areas but you will have to dump lots of areas of knowledge by setting the bar this high including areas you keep citing as examples of it.
It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.
We always remain open to this - have you any evidence top support it ? Ps remember to remain open about the areas you are using to defend this view as this statement is just as true when applied to them.
Again true and true of all science but this fact does not make it wrongJust because a lot of people stand behind it, does not make it certain,
In an evidence based discussion of science if all you can do is make weak philosophical points about the limits of science /and/or a consensus* and you cannot cite any evidence its probably because you are wrong and you have no data to support an alternative view..Almost all areas of science has a consensus, evolution, gravity, maths , cancer and smoking....should we distrust all of these or just the one you dont like
* Only in this debate is everyone agrees with you used as some sort of weakness. No one doe sit over cancer, or gravity , or momentum etc because it would be stupid
What we don't do is say, here you go, I've made a model of this compound and it looks okay
Is that what you think they do? No wonder you have such a low opinion of climate scients.
NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.
What you're doing there is confusing ill-informed popular thinking with actual science.
No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world's qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity.
So we never question the scientists who are supporting the consensus?
We don't question why their models don't match recorded data?
We keep pumping them with more money to do more work that doesn't match the data recorded? Do we allow them to continue to make stuff up for UN reports?
Do we continue to use their data to justify technology that actually produces more carbon than it saves?
Sorry but "cui bono" always applies to both sides
molgrips - Member
What you're doing there is confusing ill-informed popular thinking with actual science.
Sorry, can you please explain that? Diesel cars have been heavily encouraged via taxation based on co2. Diesel cars produce more NOx than petrol equivalents.
Junkyard - lazarus
I can't be bothered to split the post up into individual quotes, but I did read it.
I think you are under the misapprehension that I am a 'denier' (I really hate that term). Not the case.
Sorry, can you please explain that? ... Diesel cars produce more NOx than petrol equivalents.
That's perfectly correct, I didn't mean to say that you were wrong. It was a more rhetorical point agreeing with you*.
Scientists are not advising us to drive diesel cars. They have warned us about the likely consequences of high CO2 emissions - science.
The car manufacturers and have jumped on this to get us to buy new cars, and the media have told us to buy diesel cars to save the environment - popular thinking.
* sort of.. it's quite well known what CO2 and NOx do, and whilst NOx is very bad in close quarters ie air quality, CO2 has likely a much worse long term effect. Having said that, it can cost a lot of CO2 to actually make diesel in the first place.. TINAS to the thread please...
So we never question the scientists who are supporting the consensus?
Because as soon as people stop believing what the experts tell them, then we will regress back to the dark ages. You can't possibly have the knowledge and experience to question people who who have spent their whole lives studying 90% of .00000000000010% of human knownledge, you leave it to a number of experts in the field and if almost all of them agree with one another... you run with what they are saying.
We don't question why their models don't match recorded data?We keep pumping them with more money to do more work that doesn't match the data recorded? Do we allow them to continue to make stuff up for UN reports?
Link please. All the models I've seen have pretty accurately matched recorded data and I havn't seen any cases of fraud in UN reports on climate change.
Regardless of whether you agree with the science or not, the proposed path it highlights is 'humans making less of an impact upon the planet', with a possible leap towards 'humans making a positive impact upon the planet'.
So you crack on with your myopic and very ill-informed war with science. Your alternative of 'keep doing what we're doing until you prove it, then we'll change' is short-sighted, very silly and utterly indefensible when compared to 'not taking every natural resource for ourselves and leaving something nice for the kids'.
This is like those who smoked in the 50s, only far worse. The science said smoking killed you, yet that was shouted down by those funded by smoking. By the time it was accepted, it was far too late for a lot of people. yet 'not smoking' wasn't a detrimental path to follow before the non-believers were forced to accept the evidence.
Get over your petty fight and see that the actions it recommends are good no matter what happens. Not doing anything is not a valid option.
We can say with close to reasonable certainty that used within these parameters, this material will take loadings A,B & C and not fail. In drug creation, we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.What we don't do is say, here you go, I've made a model of this compound and it looks okay. Chug this down your neck and let's hope it doesn't paralyse you or cause birth defects in your child.
We absolutely cannot do this at the moment with the climate, it is far too complex to model accurately. I'm not saying that this means we should not try though. It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.
Medicine isn't physics, they don't have phase I through to III trials and never will. They develop models and then try to match it to observable reality, so far these models have been pretty accurate.
Unless of course you are suggesting that we wait 100 years to check to see if our models are correct before we make a decision, which of course would be completely ****ing idiotic.
Seriously hope you're not a doctor, or worse a biologist. I could deal with a doctor having a low intellect....
I havn't seen any cases of fraud in UN reports on climate change.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers
. All the models I've seen have pretty accurately matched recorded data
http://order-order.com/2014/02/11/sketch-peter-lilley-v-tim-yeo/
Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”
Based on the models what is your answer?
not this 1997 shite again.
this is the global temperature record from 1977ish, to 2012ish.
[img] 
[/img]
picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.
picking a fluke year, extrememly unusual in it's warmth, as your benchmark is at best really really really bad science, at worst it's consciously dishonest.
anyone trotting out this 'no warming since 1997' shite, automatically gets one of these:
[img] 
[/img]
That's a non-sequitur. Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time? Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid £70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where's his evidence for this? Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?
This is the "what-about-ary" that climate deniers do. "Yeah but..." For everything but never answer any questions themselves.
I always find it amazing that when scientists design new materials to make lighter bikes but everyone appears to have a PhD when it comes to climate science.
Humans live in years, Earth lives in 100's of millions of years.
I believe there is climate change... Just not the same way Hollywood and the news presents it.
God knows why... People feed of drama drama drama...
[img] 
[/img]
There is a few deniers on this thread. Denying the pause/halt in global warming over the last 15 years. Even the MET Office say it has happened.
July 2013 - Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
It was discussed by the IPCC
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/