Channel 4 rapped over 'great Global Warming Swindle'

sharper

seamus wrote: »

The latter item, I wouldn't be so sure. Correlation doesn't equal causation. As I point out above, I've yet to hear of any (serious) alternative theories being considered and disproven. Perhaps I've not been keeping my ear close enough to the ground.

Huh? What are you looking for here exactly? You want evidence of "some other" cause of the CO2 increases was considered when humans are obviously and openly emitting enormous amounts of CO2? Do you refuse to accept that the moon is made out of rock because the "cheese theory" was never given sufficient weight?

Unfortunately I'm still not even clear on what you're arguing exactly so I'll go back to my original question, are you saying CO2 hasn't increased or that the increase not caused by human activity?

If it's the former, how do you explain our measurements of higher CO2 concentrations? If the latter what's your explanation for where the extra CO2 came from? Also how do you suppose humans are not responsible considering the amount of CO2 emitted by human activity since the industrial revolution?

seamus

sharper wrote: »

Huh? What are you looking for here exactly? You want evidence of "some other" cause of the CO2 increases was considered when humans are obviously and openly emitting enormous amounts of CO2?

Again, that's correlation, not causation. You're doing exactly what I was describing earlier. "Oh look, CO2 emissions have gone up. Hey! We emit CO2. It must be us". "obviously and openly" aren't sufficient qualifiers.

What other possibilities have been seriously considered and disproven?

Do you refuse to accept that the moon is made out of rock because the "cheese theory" was never given sufficient weight?

Weren't you complaining about "Straw Man" arguments in your last post?

Unfortunately I'm still not even clear on what you're arguing exactly so I'll go back to my original question, are you saying CO2 hasn't increased or that the increase not caused by human activity?

A little bit of both really. As I said, I've yet to read up on the former comprehensively, but perhaps that will provide more enlightenment on the latter.

fits

seamus wrote: »

What other possibilities have been seriously considered and disproven?

.

I havent read all this thread but just to answer this, solar activity for one has been disproven as a cause.

sharper

seamus wrote: »

Again, that's correlation, not causation. You're doing exactly what I was describing earlier. "Oh look, CO2 emissions have gone up. Hey! We emit CO2. It must be us". "obviously and openly" aren't sufficient qualifiers.

Yes we would in fact need evidence to back such a hypothesis. For example evidence of how much CO2 we put out and how much CO2 went up by. We could look for other sources of CO2. We could also look at the carbon isotype to determine where exactly it came from.

Guess what? We did all those things! As it turns out the increase in CO2 is clearly and unambiguously a result of fossil fuel usage. You apparently want to ignore all the evidence that actually supports this (or at least not actually look into the matter).

What other possibilities have been seriously considered and disproven?

Again, why are you suggesting that other possibilities have not been considered and disproven? Possibilities like what exactly? Do you read scientific journals? I don't but that's where I'd expect to find such alternate investigations.

Weren't you complaining about "Straw Man" arguments in your last post?

I sure was but hyperbole is not the same as a strawman. I didn't pretend you were arguing that the moon is made of cheese and then disprove it, I used it as a colourful example of your line of reasoning applied to another area. You're suggesting we cannot accept a conclusion without good evidence that other conclusions were investigated and disproven.

A little bit of both really. As I said, I've yet to read up on the former comprehensively, but perhaps that will provide more enlightenment on the latter.

So essentially you're ignorant on the topic. I'm not using this as an insult, there are many many areas where I'm ignorant. What I tend to do though is not make pronouncements in areas I'm ignorant of. If I'm confused about something I research it to the point where I can at least ask intelligent questions on the topic.

sharper

fits wrote: »

I havent read all this thread but just to answer this, solar activity for one has been disproven as a cause.

Oh we're not even as far along as the actual climate change - seamus is unconvinced the levels of CO2 have even increased!

seamus

sharper wrote: »

Guess what? We did all those things! As it turns out the increase in CO2 is clearly and unambiguously a result of fossil fuel usage. You apparently want to ignore all the evidence that actually supports this (or at least not actually look into the matter).

