You are kidding as well I hope? :qQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Printable View
You are kidding as well I hope? :qQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
This is my point. You can't divide people into deniers and supporters. Yes, there are people who deny that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, there are people who deny that climate change is occurring at all. I think these people are in the minority. There are also people who are adamant that climate change is man made and that we can stop or reverse it by minimising our 'carbon footprint'.Quote:
I'm not really inclined to have yet another debate on Man Made Climate change for it will give the deniers more air space than deserved.
I've decided not to be in either of these camps. I don't think it's possible to know whether or not the symptoms are man-made. I don't think it's possible to know that they're not. If I have to say what theory I favour, it's that climate change is part of a natural process but that we are compounding it by the way we conduct our lives. I don't have a lot of faith that we will be able to stop what is happening. I'm not even sure we can slow it down, but it's definitely worth doing something to clean up our act. I think that if the 'scare mongering' makes people think about what they are doing and helps popularise efficient use of energy, then it's probably doing more good than harm.
However I think that the majority of people don't give enough of a damn to actually change their habits. Maybe the path we are taking with this climate change 'industry' is the right one because it's forcing governments to legislate.
What I am objecting to is the shouting down of alternate theories because they contradict the popular concensus. As a lady said last night on the ABC, science is not about concensus. There are many, many examples of the concensus being proved wrong. Science is about observation and constantly asking questions. The climate change bandwagon is picking up steam and if you don't climb aboard, you will be left behind. I think it would be very bad if we all decided, OK that's all we need to know about it, so let's build everything else we do from now on that assumption.
No, I'm sorry but I am not.Quote:
You are kidding as well I hope?
This belief frankly worries me quite deeply, because I know a lot of people hold it, including some people who are in power. Leaving aside the religious aspects, because we don't want to get into that here, the fundamental message from that is to put your hands over your eyes and do nothing.Quote:
We should be focusing on being the best people we can and living life to the best of our ability and helping people around us, so that when that demolition date comes up we won't be scheduled for destruction ourselves to make room for the new beautification project.
Unfortunately this is the only way sufficient change is going to happen. The horizon is to far away for most people to grasp, one election cycle is too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Fair enuff, but after 30 odd years of detailed observation the science is reasonably coherent. What is being applied is called the "Precautionary Principle".Quote:
What I am objecting to is the shouting down of alternate theories because they contradict the popular concensus. As a lady said last night on the ABC, science is not about concensus. There are many, many examples of the concensus being proved wrong. Science is about observation and constantly asking questions.
I think the idea that some cosmic daddy is going to punish the naughty kids and give the good kids lollies is pure pap. What we need is adults who can take reponsibility for themselves, their actions and ultimately the future of their species. Anything else is a fantasy driven cop out. Even if there were a god he/she made humans stewards, not infants,Quote:
This belief frankly worries me quite deeply, because I know a lot of people hold it, including some people who are in power. Leaving aside the religious aspects, because we don't want to get into that here, the fundamental message from that is to put your hands over your eyes and do nothing.
Sebastiaan
And yet there are quite a few well-respected scientists and other observers who offer alternative theories. 30 years isn't really a very long time when you are examining cycles that can take thousands of years. I don't know much of the science at all and I'm not even going to try to debate on that level. I hear some of the dissent though and feel that it shouldn't be dismissed as 'denial'. It's a label that gets bandied about too much and carries connotations of blind ignorance. Stories like this one are the concern. I don't really care much if people want to make politicians look silly but there is going to be a tendency for people who present alternate theories to be written off as nutters - and no doubt the report referred to was produced by someone with a scientific interest in the subject. Probably much like the people who first proposed that the earth orbits the sun - not saying that the alternate theories have similar weight in fact just a comment on the way they are treated.Quote:
after 30 odd years of detailed observation the science is reasonably coherent
That exchange was the one I referred to yesterday, finally a belly laugh from the pimple on the hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I agree on the personal attack point, populism at work, mob rule. Humanity at its worst, let go invade somewhere.....
I agree 30 years vs several hundred million is a short snapshot, the warming is happening, fact. The cause, well... the circumstantial evidence... But the Ozone layer depletion work and the international response also lends credence to atmospheric science, no I am definitely an atmospheric scientist. I get my information from the same places as everyone else.
So how do we respond if the preferred cause becomes even less controllable? eg wobble in the orbit? hmmmm...
Sebastiaan
Then we defer to Matt88s' advice as there's nothing we can do!Quote:
So how do we respond if the preferred cause becomes even less controllable? eg wobble in the orbit?
oh dear, lets not go there.....Quote:
Then we defer to Matt88s' advice as there's nothing we can do!
Sebastiaan
Yes, it is a short time, and yes there are dissenting views. No problem with that at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
What is significant is the change in scientific opinion over the last 5-10 years. It's not that long ago that the climate change scientific disbelievers were in the majority...
woodbe.
There is an argument that goes along the lines of "scientists have no job without funding - funding is scarce - popular projects attract more funding" etc.. :)
I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:
P
:D
Thanks for that Noah, do you take AMEX?Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
Sebastiaan
There's not a lot of room in Midge's ark, so he's only taking one of each species.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grunt
That will make for a very short lived monoculture.... or some interesting cross breeding.:oo:
BTW Midge you don't have to worry about the freeboard just remember to let out the anchor rope a bit.
this on is a bit of a classic, proof that some of Al Gores 'facts' in his movie are quite wrong and proof that NASA has been fudging figures on the GW issue for some time...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08...weather_error/
Quote:
NASA weather error sparks global warming debate
1998 no longer hottest year in US
By Austin Modine in Mountain View <small class="MoreByAuthor">→ More by this author</small>
<small>Published Tuesday 14th August 2007 20:28 GMT</small>
Find your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech vacancies Conservative blogs were alight last week when they turned up an error in NASA's methods for recording US temperatures. As a result, it has been concluded that 1934, not 1998, was America's hottest year on record.
The problem was caught when blogger, Stephen McIntyre of <cite>Climate Audit</cite>, crunched the numbers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for himself. McIntyre found that apparently an error was affecting the data for the years 2000 through 2006.
<script type="text/javascript"> document.write('\x3Cscript src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.science.4159/space;'+RegExCats+GetVCs()+'pid='+RegId+';'+RegKW+'maid='+maid+';test='+test+';pf='+RegPF+';dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=' + rand + '?" type="text/javascript">\x3C\/script>'); </script><script src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.science.4159/space;vc=sci.space;pid=68786;kw=weather;kw=nasa;kw=error;kw=global;kw=warming;maid=;test=;pf=0;dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=98562781748558260?" type="text/javascript"></script><iframe src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/iview/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903?click=http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3f" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"> <a href="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/AUM/go/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" target="_blank"><img src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/view/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903"/></a><noscript><a href="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/AUM/go/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/view/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" /></a></noscript></iframe> <noscript> http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/ad/reg....AAEmo4vsAAAG5? </noscript>
Or more accurately, after 1999, the data wasn't being fractionally adjusted to compensate for the time of day or location from where the data was being gathered. McIntyre emailed his discovery to NASA's Goddard Institute, which prompted the data review.
The data correction reduced the mean US temperature by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000 through 2006, for an average of 0.66 ºC. The news was a delight to global warming naysayers — such as the conservative blogger Noel Sheppard at <cite>NewsBusters</cite> —who claimed it refutes a key tenet of the global warming "myth" advanced by Al Gore that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995. They also claim the lack of coverage on the mistake indicates a liberal media cover-up.
The new top 10 hottest years in the US are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.
Global warming skeptics point out that now four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.