The great global warming swindle-9pm tonight (thursday 8/3/07)

bonkey

trogdor wrote:

I'm still on the fence about whats causing it though.

May I ask what it will take to move you off the fence?

May I also ask if the detailed answer to that depends on the answer itself?

I've noticed that most self-proclaimed fence-sitters are far more willing to consider and give credence to anything that says "man is not a/the major contributor to the effect" then they are to "man is the major contributor".

Consequently, when it comes to proof, they'll accept that man isn't to blame at a level of proof below where the current evidence suggesting man is to blame is at.

While I don't say this is the case, I'd ask anyone who believes they are sitting on the fence to consider the two questions above.

If you cannot answer the first, or if you can admit that the answer to the second is in the affirmative, then you should consider that you're not sitting on a fence at all.

djpbarry

You Suck! wrote:

And all Im saying is that it is not that simple. First of all, its not an option to "every single person" because even developed economys have people who can't afford these new technologys

How is it not that simple? What new technologies are necessary for this to happen? If you can’t afford a solar panel, a wind turbine, or even CFL bulbs, you can walk or cycle to work instead of driving, turn down your central heating, etc. Anyone who isn’t in a position to do any of these things probably isn’t contributing to the problem much anyway.

You Suck! wrote:

And who will force china? Also care to think that these outdated designs are being used as a means of providing the chinese with cars they can actually afford?

Who will “force” China? Well, who is buying Chinese produce? That’s right, we are – it all comes back to the developed world. Chinese businesses are producing cheap goods and attempting to keep costs as low as possible so they can build market share in the developed world. It’s up to consumers to question how these products are being produced.
And on the subject of the cost of a new car, this is set by what consumers are prepared to pay – why do you think cars are so expensive in Ireland?

You Suck! wrote:

What do's it matter what I do for a living? Stupid point to raise in any arguement, especially as I haven't yet claimed to be an authority of any kind.

The reason I asked is because you seem to be totally anti-establishment. You don’t want to sign up to a greener lifestyle in case someone makes money from it? Well I’m afraid that’s the way the world works. In my opinion, if someone makes a small fortune in selling carbon credits, but only succeeds in reducing CO2 emissions by a tiny amount, well, at least some good would come from it. Beats the hell out of someone making billions selling fossil fuels (and robbing the developing world blind in most cases).

You Suck! wrote:

All the energy companys now see a huge avenue of profit in providing renewable energy solutions to governments

Again, I don’t see the problem with this? Fossil fuels, as we all now, are finite. Ireland in particular is hugely dependent on importing foreign fuels, so building a new renewable energy infrastructure in this country should be a top priority in my opinion. It doesn’t really bother me if someone makes a tidy profit in the process.

You Suck! wrote:

They can't develop their own clean tech?

And reinvent the wheel? Now what would be the point in that?

nemonoid wrote:

I'm not sure anyone can say for certain what's causing climate change, but regardless of what the cause is, surley walking to work or the shops instead of driving if you can, using CFL bulbs and such and being a bit "greener" in general can't do the world any harm.

I couldn’t agree more.

bonkey wrote:

I've noticed that most self-proclaimed fence-sitters are far more willing to consider and give credence to anything that says "man is not a/the major contributor to the effect" then they are to "man is the major contributor".

Consequently, when it comes to proof, they'll accept that man isn't to blame at a level of proof below where the current evidence suggesting man is to blame is at.

I’ve noticed this myself. There is a huge amount of evidence out there suggesting that man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming. And yet, when a highly controversial figure such as Martin Durkin puts together a “documentary” in an attempt to ridicule this theory, all the “fence-sitters” gobble it up!

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

. There is a huge amount of evidence out there suggesting that man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming. And yet, when a highly controversial figure such as Martin Durkin puts together a “documentary” in an attempt to ridicule this theory, all the “fence-sitters” gobble it up!

