Climate Change Theory Degenerates into farce

[JCR]

So you answer his questions then, scientifically, what do I know about science or how to promote it.

Thats fair enough in one way but the information is available to everyone, everyone knows how to find it and I have better things to do with my time than to answer questions that are pointless when the person asking them says that he won't accept science because all scientists are biased anyway - so if I provide evidence it doesn't count. You wouldn't waste your time either.

[X-ray]

OK so nobody has really answered my basic questions so try proving this wrong.

We did not start making atmosphere altering amounts of CO2 until after WW2. 70 years ago at most. The climate has been on a pattern of change for a few hundred years if not longer. Either CO2 is not the cause of the warming or it is not the only cause. Warming maybe speeding up or about to go into reverse depending on what research you want to believe. I do not accept that taking a few less ryanair flights at this stage is going to make the remotest difference to the state of the ice caps in 50 years time. Why am I wrong?

What is wrong in what I have said there?

And we already know I am thick and 95% of everyone with a brains believes otherwise, so just try the very basic facts of the theory. What is the theory?

[zakalwe1]

not a great analogy there though, its easier to see what happening over a long time frame than be a little off about tomorrows weather, not a very good scientific method of making your argument there bud And it makes it obvious that you are no authority on the subject at all. However, scientists and climatologists are - so you see thats whose opinion I will listen to on the subject, and that is their opinion if you would care to find out about it. Sorry about my 'imperious haughtiness' there bud take your case to the experts who are in consensus so and see what they say to you - they might even say you are suffering from a slight dose of imperious haughtiness yourself

i have academic and professional qualifications in quantative finance.
so if i say
"i can't predict tomorrow's share prices but can say that the trend is up up up and will be for the next 150 years, please adjust govt policy to my expert claims"... you'd laugh me out of it because you'd rightly claim i was lying.

stock markets and climate are very similar beasts...both follow a "random walk".

you can no more talk about greenhouse gasses in controlled experiments and apply to real world policy than you can with basic economic theory.

my "imperious haughtiness" is that i know i cannot predict the future...in stark contrast to the "case closed" attitude to global warming which reminds me of G.Bush's "jury still out on evolution" remark.

the GW proponants share a great deal more with GwBush than they'd care to think.

[sharper]

We did not start making atmosphere altering amounts of CO2 until after WW2.

Do you have a source for this? This claim is enormously imprecise and seems dependent on the definition of "atmosphere altering".

[truthisfree]

Climate Change Theory Degenerates into farce

"Climate Change theory degenerates into farce" was the OP an so we see it right here!

[The Caped Cod]

Sarkozy thinks the CO2 creates holes in the Ozone so he introduced a carbon tax.

http://www.politics.ie/environment/1...ole-ozone.html

Now not een the most die-hard ecologist could support a carbon tax to stop holes in the Ozone layer.

[sharper]

as i said, they didn't have mercury thermometers back then

Why would you accept scientific findings that the volume of mercury is dependent on temperature anyway?

but accounts from travellers clearly state that wild vines were noted by viking travellers from iceland to greenland to novia scotia. how else do you think they travelled unless in unusually benign and warm conditions...they sure as hell didn't travel in a little ice age.

due to currents they could only travel eastwards across the atlantic by travelling north of the gulf stream (westwards current).

So you dismiss the findings of 97% of climate experts but you consider viking legend to be fact?

[X-ray]

Do you have a source for this? This claim is enormously imprecise and seems dependent on the definition of "atmosphere altering".

well i asked the question

[sharper]

well i asked the question

You made a claim, I can't evaluate it unless I see the evidence that supports it.

[zakalwe1]

Why would you accept scientific findings that the volume of mercury is dependent on temperature anyway?


So you dismiss the findings of 97% of climate experts but you consider viking legend to be fact?

the "legend" is supported by viking finds across greenland and novia scotia.

the fact that they made the trip across the very most northern reaches of the atlantic indicates that the weather was different to now. more benign.