Great! Links? Not that I haven't looked for them, but I've found it difficult to find links which either don't start from the assumption that we are the cause or which don't blantantly have a green agenda.

Again, why are you suggesting that other possibilities have not been considered and disproven?

Because everyone seems to have taken it as gospel that we are the cause. Often I'd expect to hear an admission of at least one alternative theory which had legs, but was disproven - this is one of the things which provides a theory with even more plausibility; When competing theories fall before new evidence.

I haven't read a scientific journal in a while (used to buy them when flying), but even in them I can't recall ever seeing a proposed alternative theory.

You're suggesting we cannot accept a conclusion without good evidence that other conclusions were investigated and disproven.

Sounds like good science to me. How can you come to a conclusion without examining other possibilities?

So essentially you're ignorant on the topic.

A good deal more than I'd like to be. All we've been hearing for the last 20 years is how the earth is going to scorch and we'll all die out. Except that now we know that the earth isn't heating up at all and hasn't gotten any warmer this century. Oops. So logically I probably subconsciously made the "No Global Warming == No CO2 increase" jump. But if CO2 actually doesn't contribute to the theoretical global warming effect, as mentioned by a poster earlier on, then it's entirely plausible that CO2 levels may increase and global warming doesn't occur.

CPT. SURF

seamus is unconvinced the levels of CO2 have even increased!

Alright, so if CO2 levels have increased drammatically is that really bad for humans? Is it good? What are the long term effects? Does anyone know?

What I mean is that when Global "Warming" was all the rage I was told that the low-lying areas would flood, massive hurricanes, along with various other doomsday predictions. Now it is being called climate change. So the future weather patterns are unknown and unpredictable; was this not always the case?

These changes will bring about the death of old species but it is a perfectly logical scientific assumption that new species will thrive in the new conditions. Some current species may go from weak to strong. Death gives a new birth. The great circle of life

sharper

seamus wrote: »

Great! Links? Not that I haven't looked for them, but I've found it difficult to find links which either don't start from the assumption that we are the cause or which don't blantantly have a green agenda.

It's pretty much impossible to present anything in a completely impartial manner and in any event climate change should not be presented impartially - one side has an enormous amount of evidence supporting it and one side does not. You won't find many "impartial" sources on the topic of whether the Earth is flat or round either.

As for links well I bet you can google as well as I can but start here. Wikipedia is a good resource and covers a lot of ground too.

Because everyone seems to have taken it as gospel that we are the cause.

If you feel they're incorrect then you need to look into the matter and research further, not decide that they must be wrong because [insert your personal opinion here]

Often I'd expect to hear an admission of at least one alternative theory which had legs, but was disproven - this is one of the things which provides a theory with even more plausibility; When competing theories fall before new evidence.

You're dealing with a single uncontroversial line of evidence concerning AGW and expecting other people to go off and research what other possibilities have been disproven as a prerequisite for you accepting the current explanation. This is an impossible standard of evidence for anyone to deal with. In some cases yes there are alternative disproven theories but not always and it's certainly not a requirement.

I haven't read a scientific journal in a while (used to buy them when flying), but even in them I can't recall ever seeing a proposed alternative theory.

You'll forgive me if I don't form any conclusions based on your memory. You seem uninclined to get into the specifics of what you're expecting to find.

Sounds like good science to me. How can you come to a conclusion without examining other possibilities?

Seriously? Hypothesis: The moon is composed of rock. Test: Examine the composition of samples from the moon. Conclusion: The moon is in fact made of rock. Where in this process do we need a "Well maybe it's made of cheese"?

A good deal more than I'd like to be. All we've been hearing for the last 20 years is how the earth is going to scorch and we'll all die out.

No serious scientist has made this claim or anything close to it.

Except that now we know that the earth isn't heating up at all and hasn't gotten any warmer this century. Oops.

