The Climate Change Debate Thread

[owedtojoy]

If you are REALLY interested in ARctic Sea Ice, watch this lecture by Professor David Barber of U. of Manitoba. He does not start talking until the times is at 12 minutes in.

Barber confesses to having changed his prognostications of an ice-free arctic summer many times:

1970s Never
1980s 2100
1990s 2050
2000s 2030
Now Between 2013 and 2030

Webcast - Oslo Science Conference

[Tombo]

If you are REALLY interested in ARctic Sea Ice, watch this lecture by Professor David Barber of U. of Manitoba. He does not start talking until the times is at 12 minutes in.

Barber confesses to having changed his prognostications of an ice-free arctic summer many times:

1970s Never
1980s 2100
1990s 2050
2000s 2030
Now Between 2013 and 2030

Webcast - Oslo Science Conference

Oh goody. Another sandwich board scientist.

[owedtojoy]

Oh goody. Another sandwich board scientist.

You used the bang the "Arctic Ice is Recovering" drum quite a bit.

Lot quieter now.

[deepblue]

Those in denial about climate change should be looking at RTE 1 A burning question, on this evening.

[Tombo]

Those in denial about climate change should be looking at RTE 1 A burning question, on this evening.

A show made for those of below average intelligence.

You probably lapped it up.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Those in denial about climate change should be looking at RTE 1 A burning question, on this evening.

Sponsored by the EPA?!

"Those in denial"? Could you be anymore creepy and cultish?

[rubensni]

Those in denial about climate change should be looking at RTE 1 A burning question, on this evening.

I remain a proponent of the anthroprogenic theory despite all the carry on in East Anglia, but that show was awful. It was condescending, preachy, badly edited, and above all boring.
If the state seriously thinks it is worthwile to fund television programmes like that to explain to the science to the plebs (and I doubt it does) then maybe they could start out by using presenters that people could relate to? Duncan Stuart and John Gibbons aren't exactly celebrity. . .unless you're a geography teacher.

[Cassandra Syndrome]

I remain a proponent of the anthroprogenic theory despite all the carry on in East Anglia, but that show was awful. It was condescending, preachy, badly edited, and above all boring.
If the state seriously thinks it is worthwile to fund television programmes like that to explain to the science to the plebs (and I doubt it does) then maybe they could start out by using presenters that people could relate to? Duncan Stuart and John Gibbons aren't exactly celebrity. . .unless you're a geography teacher.

I was about to plus 1 there. But what plebs are you refering to?

We are aware that manmade CO2 makes up between 8 and 30% of GHG and that GHG has an influence on Climate change.

So do volcano's, sulphide aerosols, gamma rays and of course the exogenous factor of Solar Variance. The debate concerns how much are these factors weighted. Its the arrogance and denial of some of the AGW proponents about the other variables that vexes a lot of the sceptics.

There needs to be an open debate and forum on this country in some place for a weekend.

[owedtojoy]

I was about to plus 1 there. But what plebs are you refering to?

We are aware that manmade CO2 makes up between 8 and 30% of GHG and that GHG has an influence on Climate change.

So do volcano's, sulphide aerosols, gamma rays and of course the exogenous factor of Solar Variance. The debate concerns how much are these factors weighted. Its the arrogance and denial of some of the AGW proponents about the other variables that vexes a lot of the sceptics.

There needs to be an open debate and forum on this country in some place for a weekend.

There is no "debate" about the factors you mention. As we found out recently, >97% of climate scientists accept the main tenets of the IPCC reports. Maybe there is a debate in your own head, but that is where it should be left.

There are "vex'd sceptics" about Evolution, HIV and even a spherical earth. Should they have their "debate" as well?

The idea that a question of empirical science could be settled over a country weekend, presumably by a show of hands, is laughable. Nature is not a democracy, and confirmation by the evidence is the only criterion.

There is a subject about which there should be a public debate, and it is completely mixed up with the science. Actually, the two are separate. That is: what should the public policy be to mitigate or counteract global warming?

[PAD1OH]

A show made for those of below average intelligence.

You probably lapped it up.

oh look. Tombo decides to look up from reading his tabloid press just to insult someone before dealing with the content.

how surprising....