What evidence have you found suggesting that man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Al Gore was given a oscar for his film which had substantial errors with climate scientists saying he had a good "grasp" of the issues!!!!!!!!!.

I too am sitting on the fence on this one. This makes me a flat earth denailist according to John Gormley:rolleyes:

bonkey wrote:

May I ask what it will take to move you off the fence

First off Phil Jones and Jim Hansen release their data and alogoritims and Mann admit that the hockey stick is flawed

Mobhi1

Whether we are causing global warming or not I still think it is very important for Ireland to become much more energy efficient and to produce as much of our energy in the country as possible. As was said we're extremely reliant on fossil fuel imports and most of these come from unreliable sources such as the Middle East and Russia and I for one would be much happier if we didn't rely on them as much. Maybe energy reliability would be a better selling point for a change as it still seems a lot of people are unconvinced by AGW.

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

What evidence have you found suggesting that man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Here's 10 papers:

1. Alexiadis, A., Global warming and human activity: A model for studying the potential instability of the carbon dioxide/temperature feedback mechanism. Ecological Modelling, 2007. 203(3-4): p. 243-256.
2. Bond, T.C. and H. Sun, Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global warming? Environ Sci Technol, 2005. 39(16): p. 5921-6.
3. Cox, P.M., et al., Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature, 2000. 408(6809): p. 184-7.
4. Ichii, K., et al., A simple global carbon and energy coupled cycle model for global warming simulation: sensitivity to the light saturation effect. Tellus Series B-Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 2003. 55(2): p. 676-691.
5. Jacobson, M.Z., Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming (vol 107, pg 4410, 2002). Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 2005. 110(D14): p. -.
6. Lenton, T.M., Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model. Tellus Series B-Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 2000. 52(5): p. 1159-1188.
7. Royce, B.S.H., Carbon emissions (Robert May's discussion of anthropogenically induced global warming). Tls-the Times Literary Supplement, 2007(5430): p. 17-17.
8. Verdes, P.F., Global warming is driven by anthropogenic emissions: a time series analysis approach. Phys Rev Lett, 2007. 99(4): p. 048501.
9. Volodin, E.M. and C. Grp, Relation between the global-warming parameter and the heat balance on the earth's surface at increased contents of carbon dioxide. Izvestiya Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 2004. 40(3): p. 269-275.
10. Williams, A., Kicking the carbon habit - Global warming and the case for renewable and nuclear energy. Tls-the Times Literary Supplement, 2006(5400): p. 32-33.

I believe there are another thousand or so on the subject.

piraka

jpjbarry You are correct. The articles you have quoted suggest that co2 is causing global warming.

Do you have evidence that co2 is causing global warming?

djpbarry

piraka wrote:

Do you have evidence that co2 is causing global warming?

That wasn’t your question, was it? Nor was it a statement that I made. Just to refresh your memory:

djpbarry wrote:

There is a huge amount of evidence out there suggesting that man-made CO2 is contributing to global warming.

The point is that the evidence supporting this theory far outweighs any other theory. So, I think it is reasonable to state that, based on the available evidence, it is very likely that an increase in CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a rise in the average global temperature.

galactus

I was listening to the Guardian's Science podcast and a speaker said: "there is a debate on global warming: its between Jeremy Clarkson and the scientific community".

piraka

djpbarry wrote:

That wasn’t your question, was it? Nor was it a statement that I made. Just to refresh your memory:

The point is that the evidence supporting this theory far outweighs any other theory. So, I think it is reasonable to state that, based on the available evidence, it is very likely that an increase in CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a rise in the average global temperature.

Apologies, I did not make myself clear.

MooseJam

how will global warming affect Ireland ?

Mobhi1

MooseJam wrote:

how will global warming affect Ireland ?

See here http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055143050 ??

Trogdor

bonkey wrote:

May I ask what it will take to move you off the fence?

May I also ask if the detailed answer to that depends on the answer itself?