You're going to have to support that claim.

So logically I probably subconsciously made the "No Global Warming == No CO2 increase" jump. But if CO2 actually doesn't contribute to the theoretical global warming effect, as mentioned by a poster earlier on, then it's entirely plausible that CO2 levels may increase and global warming doesn't occur.

Yes and here we have the classic climate change scatter shot - CO2 isn't increasing! Oh it is? Well humans aren't contributing to it! They are? Well CO2 doesn't affect the climate then!

The effects of CO2 can be overwhelmed by other factors (e.g. El Nino/La Nina) however if you (or others) don't believe CO2 is responsible for the warming trend we've seen then you need to outline what does explain it. It's not acceptable to simply critique an explanation, science operates by providing superior explanations to existing one.

seamus

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Alright, so if CO2 levels have increased drammatically is that really bad for humans? Is it good?

Well, increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere wouldn't be "good" for mammals. Humans will start to notice the effect of CO2 at between 5k and 10k parts per million - concentrations of between 0.5% and 1%. It will make you tired, give you headaches and affect your ability to concentrate. It's a fair bet to say that if you feel tired and drowsy at 0.5%, then a concentration of one-fifth of that (0.1%) will have at least some effect on you, even if it's slight. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are between 0.0003% and 0.0006%. So in order for CO2 concentrations to have any direct effect on us, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would need to increase 166 times above their current level. Of course, there would be some other side effects before that level if other species were unable to cope.
If the claims that CO2 concentrations are increasing by 0.004% per year are correct, then it will take quite a long time (in the region of thousands of years) to get to a 0.1% concentration. Though that's a back-of-napkin calculation, I don't think it's right...

seamus

Short reply before I go home; forgive me if I skip over some bits.

You're dealing with a single uncontroversial line of evidence concerning AGW and expecting other people to go off and research what other possibilities have been disproven as a prerequisite for you accepting the current explanation. This is an impossible standard of evidence for anyone to deal with. In some cases yes there are alternative disproven theories but not always and it's certainly not a requirement.

How is it an impossible standard of evidence? The goal should be to completely disprove everything you think is correct. Therefore you find theories which don't match yours and you put them to the test. Coming up with a theory and deciding that it's the best way and then finding evidence to support it, is swinging dangerously close to religion.

Seriously? Hypothesis: The moon is composed of rock. Test: Examine the composition of samples from the moon. Conclusion: The moon is in fact made of rock. Where in this process do we need a "Well maybe it's made of cheese"?

Hypothesis 1: The Moon is made of rock
Hypothesis 2: The moon is made of salmon.

Test: Go to moon, obtain part of it.

Result: The moon is not made of salmon.

I can construct pointless and unequal comparisons too.

You're going to have to support that claim.

Well, since NASA showed that they screwed up on their calculations and can't be relied on for accurate data, suddenly a lot of other people are feeling less like scientific lepers and aren't afraid to show their measurements.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

Yes and here we have the classic climate change scatter shot - CO2 isn't increasing! Oh it is? Well humans aren't contributing to it! They are? Well CO2 doesn't affect the climate then!

If you re-read my post, you'll see that's not what I said.

djpbarry

seamus wrote: »

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are between 0.0003% and 0.0006%. So in order for CO2 concentrations to have any direct effect on us, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would need to increase 166 times above their current level.

The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately 390ppm. As you have said, concentrations above 5,000ppm will have adverse effects on healthy adults, but the recommended safe level for children and the elderly is significantly less (I'm not sure exactly how much less). According to the IPCC, fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach a level of approximately 1,000ppm by the end of this century (and possibly beyond if reserves such as tar sands and methane clathrates are used extensively).

CPT. SURF

So when the fossil fuels, an exhaustable resource, have been consumed the planet will re-align its natural equilibrium. People will have to develop new sources of energy. With the advancements in technology, one would assume this new source will be "greener".

