Another nail in the coffin for global warming

[Akrasia]

No saying the ice caps are melting now is like saying one person died from one injection.
Saying the trend over a thousand years is a unstable climate is a logical and long distance view to take.

It is if it's supported by the evidence

It is perfectly reasonable for people to attack this theory and expect people to defend it. Just as it would be perfectly reasonable to say the injection is dangerous and question the research that brought it to market. If the product or theory is sound the arguments will soon be silenced.

really? How many people refused to get their children vaccinated with MMR because of one scientist's fraudulant claim that it caused Autism (that link has been comprehensively disproven, but because people are too lazy to do the most basic research and prefer to base decisions on gut feelings, innuendo and rumour, there are tens of thousands of people out there not vaccinated against these dangerous diseases, and they are starting to re-emerge as a public health issue)

Look we could argue about this forever and a day and not agree. Nobody here is qualified to discuss this in a professional way. If the theory is sound those who can should explain it to the public in a better way. I am certain this theory is not going to result in marked reduction in CO2 emissions by most people in the world. It looks full of half thought out hunches.

In other words, it's not your fault for being ignorant, it's the scientists fault for not explaining it well enough? That's a pathetic argument to be perfectly honest. Up there with people claiming compensation for spilling boiling hot coffee over themselves because they put the cup on the dashboard of their car while they were driving.

If you want to participate in the debate, take responsibility to inform yourself, otherwise step aside and let the grown ups get on with things

[PAD10H]

It looks full of half thought out hunches.

you sum up your postings in the thread quite nicely there.

[tonyedit]

Here we are again, squabbling over inconsequential details. Don't you get it? It's about feeding six billion people, trying to limit our massive energy and resource consumption and incentivise technologists and innovators to take us beyond our currently destructive energy policies. It doesn't matter what they call it. It's about sustainability. Can anyone here, living in reality, really claim that oil isn't going to run out within a hundred years? We've got to wake up to the fact that the planet is creaking under our weight and/or its own timetable, and we have to adapt.

I don't care who started it, who's right or who's wrong; we've got to deal with it.

[X-ray]

Here we are again, squabbling over inconsequential details. Don't you get it? It's about feeding six billion people, trying to limit our massive energy and resource consumption and incentivise technologists and innovators to take us beyond our currently destructive energy policies. It doesn't matter what they call it. It's about sustainability. Can anyone here, living in reality, really claim that oil isn't going to run out within a hundred years? We've got to wake up to the fact that the planet is creaking under our weight and/or its own timetable, and we have to adapt.

I don't care who started it, who's right or who's wrong; we've got to deal with it.

Yes oil will run out and we need alternatives. We need them for economic, social and security reasons. There are also very good enviromental reasons not to burn fossil fuels aside from global warming. Oil spills and dirty air and water being but one. I have no probelm with that.

I have a huge problem with being told to shut up when asking a scientific question about a scientific theory. All scientific theories should be questioned repeatedly and in detail. It is perfectly correct that people questioned vacinations, in my opinion their questions were answered and it is safer to have them than not have them. There is an air around the global warming theory that is pseudo-religious and demonises anyone questioning it. That is not science, it is politics and ideologically driven.

We are talking about the scientific theory of global warming caused by man made CO2. Now either that is a robost theory and global warming can be reversed by us reducing CO2 emmissions or it is not.

The other arguements to reduce oil use are other arguements.

The evidence is less than proof and full of holes that result in personal attack when questioned. That makes me very uneasy about the whole thing.

I repeat again just because the priesthood is bad does not mean god does not exist, but he may not. We actually have reaached a point now where people are arguing that even if the world now cools for 30 years the theory is still robust, I think that is a nonsense of the highest order.


Prove it.