Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

Started by Solar Sausage, Jan 06 2010 08:16

«
Prev

Page 48 of 13

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.

250 replies to this topic

#941 Gray-Wolf

Members
8,862 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 20:37

Thundery wintry showers, on 10 March 2010 - 18:40 , said:

For the most part, but there are some honourable exceptions, including certain members of this forum- we need to beware of being too broad-brush in our generalisation of any part of the spectrum.

Accepted TWS, my bad Posted Image

KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.

VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

Back to top

#942 jethro

Forum Team
4,930 posts

Posted 10 March 2010 - 23:51

Gray-Wolf, on 10 March 2010 - 18:21 , said:

Though an aside from the general conversation I find I must thank SSS for their clear ,concise and 'backed up' responses on here since they arrived.

Many folk of a similar stance (I include myself in their numbers) have become increasingly frazzled at some of the sceptics flat refusal to accept the solidity of the evidence that 'WE' have caused a climate problem for the planet (though they all seem to accept a NIMBY stance on general pollution/waste?) with our abuse/overuse of the planets resources.

We certainly do need a detailed explanation from their 'camp' as to what exactly can be shown to cause the changes we are undergoing if not man's messy ways.

Though we, on this side of the house, would dearly love to be wrong members on the opposing benches seem reluctant to bring forth any evidence to make us ALL feel better about things............ Posted Image

Perhaps, just perhaps, if people stopped viewing this as a "them" and "us" debate, lobbing tit for tat challenges and accusations back and forth across an imaginary divide; there might actually be more agreement and far more science based discussions.

I for one quite often see posts which although utterly wrong from a scientific perspective, I cannot be bothered replying to as it's been aimed in such a confrontational way, it's more trouble than it's worth. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that stance.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

All views I express are either my own or the dog's; often it's difficult to discern which of us is spouting the most gibberish.

Back to top

#943 North Sea Snow Convection (guest)

Guests

Posted 11 March 2010 - 00:04

sunny starry skies, on 10 March 2010 - 13:57 , said:

You don't understand the concept of a scientific theory, do you?
http://en.wikipedia....ientific_theory

Examples include:
Special theory of Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Big Bang
Evolution
Copernican theory of the solar system
Theory of electromagnetism

AGW theory makes a series of predictions, based on the known properties of greenhouse gases. These predictions have been and are being observed (including feedbacks), hence why the theory is verified by it's different predictions for different parts of the globe, levels of the atmosphere, radiation at different wavelengths above and below the atmosphere, and attendant physical consequences in the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere. I'm sorry you don't understand that, really I am, but this is 100 years of good science that you wish to brush under the carpet because you don't like it. The theory stands alongside other theories that you're quite happy to accept (I presume you do accept that we orbit the Sun, for example). It will continue to stand until evidence falsifies it or a new theory supercedes it.

If a negative feedback appears that changes the outcome for the Earth, then all well and good, so long as we do something about our greenhouse gas emissions before the negative feedback goes away. You forget that climate scientists would be entirely happy to discover a new property of the system that meant we did not irreversibly alter our global climate. But that's bnot going to happen, based on the evidence. unless of course you have some new evidence to show... You're convinced it's all a conspiracy, but it's not, it's based on observations that verify the predictions of the theory... unless you think there has been a conspiracy for generations and among tens of thousands of scientists across the whole world.

I really enjoyed your bit about the IPCC scientists. You mean the same ones that aren't paid to write the report?

Speaking of conspiracies... 32 organisations involved in both the denial campaign surrounding tobacco and that surrounding AGW:
http://www.realclima...#comment-151461 [comment 855 by Timothy Chase has the list]
sss

I would contest that we orbit the sun as well actually, plus I am a regular flat earther too
in the true denial stance Posted Image

Thanks for the wikepedia link - but, you see, I am also too thick to understand the explanation..... Posted Image

I guess now that it is only down to the last scientist who leaves the theory lab to turn the light off on the way out. Job clearly well done.

In the absence of any sceptic theory it might be as well to leave you believers to your own 'love-in' Posted Image

Edited by North Sea Snow Convection, 11 March 2010 - 00:04 .

Back to top

#944 jethro

Forum Team
4,930 posts

Posted 11 March 2010 - 00:15

Time for everyone to take a little break.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

All views I express are either my own or the dog's; often it's difficult to discern which of us is spouting the most gibberish.