Thus, considering how quickly the oil is being consumed and its exponential patterns of consumption, these new fuels should come online in the relatively near future. Giving the planet the break it will need to more successfully conduct its natural self-corrections.

DubTony

In a radio interview (there won't be a link to this "evidence") a couple of months ago, one guy said that 50% of New Zealand's greenhouse gases came from livestock.

So here's my theory.

It's the cows.

As the Chinese and others become more affluent, they are seemingly eating more red meat and have less interest in their traditional dishes. So, it seems more cows have to be "grown" in order to feed them. More cows results in increasing levels of greenhouse gases. I can't post a link to this because I can't find one that backs it up, but everyone knows that the Chinese are using more of "our stuff" i.e. petrol and meat. The petrol thing is being sorted, we're making sure they can't afford, but because there's no "peak cow" problem we can't reduce the supply or put the price up, as there'll always be some greedy farmer willing to buck the trend. Anyway, I don't think beef futures are a big hit on the international financial markets just yet. (If they are I'm sure someone will let me know)

There you have it. Blame the cows ... and the Chinese.

elmyra

Does anyone else keep seeing the word as 'raped' when they look at this thread title?

seamus

djpbarry wrote: »

The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is approximately 390ppm. As you have said, concentrations above 5,000ppm will have adverse effects on healthy adults, but the recommended safe level for children and the elderly is significantly less (I'm not sure exactly how much less). According to the IPCC, fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to reach a level of approximately 1,000ppm by the end of this century (and possibly beyond if reserves such as tar sands and methane clathrates are used extensively).

I knew my napkin calculations were off

If CO2 emissions were to increase at 0.4% per year (which is what those graphs suggest), it would take 280 years to reach a saturation of 0.1% in the atmosphere, or 1,000ppm.

Of course, it would probably be a problem about 150 years in.

sharper - I'll call a hold to my contributions while I go and spend some time reading. Otherwise we're going to start talking in pedantry and irrelevancies. Or at least I will anyway.

sharper

seamus wrote: »

I can construct pointless and unequal comparisons too.

You'll need to explain why (not simply assert) the example is pointless. You are making a claim that it is necessary to demonstrate alternative explanations were considered and disproven and I provided an example where it wasn't.

Well, since NASA showed that they screwed up on their calculations and can't be relied on for accurate data,

I have a shocking revelation for you: science is wrong all the time! Old theories are abandoned or revised, data is corrected, assumptions are reexamined. A minor flaw was found in Nasa's data which meant that in the United States 1930 was slightly warmer than 1998 instead of 1998 being slightly warmer than 1930. The notion that Nasa's data is now now reliable is ridiculous.

suddenly a lot of other people are feeling less like scientific lepers and aren't afraid to show their measurements.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

If you re-read my post, you'll see that's not what I said.

Are you referring to the Nature article? They're not saying global warming isn't happening but that sea current cycles would temporarily overwhelm it for a few years.

sharper

CPT. SURF wrote: »

So when the fossil fuels, an exhaustable resource, have been consumed the planet will re-align its natural equilibrium. People will have to develop new sources of energy. With the advancements in technology, one would assume this new source will be "greener".

Define "natural equilibrium" and explain why we should prefer it relative to "CO2 levels consistent with those throughout the entire time humans have been on the planet."

CPT. SURF

Define "natural equilibrium" and explain why we should prefer it relative to "CO2 levels consistent with those throughout the entire time humans have been on the planet."

Alright, you are missing where I am going with that. What I am saying is that if humans are greatly increasing the CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels, the planet will automatically begin to make the necessary alterations to correct this imbalance. What these alterations actually are and what their consequences will be for us as a species I do not know.

When our species, greedy as we are, has done all the damage we can to the planet by burning all available fossil fuels, the planet will be able to more quickly restore the atmospheric conditions that it feels are most beneficial to it.

