Thread: Global Warming - the Final Word

The broad range of this estimate can cause broad swings in the climate models no?

CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect.

I'm not sure where your quotation is from but be careful not to confuse the overall greenhouse effect with anthropogenic climate change.

Originally Posted by Gerontion

people who read the Mail are scum

Listen to the hi-so farang.



I've seen your contributions before, Gerontion & you do appear to know what you're talking about. It's that you guys expect the little man to take your sides' word for it as you are better - I don't know - educated or whatever but that has no bearing on the fact that this myth has yet to be proved beyond doubt. This is a class war.

You may as well be tring to convince somebody of the existence of God.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

This is a class war

Oh dear. Perceive it as you like, rich or poor it doesn't matter. if correct the repercussions are felt by all.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

You may as well be tring to convince somebody of the existence of God.

That really is a stunningly poor analogy. What part of the vast majority of the scientific opinion and study have you missed!?

^^ No. If Littlejohn - or anyone else for that matter - has a valid contribution to make, I'm more than happy to listen to it. I would love climate change to be wrong; who would not? But the Mail specialises in an emotional anti-scientific populism which seeks to deny the work of thousands and thousands of scientists with arguments of no greater substance than 'scientists are geeks'. This is pathetic. If you believe there to be a flaw in the science, point it out but your seeking to justify wilful ignorance by some absurd appeal to class conflict is just contemptible.

Originally Posted by Gerontion

I'm not sure where your quotation is from but be careful not to confuse the overall greenhouse effect with anthropogenic climate change.

Following one of the links about water vapor.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

That really is a stunningly poor analogy. What part of the vast majority of the scientific opinion and study have you missed!?

Not the part which says it could be all wrong, amongst others.

I've looked at the evidence & it is compelling, no doubt. It's just there is an element of doubt - even you must concede that? We probably differ on exactly how much doubt but there is doubt there, nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

I've looked at the evidence & it is compelling, no doubt. It's just there is an element of doubt - even you must concede that?

Concede it? I've never denied it, nothing is ever 100% certain. The balance of scientific study points towards it being a probability. Most certainly more probable than not. But that's not the point anyway, the point is that sticking your head in the sand is about as useful as... well, sticking your head in the sand.

With all due respect discounting the entire notion on the basis of something someone like Richard Littlejohn has to say, or over some chip on your shoulder at class differences, is specious at best, mind-booglingly, hopelessly redundant and disengenious at worst.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

points towards it being a probability. Most certainly more probable than not.

That's settled then is it?

My opinions were formed a long time before this stuff started to become a running joke in the newspaper columns. I just admire the way Sir Littlejohn says it.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

That's settled then is it?

Well unless you can point to a perponderence of scientific opinion other than the venerated Daily Mail then yes, it's settled.

This it what I simply cannot fathom about those who deny global warming. It's almost like they are willing to go to any length, no matter how perposterous, to deny the facts. It's wilful blindness/ignorance of an increasingly bizarre scale.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

I just admire the way Sir Littlejohn says it.

Well that's your opinion so fair enough. In my opinion the guy's nothing but a scaremongerer, a panderer and a blow-hard that shouldn't be taken seriously on anything merely because he's paid well to say it.

When the global warming story first broke into the main stream media it was reported to be all our (human) fault. It wasn't until people investigated and began pushing back that the touts of climate models admitted that global warming is a natural event exasperated by humans. If we don't question the lazy "experts" they will continue to feed us slop passed off as science.

Knowingly accepting lies because we've been told it's for our own good breeds contempt for us on the part of the liars. We'll be treated with less and less respect and we'll be pushed aside in the name of expediency. If a person doesn't like the church laying guilt trips on them, then why should they accept the guilt trips perpetrated by politically motivated people?

^

Originally Posted by Gerontion

people who read the Mail are scum

That about sums it up.

Originally Posted by DrZaius

My opinions were formed a long time before this stuff started to become a running joke in the newspaper columns. I just admire the way Sir Littlejohn says it.

How were they formed, what did you base them on? Do you know what probability means?

Ant, Attaboys quote is about the thermal radiation absorption capabilities of water vapour and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It's a good question because the answer is horribly complex but fundamentally it comes down to something you said earlier and which Dr Zaius seems to be unaware of, that science is based on probabilities not certainties, something may be 99&#37; probable but because we can't deal with every possible variable nobody would, or, rather, should, say something is 100% probable. The problem here is scientific illiteracy, something I've ranted about many times on this board, people think the words they know always carry the same meaning whether they're speaking to a mate in the pub or they're discussing physics on a forum. Classic example is quantum leap, in normal conversation we mean a big jump, in physics it means a very very very small on, causes major problems with concepts like porof, hypothesis, theory, and so on but what can you do, <shrug>.? Like it or not, their grandchildren's world will be as fucked up as our grandchildren's world but at least when our grandkids ask us what went wrong our answer won't be "Buggered if I know, Liitlejoghn said everything would be fine".