I've noticed that most self-proclaimed fence-sitters are far more willing to consider and give credence to anything that says "man is not a/the major contributor to the effect" then they are to "man is the major contributor".

Consequently, when it comes to proof, they'll accept that man isn't to blame at a level of proof below where the current evidence suggesting man is to blame is at.

While I don't say this is the case, I'd ask anyone who believes they are sitting on the fence to consider the two questions above.

If you cannot answer the first, or if you can admit that the answer to the second is in the affirmative, then you should consider that you're not sitting on a fence at all.

If there is hard proof that definately links mans actions to global warming as the main or a major contributor, then i will definately be moved "off the fence". It does not matter what the answer is, as long as it is prooved to be what is causing global warming. The only information around at the moment as already said , is only suggesting that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, and i'm going to keep an open mind until that is confirmed. When there's a problem people like to have someone to blame and fair enough maybe man is to blame for global warming, but hypothetically speaking if the sun was cuasing global warming, who would people would blame...the sun?

djpbarry

trogdor wrote:

If there is hard proof that definately links mans actions to global warming as the main or a major contributor, then i will definately be moved "off the fence". It does not matter what the answer is, as long as it is prooved to be what is causing global warming. The only information around at the moment as already said , is only suggesting that CO2 emissions are causing global warming, and i'm going to keep an open mind until that is confirmed.

What you’re looking for simply is not possible to achieve. The planet Earth cannot be recreated in a laboratory and studied to determine the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Let me put it like this; imagine a murder trial. There is a massive body of evidence against the accused, from well over 1,000 sources. The only evidence the defence has in its favour is a few testimonies from unreliable sources. Now, which way do you think the jury is going to vote?
It is impossible to prove that CO2 emissions are causing the planet to heat up, but I would say that given the amount of research in this area, there can be very little doubt that it is a major contributor to global warming.
Besides, there isn’t a single study that shows that CO2 does not contribute to global warming.

Trogdor

djpbarry wrote:

What you’re looking for simply is not possible to achieve. The planet Earth cannot be recreated in a laboratory and studied to determine the effects of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

I was thinking about this as i wrote my post and i know that it's not possible to achieve, but what's out there at the moment just isn't enough to sway me to the AGW side. I'm still open minded about the causes for now and unless any really substantial evidence is found/released on either side of the argument that's the way i'm going to stay for a while.

djpbarry wrote:

Besides, there isn’t a single study that shows that CO2 does not contribute to global warming.

Oh i know, i've no doubt that it definately does contribute, but just how much/little is the question for me.

csm

how much/how little is the question for most people!

can i ask you this. given that you are unsure, would you modify your behaviour to reduce energy consumption? especially considering that the proof you desire will probably only arrive when it is too late to do anything about it.

Trogdor

csm wrote:

how much/how little is the question for most people!

can i ask you this. given that you are unsure, would you modify your behaviour to reduce energy consumption? especially considering that the proof you desire will probably only arrive when it is too late to do anything about it.

Well, lately i have been making more of an effort, turning off lights, unplugging things, etc., if only to save a bit of money and for a greener furture and all that. Recycling as well until i read that article about 80 or 90% of irish recycling being dumped in China! tbh though, i think it is too late to do anything either way, obviously if it's natural you can't really do anything about it and i think if CO2 is causing it, it's just already too out of control. I think the main problem for most people with reducing energy consumption is that without absolute proof that it will stop global warming, they'd rather take a chance and risk a big problem instead of putting up with a few inconveniences.
I am very interested in the weather and potenially global warming would bring more interesting/exciting weather to Ireland, so i'm for it:o :eek: , i know, very selfish as i said above.

edanto

trogdor wrote:

I'm still open minded about the causes for now and unless any really substantial evidence is found/released on either side of the argument that's the way i'm going to stay for a while.

What would suffice as proof?

Currently, the evidence 'suggests' (rarely will scientists state something with more certainty) the C02 is the culprit and there is a mechanism to support it, as well as historical data and a consensus among climate scientists that has not been seen since... they started wearing white coats.