I am not saying that burning the fuels is the right way to go, just that the real long term damage that will be done to the planet by burning all the remaining fuels is negligible to the planet itself.

sharper

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Alright, you are missing where I am going with that. What I am saying is that if humans are greatly increasing the CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels, the planet will automatically begin to make the necessary alterations to correct this imbalance. What these alterations actually are and what their consequences will be for us as a species I do not know.

Really? So you're sure the planet will make some sort of correction to restore the balance but you have no idea what that will be and whether it will be good or bad.

When our species, greedy as we are, has done all the damage we can to the planet by burning all available fossil fuels, the planet will be able to more quickly restore the atmospheric conditions that it feels are most beneficial to it.

The conditions the planet feels are most beneficial to it....right you are then.

I am not saying that burning the fuels is the right way to go, just that the real long term damage that will be done to the planet by burning all the remaining fuels is negligible to the planet itself.

The rest of us are a bit more concerned about the implications for human civilization.

Flamed Diving

darkman2 wrote: »

CO2 CANNOT DRIVE CLIMATE - FACT. Yet this is what these media freindly mugs constantly come out with. Look it up and you will quickly find out why!

What makes you an expert again?

CPT. SURF

Really? So you're sure the planet will make some sort of correction to restore the balance but you have no idea what that will be and whether it will be good or bad.

EXACTLY! I am absolutely certain the planet will make the corrections it deems necessary. It has been here for billions of years so its a resilient little bugger and has dealt with events much more threatening than our CO2 emmissions. And yes, I do not know what these corrections will entail; nobody does.

The rest of us are a bit more concerned about the implications for human civilization.

How cute

djpbarry

seamus wrote: »

The goal should be to completely disprove everything you think is correct.

• the theory that solar output is responsible has been disproved
• the “cosmic ray” theory has no supporting evidence
• it has been suggested that the fact that mars and Pluto are also warming is proof that solar output is increasing, but it is not
• the claim that the lower atmosphere is cooling has been disproved
• the claim that the oceans are cooling has been disproved

I’m sure there are others, but these are just the first that come to mind. Information on all of them should be easy enough to come by, but I can get links if needed (don’t have time just now I’m afraid!).

seamus wrote: »

Therefore you find theories which don't match yours and you put them to the test.

As demonstrated by the above list, this is happening all the time. Scientists are constantly challenging the man-made global warming theory and in doing so, the theory and its constituent parts are strengthened.

seamus wrote: »

Hypothesis 1: The Moon is made of rock
Hypothesis 2: The moon is made of salmon.

But your second hypothesis doesn’t make any sense – conducting an experiment on a completely baseless hypothesis is a total waste of time. A hypothesis should be, at the very least, an educated guess.

DubTony wrote: »

In a radio interview (there won't be a link to this "evidence") a couple of months ago, one guy said that 50% of New Zealand's greenhouse gases came from livestock.

Absolutely; livestock are a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, hence the call from many an environmentalist for a mass-conversion to vegetarianism.

CPT. SURF wrote: »

I am absolutely certain the planet will make the corrections it deems necessary.

Sorry? The planet “deems” now, does it?

Flamed Diving

People who have been awarded a Phd in this topic sign below:



Terry

---

Everyone else, please stop pretending you know what you are talking about. Its getting really annoying.

dr.bollocko

Well a PHD wouldn't exactly set anything right.
Its not like the great global warming debate is over or has any conclusive answers at all.
There are no facts set in stone about it at all. Anyone who has already formed a definite opinion has severely jumped the gun based on any of the evidence I have seen.

Flamed Diving

Right, but 99% of people would lack the qualifications to correctly interpret the data. But that won't stop the internet professors spewing vitriol.

dr.bollocko

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, but 99% of people would lack the qualifications to correctly interpret the data. But that won't stop the internet professors spewing vitriol.

No it wont. Fair point.
At this point I am just trying to keep my posts to less than a paragraph so someone won't go off on a quote tirade.

CPT. SURF

Sorry? The planet “deems” now, does it?

Of course it does, otherwise it would be ****ed.