Originally Posted by attaboy

When the global warming story first broke into the main stream media it was reported to be all our (human) fault. It wasn't until people investigated and began pushing back that the touts of climate models admitted that global warming is a natural event exasperated by humans. If we don't question the lazy "experts" they will continue to feed us slop passed off as science. Knowingly accepting lies because we've been told it's for our own good breeds contempt for us on the part of the liars. We'll be treated with less and less respect and we'll be pushed aside in the name of expediency. If a person doesn't like the church laying guilt trips on them, then why should they accept the guilt trips perpetrated by politically motivated people?

1. Bad journalism is almost always caused by bad journalists, not bad scientists.
2. Please spell out in detail these "lies".
3. You (and I) need to take responsibility for our actions. This is not a radical notion. If, as now seems certain, we are seriously degrading the biosphere, it does not seem an undue imposition that we be required to stop doing so. Anyone with a hint of morality would have to agree with this (That caveat obviously excuses Daily Mail readers from their responsibilities).

Originally Posted by attaboy

It wasn't until people investigated and began pushing back that the touts of climate models admitted that global warming is a natural event exasperated by humans. If we don't question the lazy "experts" they will continue to feed us slop passed off as science.

Rant deleted, forget it, I'm going home now

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Like it or not, their grandchildren's world will be as fucked up as our grandchildren's world but at least when our grandkids ask us what went wrong our answer won't be "Buggered if I know, Liitlejoghn said everything would be fine".

Somehow that's going to prove eerily prophetic, I fear. And in a way it also highlights my biggest bugbear about this whole thing.

It's not the ludicrous discounting of scientific theory because of what some hack in a newspaper wrote, it's not the citing of questionable research by parties with vested interest. It's the willful - and ultimately inexcusable - ignorance/blindness of it all.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by attaboy

It wasn't until people investigated and began pushing back that the touts of climate models admitted that global warming is a natural event exasperated by humans. If we don't question the lazy "experts" they will continue to feed us slop passed off as science.

Rant deleted, forget it, I'm going home now

^ I knew that was coming. I'm making a general statement saying I reserve my right to question authority. I wasn't specifically addressing the info in your posts or some of the links I followed. I can site Al Gore's movie and "slop" science would apply.

As Gero stated we can identify the media for sensationalizing blame. I see it as a dual force of government and media laying on the guilt trip while science remains silent. Science loses credibility associating itself with liars.

Originally Posted by attaboy

Science loses credibility associating itself with liars.

Particularly if it's on the payroll.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

Originally Posted by attaboy

Science loses credibility associating itself with liars.

Particularly if it's on the payroll.

What payroll would that be? Perhaps you'd like to examine the funding sources of some of the naysayers (as DrBob pointed out earlier in this thread)?

Originally Posted by attaboy

I see it as a dual force of government and media laying on the guilt trip while science remains silent. Science loses credibility associating itself with liars.

So it's all some Grand Conspiracy is it? What a ludicrous statement, firstly science isn't remaining silent, secondly most governments have vested interest in ignoring the issue, not supporting it.

^^Particularly if it remains silent and let the media and government use it to lend credibility to their distortions.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

most governments have vested interest in ignoring the issue, not supporting it.

They know it's all a load of balls. They know there's nothing in it - no money in it, either. That's what it's all about. It's mugs like us who are paying extra for the family car & through the nose for petrol & all the other 'green' taxes that are imposed on us which do absolutely nothing to help the environment.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

Originally Posted by attaboy

Science loses credibility associating itself with liars.

Particularly if it's on the payroll.

What payroll would that be? Perhaps you'd like to examine the funding sources of some of the naysayers (as DrBob pointed out earlier in this thread)?

Originally Posted by attaboy

I see it as a dual force of government and media laying on the guilt trip while science remains silent. Science loses credibility associating itself with liars.

So it's all some Grand Conspiracy is it? What a ludicrous statement, firstly science isn't remaining silent, secondly most governments have vested interest in ignoring the issue, not supporting it.

Sorry my bad. I'm tired and changed the verb tense. I'm speaking about when the story first broke. Scientists let the media run with the guilt trip story that it was all humans fault.

I'm finished here for the moment also.

Originally Posted by attaboy

^^Particularly if it remains silent and let the media and government use it to lend credibility to their distortions.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

That's because there's no money in it. That's what it's all about. It's mugs like us who are paying extra for the family car & through the nose for petrol & all the other 'green' taxes that are imposed on us which do absolutely nothing to help the environment.

You've just contradicted yourself. There's no money in it for governments but we have to pay green taxes!?

Good luck with your green taxes. Our government usually borrows the money out of an account like that and uses it on an unrelated project.

^Don't ask me a question. Explain yourself.

I'm off as I said.