Specifically, what more proof can you expect? I'm seriously asking, not taking the p1ss - can you list off measurables or experiments that are outstanding?

Trogdor

edanto wrote:

Specifically, what more proof can you expect? I'm seriously asking, not taking the p1ss - can you list off measurables or experiments that are outstanding?

I know, and i respect that, i'm no climate scientist and i'm not going to claim to know everything about it, i wouldn't have a clue what experiments etc. would prove. It's not that the experiments haven't been done, it's just that some are inconclusive and none proove that Co2 absolutely has to be the culprit. It's just that i'm not prepared to believe something when it can only be suggested. Maybe they may never be able to proove Co2 is what's causing it, or maybe it will "too late" when they do, but until there's more solid evidence i'm not going to side with either, and that's just me. I don't mean any offence to anyone, but i think to some it has become almost like a new relegion, that they simply place there faith in it. If it is definately Co2 then why are there so many(maybe not as many as supporting AGW, but still a good few) saying that there isn't? Maybe not the best example, but when the first explorers etc. started suggesting the world was round against the vast majority that claimed it was flat.

edanto

Well, actually the story of Global Warming is different to the Flat Earthist - in a crucial way. There weren't megacorporations making record profits by selling something that contributed to the Earth being flat.

That's unclear - the point I'm making is that climate scientists have been fighting for years and years to get this on to the agenda and are now pitted against a well funded (by oil companies) and vocal minority that deny CO2 to be involved in global warming. It is those vested interests that make the most noise, in the scientific community there is no debate, the facts are in. It's happenning and we did it.

Of course when this story is reported, the journalist will have read The Idiots Guide to reporting Science and will of course present the two sides of the story, as if they have equal weight.

You asked why are there so many saying 'it isn't CO2'. Find me some of them and then check them at sourcewatch. Here's an example, from earlier in the thread. c02science.org , absolute denialists, everythings fine, no need to take any political action about Global Warming, - they got at least $90,000 from Exxon between 1998-2005. Why would Exxon care? Well, in 2005 they posted the highest recorded profits in US history of $36,000,000,000. Which is bigger than the economies of 125 of 184 countries ranked by the World Bank in that year. There is a lot of money riding on this debate and the people with money to lose will spend what they have to, to protect their interests.

But look, you're still on the fence, so you have a good view of both sides. Why don't you examine the motivations of both groups, which can help to distinguish competing claims to certainty? What do you see as the driving foce being the Global Warming denialists? Is it the want to be right? Do the tree huggers on my side have the same want? Is that what it's all about? If not, then what?

You can guess my answer.

djpbarry

trogdor wrote:

i'm not prepared to believe something when it can only be suggested. Maybe they may never be able to proove Co2 is what's causing it, or maybe it will "too late" when they do, but until there's more solid evidence i'm not going to side with either, and that's just me.

Let me put it like this; if you have a ball in your hand and you release it, what will happen? It will fall to the earth, of course. Why? Well, no one can actually prove why. However, it suggests that the earth has a gravitational force that attracts the ball. Gravity is an impossible theory to prove, because, although all forms of mass exert gravitational forces, the force only becomes appreciable when working on the scale of planets. But, although the theory of gravity cannot be proved, it still explains our observations of the solar system quite well.
I have to ask, as edanto has, what will it take to sway you?

trogdor wrote:

If it is definately Co2 then why are there so many(maybe not as many as supporting AGW, but still a good few) saying that there isn't?

Well, that's just it; nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever that CO2 is not causing global temperatures to rise. Every single scientist (well over 1,000 at the last count) who has conducted a study in this area is in agreement with the theory that it is very likely that CO2 is causing an increase in global temperature. There is no scientific debate on this; you are only being led to believe that there is.

Trogdor

edanto wrote:

Well, actually the story of Global Warming is different to the Flat Earthist - in a crucial way. There weren't megacorporations making record profits by selling something that contributed to the Earth being flat.