Keep in mind I have to use words to describe something that is Indescribable

djpbarry

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Everyone else, please stop pretending you know what you are talking about. Its getting really annoying.

And there was me thinking this is a public internet forum where anyone can discuss pretty much anything they want.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Its not like the great global warming debate is over or has any conclusive answers at all. There are no facts set in stone about it at all.

That depends on what you define as “conclusive answers” or “facts”. For example, the following are pretty much indisputable facts:

• The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
• Burning fossil fuels (or anything else for that matter) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
• Carbon dioxide absorbs significant levels of infrared radiation.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Anyone who has already formed a definite opinion has severely jumped the gun based on any of the evidence I have seen.

Then might I suggest you explore more of the available evidence?

dr.bollocko

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No it wont. Fair point.
At this point I am just trying to keep my posts to less than a paragraph so someone won't go off on a quote tirade.

Oh well.
At least I tried.
DJP your pedantic nonsense will never win me over to the darkside of sandal wearing electric car driving foolishness. There is not enough evidence, and any amount of graphs showing the change in co2 levels from a volcano in Hawaii is not going to convince me. Or anyone who isnt insane.

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

There is not enough evidence, and any amount of graphs showing the change in co2 levels from a volcano in Hawaii is not going to convince me.

Ah, I see. So when you said "Anyone who has already formed a definite opinion has severely jumped the gun based on any of the evidence I have seen.", you really meant "I have my fingers in my ears and my eyes shut tightly. You can show me all the evidence you want but I won't pay it any heed. My mind's made up and that's that.". I'm detecting just a hint of religious dogma. I sincerely hope you do not apply this same pholosphy when on jury duty; "What evidence? Meh... GUILTY."

"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"
John Maynard Keynes

CPT. SURF

"When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"
John Maynard Keynes

That is a brilliant quote. All well and good in the affairs of men but dangerous when proposing notions about unknown things

dr.bollocko

The facts havent been changed. Spurious evidence has been touted around the place by internet profs like you to support a claim that there is as yet no direct evidence of. I have looked at it and decided that it is nothing if not incomplete and correlation rather than causation. If you have made your mind up, then it is you sir who are dogmatic.
And just to let you know, I say what I mean and I mean what I say buddy.

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The facts havent been changed. Spurious evidence has been touted around the place by internet profs like you to support a claim that there is as yet no direct evidence of.

Facts change all the time as new discoveries are made. There are numerous facts known to us today that were not known 100 years ago. There are things that are not known to us today that will be considered fact in 10 years time.

And what is spurious about the evidence I have provided? Care to elaborate? Perhaps you could point out which of the following claims are spurious:

• The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
• Burning fossil fuels (or anything else for that matter) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
• Carbon dioxide absorbs significant levels of infrared radiation.

dr.bollocko

djpbarry wrote: »

Facts change all the time as new discoveries are made. There are numerous facts known to us today that were not known 100 years ago. There are things that are not known to us today that will be considered fact in 10 years time.

And what is spurious about the evidence I have provided? Care to elaborate? Perhaps you could point out which of the following claims are spurious:

• The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.
• Burning fossil fuels (or anything else for that matter) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
• Carbon dioxide absorbs significant levels of infrared radiation.

Do the words hook, line and sinker mean anything to you?
you sir are touting fad science and I am out.
You should be a nutritionist.

Flamed Diving

djpbarry wrote: »

And there was me thinking this is a public internet forum where anyone can discuss pretty much anything they want.

Exactly, which means I can call people for talking utter sh!t.

:P

djpbarry

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Do the words hook, line and sinker mean anything to you?
you sir are touting fad science and I am out.

Actually, I am "touting" pretty solid facts. I didn't think you'd answer the questions and in doing so you've proved my point; evidence is laid before you and you dismiss it out of hand, irrespective of how strong the evidence might be.

I find it almost impossible to believe that you have formed your opinion by considering the available evidence when you refuse to even accept the possibility that burning stuff could increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that this could have adverse effects.

