An interesting take on the climate issue

Trouble is, most of the so called "climate scientists" at the IPCC have absolutely no grounding in the core subject - climatology.

What's more, many of those whose names are included in the IPCC's report who are qualified to comment had their names included because they had done some work on the subject, not because they agreed with the reports conclusions.

Some even submitted papers showing that the IPCC conclusions were nonsense, yet their names were included as if they indicated the opposite.

If the IPCC was so certain of its ground, why would it need to go to such lengths? Quite frankly the whole IPCC report stinks of corruption.

And you still haven't covered the basic question - what do we do when global warming occurs and it isn't caused by CO2 emissions?

sorry didn't realise you'd posed a question. i guess there are 3 main possibilities:
1) we'll realise in time that CO2 isn't the cause and switch focus having wasted time and money.
2) not realise in time and have to undertake some massive programmes either to adapt to the changes or to correct the problem in a radical way
3) Not realise in time and die in our thousands/millions depending on the severity of the problem

It seems to me that the solar theory which you seem to favour is the underdog in terms of scientific support and also supporting data wise, so my question to you is why do you favour it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

sorry didn't realise you'd posed a question. i guess there are 3 main possibilities:
1) we'll realise in time that CO2 isn't the cause and switch focus having wasted time and money.
2) not realise in time and have to undertake some massive programmes either to adapt to the changes or to correct the problem in a radical way
3) Not realise in time and die in our thousands/millions depending on the severity of the problem

---

To your credit, you're willing to admit that there is a potential problem with following the CO2 herd. Unfortunately most advocates of this idea are dead against even considering that there could be any other scenario.

If the worst predictions about the rate of global warming are correct, then without a switch NOW option 1 is not going to be viable.

Have you really thought what you mean by option 2? How is that different from option 3? Are you suggesting that option 3 is that we realise that we've screwed up and decide to do nothing?

So 2 and 3 are the same - we have to undertake drastic action to try to rescue a situation which we should never have allowed to occur, and at the same time millions (possible billions) are going to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

It seems to me that the solar theory which you seem to favour is the underdog in terms of scientific support and also supporting data wise, so my question to you is why do you favour it?

---

Why is it the underdog in terms of scientific support?

That's easy to explain.
Try getting a research grant based on the idea that the most powerful energy source might be warming things up - impossible.
Try getting a research grant to back up the idea that a theory with virtually no background data support - watch the offers of money come flooding in.

In terms of supporting data?
Exactly where is the supporting data that greenhouse gases are responsible?
I'm serious when I tell you that there is NO data to support it, only supposition and what-ifs.

You should look at the so-called evidence advanced by your link with an open mind. Almost without exception the arguments are aimed at shooting down the opposition, there's hardly a single piece of positive evidence for the theory that CO2 is the cause of GW.

Anyone with a scientific background should be worried about the validity of an argument presented in that way.

The Sun is nearly at the end of it's grand cycle and will soon go into a prolonged period of Solar minimum bringing back a new Ice Age. This is not in his equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thewizeard

The Sun is nearly at the end of it's grand cycle and will soon go into a prolonged period of Solar minimum bringing back a new Ice Age. This is not in his equation.

---

Back to the Lounge with ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

...

Have you really thought what you mean by option 2? How is that different from option 3? Are you suggesting that option 3 is that we realise that we've screwed up and decide to do nothing?

So 2 and 3 are the same - we have to undertake drastic action to try to rescue a situation which we should never have allowed to occur, and at the same time millions (possible billions) are going to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

It seems to me that the solar theory which you seem to favour is the underdog in terms of scientific support and also supporting data wise, so my question to you is why do you favour it?

---

Why is it the underdog in terms of scientific support?

That's easy to explain.
Try getting a research grant based on the idea that the most powerful energy source might be warming things up - impossible.
Try getting a research grant to back up the idea that a theory with virtually no background data support - watch the offers of money come flooding in.

In terms of supporting data?
Exactly where is the supporting data that greenhouse gases are responsible?
I'm serious when I tell you that there is NO data to support it, only supposition and what-ifs.

You should look at the so-called evidence advanced by your link with an open mind. Almost without exception the arguments are aimed at shooting down the opposition, there's hardly a single piece of positive evidence for the theory that CO2 is the cause of GW.

Anyone with a scientific background should be worried about the validity of an argument presented in that way.

---

Sorry, wasn't clear, for 2 and 3 I meant we realise too late to save a world roughly as it is now and either we are able to do something to save ourselves from megadeaths or we aren't able.

On the other comments above:
1) the link is negative because it is specifically designed to point out the flaws in other arguments (webpage is called 'climate myths') so naturally the evidence presented isn't the full case for Anthropogenic GW (AGW), but is a case against the competing theories.

2) Proving stuff is hard, so science tends to work on a 'disprove it' basis, so perhaps i was wrong to ask about supporting evidence, the best you can say is that lots of evidence has been collected and it doesn't disagree with the AGW theory. (but the data does disagree with pretty much all the other theories around hence the web page).

3) The research grant argument isn't a good one imo. Essentially its an ad hominem attack on the worldwide grant authorisers (as well as some ad hom attacks on the IPCC). Also as i understand it scientists set out to collect data that might disprove a theory or is interesting in some other way. To claim that all scientists/research bodies are set on proving anthropogenic GW is i would think fairly slanderous and inaccurate. I think its a common/frequent claim which doesn't bear out in reality and the next normal argument (by people with an axe to grind) is that you won't get published if you do find data which doesn't fit the establishment view, but if you clearly detail your method in gathering data and there are no serious deficiencies in it then major journals will publish complete lies/bollocks like that bubble fusion thing.

By resorting to ad hominem attacks/attacks on funding systems you shift the battle away from the data and validity of the hypotheses. You may very well have a point that the existing funding arrangements are poorly suited to paradigm shifts/dislocations in scientific thinking, but then again those sorts of things are rare and overall it is not an argument against AGW.

Quote:

---

Global warming is probably taking place. Let's concentrate on things that we know will work, not on some wishy-washy unproven theory.

---

Just noticed this. I don't think there are any things that we know will work, (short of travelling to another planet) can you suggest some?




http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1...pinionszu1.gif

The thing is, this is mostly driven by politicians.

They, as usual, don't have the faintest clue about science. They think that as long as they get the majority of people to agree with their viewpoint then everything will probably be ok. The fact that science doesn't work like that is of no interest to them.

Of course, when they realise that they've got it wrong, it won't be their fault. As usual it will be the fault of the advisers (in this case the scientists), and anyway you all believed it too so what are you griping about.

That scenario sound familiar?

As I said at the beginning of this piece the video person makes his point using a basic probabilities matrix. The difficult with the piece other than the fact that he has forgotten to mention the recession in the lower box is that he has effectively given all the outcomes equal probability. To do this correctly and make an informed decision the boxes need estimated probability of occurrence and accurate costs need to be associated with each decision.

Incidently, it may be that there is 100% probability that GW will occur in 10 years and the cost of countering it is 50 Brazillions - and we only have 1 Brazillion. His magic bullet might seem magic but the rabbit will stay firmly in the hat.

In effect what he has done is said that if GW happens it will be so awful that we cannot afford to take the chance of it not happening. However, there are many scenarios that are awful, including being eaten by a giant mutant star goat. Yet not all are probable. Using Bayes to determine the probabilities and attendant costs is a standard cost analysis tool. I would be most surprised if the US and other Governments do not already have costed models. My one worry is that the Brazillion scenario above has already been concluded.

Did you have to remind me of Stats?:cry: Thirty percent of stats are correct the other eighty percent are probability.:)

lol "moot". I love that word.