That's unclear - the point I'm making is that climate scientists have been fighting for years and years to get this on to the agenda and are now pitted against a well funded (by oil companies) and vocal minority that deny CO2 to be involved in global warming. It is those vested interests that make the most noise, in the scientific community there is no debate, the facts are in. It's happenning and we did it.

Of course when this story is reported, the journalist will have read The Idiots Guide to reporting Science and will of course present the two sides of the story, as if they have equal weight.

You asked why are there so many saying 'it isn't CO2'. Find me some of them and then check them at sourcewatch. Here's an example, from earlier in the thread. c02science.org , absolute denialists, everythings fine, no need to take any political action about Global Warming, - they got at least $90,000 from Exxon between 1998-2005. Why would Exxon care? Well, in 2005 they posted the highest recorded profits in US history of $36,000,000,000. Which is bigger than the economies of 125 of 184 countries ranked by the World Bank in that year. There is a lot of money riding on this debate and the people with money to lose will spend what they have to, to protect their interests.

But look, you're still on the fence, so you have a good view of both sides. Why don't you examine the motivations of both groups, which can help to distinguish competing claims to certainty? What do you see as the driving foce being the Global Warming denialists? Is it the want to be right? Do the tree huggers on my side have the same want? Is that what it's all about? If not, then what?

You can guess my answer.

I'm a bit out of my depth here:o and i just don't know the answers to some of the questions being asked there. I just think there is so much that is still to be learned and not quite understood about the Earth and it's atmosphere that it's just too early to say what causes climate patterns and to predict the future climate. For example, the new ocean current found off Australia just a few weeks ago? Who knows what other forces there are, yet undiscovered that could be driving the earth's climate. As you said, i am still on the fence and am listening to both arguments, and will continue to.



EDIT: Just saw a link to this on a UK weather forum, this is an interesting read or glance(not very long), just analizing the facts according to it
http://www.ncpa.org/globalwarming/GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf DIAL-UP WARNING(2.34mb)!
The graph for projected temperature difference with or without kyoto is interesting, around 0.15C difference over 100 years.

csm

just read that document briefly. (after a few beers it has to be said). the first thing that struck me was that 56% of scientists do not believe that climate change is anthropogenically driven. i'd love to see the actual research that was involved there

also, they give human CO2 emissions as a % of total emissions, when every rational person knows they should give them as a % of CO2 emissions NET of CO2 take up; because CO2 is a long-lived greenhouse gas you need to look at input minus output.

water vapour is given as the major greenhouse gas and rightly so. However, H2O is not a long-lived greenhouse gas and increases in water vapour do not have the same impact as increases in other LLGHG's because they do not absorb more light frequencies.

the figures given in that document are flawed. but the flaws are difficult to spot unless you have an interest in climate change and look at the science involved with an independent mind.

you are right to be sceptical, every good scientist is. but you need to look at the science involved, not just occasional documents thrown up on the internet without published, peer-reviewed methods, etc.

read bonkey's posts on the scientific method. they are very good and the most informed i've read on boards.

yes, there are huge amounts that are still unknown about the earth system and climate generally. all scientists admit that. but the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the hypothesis that humans are having an adverse effect on the climate.

what you have to ask yourself is whether you want to put the effort in to learn about the topics involved and make your own decision independent of what people on the internet are telling you.

here is a good (although intimidatingly large!) start
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

djpbarry

trogdor wrote:

Just saw a link to this on a UK weather forum, this is an interesting read or glance(not very long), just analizing the facts according to it

Although this document looks convincing on the surface, I have to agree with csm here. Trogdor, you have to ask yourself where this data is coming from. I’ve had a look at the list of sources at the end. The list includes:

• FOXNews.com
• American Association of Petroleum Geologists
• U.S. Department of Energy
• Energy Information Administration
• Capitalism Magazine
• Energy and Environment
• Energy Journal

Looks a touch biased to me! Now, there are some other, more reliable sources, but a lot of the key facts seem to be drawn from the above list. In other words, these are not peer-reviewed, scientific publications.