Flamed Diving

djpbarry wrote: »

Actually, I am "touting" pretty solid facts. I didn't think you'd answer the questions and in doing so you've proved my point; evidence is laid before you and you dismiss it out of hand, irrespective of how strong the evidence might be.

I find it almost impossible to believe that you have formed your opinion by considering the available evidence when you refuse to even accept the possibility that burning stuff could increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that this could have adverse effects.

What are your scientific qualifications? Where were you conferred your doctorate?

dr.bollocko

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What are your scientific qualifications? Where were you conferred your doctorate?

DIT one would presume my dear Diving.

CPT. SURF

I find it almost impossible to believe that you have formed your opinion by considering the available evidence when you refuse to even accept the possibility that burning stuff could increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that this could have adverse effects.

In fairness I think he has said somewhere in this thread that burning the fules leads to more CO2 and potentially adverse effects. His issue is that he does not see the causality between human action and global climate change

djpbarry

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What are your scientific qualifications? Where were you conferred your doctorate?

Have you found some scientific inaccuracies in my posts?

dr.bollocko

djpbarry wrote: »

Have you found some scientific inaccuracies in my posts?

Do you always expect to get the last word in with rhetorical questions and rhetoric?:pac::D

Flamed Diving

djpbarry wrote: »

Have you found some scientific inaccuracies in my posts?

How would I know? I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. But at least I'm not trying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

djpbarry

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. But at least I'm not trying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

One does not need to be a climatologist to understand basic physical principles.

Flamed Diving

djpbarry wrote: »

One does not need to be a climatologist to understand basic physical principles.

Right, and what do they say about a little knowledge?

Face it, everyone in this thread lacks the qualifications to discuss the very evidence they are slinging about the place. Especially you.

sharper

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, and what do they say about a little knowledge?

Face it, everyone in this thread lacks the qualifications to discuss the very evidence they are slinging about the place. Especially you.

The only forum where qualifications might be a factor is the scientific community, on an internet forum we're all well able to discuss things without needing a qualification or the blessing of self appointed guardians of knowledge.

If you want to challenge a particular statement by all means do so and back it up. If you can't be arsed then don't but this "Yeah well you don't have a PhD so shut up" is pretty tiresome and not at all persuasive.

Tar.Aldarion

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, and what do they say about a little knowledge?

Face it, everyone in this thread lacks the qualifications to discuss the very evidence they are slinging about the place. Especially you.

Anybody that has done physics or chemistry to a high degree is qualified to talk about this.

Flamed Diving

sharper wrote: »

The only forum where qualifications might be a factor is the scientific community, on an internet forum we're all well able to discuss things without needing a qualification or the blessing of self appointed guardians of knowledge.

If you want to challenge a particular statement by all means do so and back it up. If you can't be arsed then don't but this "Yeah well you don't have a PhD so shut up" is pretty tiresome and not at all persuasive.

Well, I happen to think you are all talking out your arses, so I'm not looking for challenge any particular statement just this internet professor nonsense. Anyway, back to your waffle, I will leave you be.

sharper

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, I happen to think you are all talking out your arses, so I'm not looking for challenge any particular statement just this internet professor nonsense. Anyway, back to your waffle, I will leave you be.

Everybody's talking out their arses, whoopdie-do thanks for your input. Thanks for permitting others to discuss things on the internet, it's very kind of you, see you now.

dr.bollocko

Wow. Negativity produces more CO2 than smiling folks.


For shame all of ye.

djpbarry

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Face it, everyone in this thread lacks the qualifications to discuss the very evidence they are slinging about the place.

No, they don’t. That’s a pretty poor excuse for an argument. By that logic, anyone without a degree in international politics is not entitled to an opinion on the Lisbon Treaty and therefore, should not have voted.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, I happen to think you are all talking out your arses, so I'm not looking for challenge any particular statement….

Because you can’t, right?