For example, there is a chart on page 18, which seems to claim that:

The United States has slowed the growth of its emissions far more than the European Union—despite larger population growth and higher economic growth

The source:

Marlo Lewis Jr., “Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, Congressional Working Paper, March 16, 2007, page 115. Available at http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf. Data from the Energy Information Administration

The title isn't even spelt correctly!
How about the chart on page 22, illustrating that:

Approximately 56 percent of climate scientists worldwide believe humans are the cause of global warming

.The source:

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Warming, 2003,” unpublished; available at http://w3g.gkss.de/staff/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/surveyframe.html.

I’ve tried the link – it no longer seems to be available.

I also saw this on the National Centre for Policy Analysis’ (NCPA, the publisher of this document) website:

The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

Hmm, yes. I wonder where their funding comes from? :rolleyes:

Trogdor

csm wrote:

just read that document briefly. (after a few beers it has to be said). the first thing that struck me was that 56% of scientists do not believe that climate change is anthropogenically driven. i'd love to see the actual research that was involved there

also, they give human CO2 emissions as a % of total emissions, when every rational person knows they should give them as a % of CO2 emissions NET of CO2 take up; because CO2 is a long-lived greenhouse gas you need to look at input minus output.

water vapour is given as the major greenhouse gas and rightly so. However, H2O is not a long-lived greenhouse gas and increases in water vapour do not have the same impact as increases in other LLGHG's because they do not absorb more light frequencies.

the figures given in that document are flawed. but the flaws are difficult to spot unless you have an interest in climate change and look at the science involved with an independent mind.

you are right to be sceptical, every good scientist is. but you need to look at the science involved, not just occasional documents thrown up on the internet without published, peer-reviewed methods, etc.

read bonkey's posts on the scientific method. they are very good and the most informed i've read on boards.

yes, there are huge amounts that are still unknown about the earth system and climate generally. all scientists admit that. but the balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the hypothesis that humans are having an adverse effect on the climate.

what you have to ask yourself is whether you want to put the effort in to learn about the topics involved and make your own decision independent of what people on the internet are telling you.

here is a good (although intimidatingly large!) start
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

I never said that i believed every word, just that it was interesting, i've been meaning to get around to reading into both sides a good bit more, but i haven't had much time lately. Thanks for link:) , will only take me a few decades:p .
Here's a few more flaws in the data listed here
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=16547&posts=5&mid=242685#M242685

bonkey

Given that the whole "science doesn't prove things" angle has been covered, and gravity nicely used as an example (it could, after all, be Intelligent Falling!), let me try a different tack. Its something that I've borrowed before, so forgive me if its familiar.

Most people when they go for a drive put on a seatbelt. A seatbelt restricts their movement. It is, at times, unvomfortable. There is a chance that if they're involved in an accident, the seatbelt will be responsible for causing them greater injury or death.

Why then, do they wear a seatbelt?

Is it because they intend to be in an accident? Is it because they know they will be in an accident?

Could it be because there's a chance that they'll be in an accident, and although it isn't 100% certain, the science says that wearing a seatbelt will almost-certainly reduce the amount of injury and the risk of fatality?

Now...consider your position as a "fence sitter" in the seat-belt issue. You're not convinced that the science which says "it might just save your life, and will almost certainly result in a better outcome should a crash occur" is correct. You don't believe you will be in a crash. You certainly don't intend to cause one.

So While you sit on that fence...what possible reason do you have to not wear a seat-belt????

Could it be that you feel someone is trying to make money out of seat-belt manufacture, despite the evidence being that accidents, on the whole, are bad for business?

Could it be that you think that while the scientists who got funding to look into this - who got funding to look into other stuff in the past and will get funding to look into other stuff in the future did it to get the funding?

Or could it be that you just don't like the idea of wearing a seat-belt, and so until the impossible-to-prove is proven, you believe that not only should you not wear one, but you should object to anyone else wearing one, or legislation being introduced to mandate the wearing???

piraka wrote:

First off Phil Jones and Jim Hansen release their data and alogoritims and Mann admit that the hockey stick is flawed

I'm always suspicious of an answer which starts with "first off", because its saying "even should this be done, I reserve the right to add new requirements". In other words...its not answering the question.

Not only that, but lets just say that these conditions were met and that (as you clearly suspect) the work of Jones and Hansen was determined to not stand up. What impact would this have on all the other research which would still remain valid?

Or do you believe that showing some tiny amount to be flawed invalidates the entirety? If thats the case, I hope you reject all science.

Trogdor

bonkey wrote:

Given that the whole "science doesn't prove things" angle has been covered, and gravity nicely used as an example (it could, after all, be Intelligent Falling!), let me try a different tack. Its something that I've borrowed before, so forgive me if its familiar.

Most people when they go for a drive put on a seatbelt. A seatbelt restricts their movement. It is, at times, unvomfortable. There is a chance that if they're involved in an accident, the seatbelt will be responsible for causing them greater injury or death.

Why then, do they wear a seatbelt?

Is it because they intend to be in an accident? Is it because they know they will be in an accident?

Could it be because there's a chance that they'll be in an accident, and although it isn't 100% certain, the science says that wearing a seatbelt will almost-certainly reduce the amount of injury and the risk of fatality?

Now...consider your position as a "fence sitter" in the seat-belt issue. You're not convinced that the science which says "it might just save your life, and will almost certainly result in a better outcome should a crash occur" is correct. You don't believe you will be in a crash. You certainly don't intend to cause one.

So While you sit on that fence...what possible reason do you have to not wear a seat-belt????

Could it be that you feel someone is trying to make money out of seat-belt manufacture, despite the evidence being that accidents, on the whole, are bad for business?

Could it be that you think that while the scientists who got funding to look into this - who got funding to look into other stuff in the past and will get funding to look into other stuff in the future did it to get the funding?

Or could it be that you just don't like the idea of wearing a seat-belt, and so until the impossible-to-prove is proven, you believe that not only should you not wear one, but you should object to anyone else wearing one, or legislation being introduced to mandate the wearing???

I see the point, and compared to other people, and my rather limited knowledge, I suppose I'm not really qualified to be yapping on in this thread until i do read more into it. I just feel that it's not as simple as just man's burning of fossil fuels/Co2 emissions overall=Global Warming. I know what "I feel" means absolutely nothing to science and has no reasoning what so ever but there you go.
Maybe it's because the story of GW is being rammed down your throat all the time and every time you even turned on the TV for a while it was there:mad: . Or maybe for me, it's just that i can't see any major consecuences that will affect me.
I'm leaving this alone now for the time being and will come back when i'm better informed and have more confidence on the subject:o .
Just out of interest does anyone else have any other good links to papers or other info where the data is not flawed or convientently censored?

galactus

trogdor wrote:

does anyone else have any other good links to papers or other info where the data is not flawed or convientently censored?

New Scientist mag have a good section on this: here.

piraka

Hansen and Jones’s work is presented as one of the strongest direct empirical pieces of evidence for global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and is one of the pillars of global warming that AGW advocates quote regularly. It is also one of the main tenets of the IPCC TAR and AR4 reports.

Is it good science not to publish your data and methodology?

I do not know the impact that it will have on the other research, as I don’t know what is the other research to which you refer.

piraka

I would take the section in New Scientist with a pinch of salt.

MooseJam

personally I don't think anything should be done about this global warming thing , why ? because the thing thats aparantly causing it is running out - fossil fuels, oil, just when the stuff starts to run out we see it's effect on the environment , so we should continue as is and burn the remaining oil and when it's all gone we will switch to something cleaner like hydrogen and all will be well