CO2 will decimate humankind, a clever bloke says so!
Discussion
Mr Gear said:
turbobloke said:
The joke has to be on anybody who's seen something that's invisible such as an invisible signal.
Have you seen the causal human signal in global climate data?
If so, where?
Oh hang on, I think this record is scratched...Have you seen the causal human signal in global climate data?
If so, where?
So, where did you see it?
turbobloke said:
thinfourth2 said:
Do i belive in manmade global warming = Yes
Bearing in mind the usual meaning of 'manmade global warming'...I still have no idea why anybody would believe in something for which there is no direct observational evidence in the data. The IPCC acknowledged this long ago and say they have no idea when manmadeup warming will appear.
There is no visible causal human signal in global climate data unambiguously linked to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. So those who believe in manmadeup warming believe in something that cannot be seen or examined or invesigated or analysed as there is no signal to examine or investigate.
Its like bird pooh making a London heavier. No sane person could argue that bird pooh doesn't make london heavier. You couldn't measure the bird pooh makes london heavier effect due to many other factors.
However the media and intrested parties are saying that bird pooh is gong to cause london to become a super dense blackhole that will sink to the center of the earth and destory all life in the solar system.
But there are plenty of threads about CO2
thinfourth2 said:
I didn't say it was something that that can be seen under the noise from the other influences but i do think we must be having some influence.
Its like bird pooh making a London heavier. No sane person could argue that bird pooh doesn't make london heavier. You couldn't measure the bird pooh makes london heavier effect due to many other factors.
However the media and intrested parties are saying that bird pooh is gong to cause london to become a super dense blackhole that will sink to the center of the earth and destory all life in the solar system.
But there are plenty of threads about CO2
Exactly. But I think we can agree that sensationalism does not help anyone's side of the debate.Its like bird pooh making a London heavier. No sane person could argue that bird pooh doesn't make london heavier. You couldn't measure the bird pooh makes london heavier effect due to many other factors.
However the media and intrested parties are saying that bird pooh is gong to cause london to become a super dense blackhole that will sink to the center of the earth and destory all life in the solar system.
But there are plenty of threads about CO2
Mr Gear said:
Ask professor Brian Cox. I've seen nothing... but then I haven't been looking.
The problem is that no one has found it, if they had then the Climate threads in here for example would cease to exist because the question then would be "By how much does it change things?” In the mean time it has the same credibility as Cinderella.Mr Gear said:
Lost BMW has chosen to highlight the word "decimate", but the real word of importance is "possibility". There is a possibility that it will decimate civilisation. There is a possibility that it will rise 5 degrees. There is also a possibility that it will do neither, or rise in temp so slowly long term that no decimation takes place at all. Who knows? I bet if you asked PBC (OBE) he would quite happily admit that he can't predict the future, but will stand by any of the science that lies behind this prediction.
Lost BMW has chosen his words carefully to create the usual hysteria on this topic. It's a sure fire hit, like sticking a picture of princess Diana on the front of the Daily Express, you always get the desired reaction from the audience.
The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.
So even with all the data and the computer models there's still only a 'possibility' temperatures will rise? So you're admitting the data and models are useless as they're not entirely sure either way?Lost BMW has chosen his words carefully to create the usual hysteria on this topic. It's a sure fire hit, like sticking a picture of princess Diana on the front of the Daily Express, you always get the desired reaction from the audience.
The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.
thinfourth2 said:
turbobloke said:
thinfourth2 said:
Do i belive in manmade global warming = Yes
Bearing in mind the usual meaning of 'manmade global warming'...I still have no idea why anybody would believe in something for which there is no direct observational evidence in the data. The IPCC acknowledged this long ago and say they have no idea when manmadeup warming will appear.
There is no visible causal human signal in global climate data unambiguously linked to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. So those who believe in manmadeup warming believe in something that cannot be seen or examined or invesigated or analysed as there is no signal to examine or investigate.
Its like bird pooh making a London heavier. No sane person could argue that bird pooh doesn't make london heavier. You couldn't measure the bird pooh makes london heavier effect due to many other factors.
However the media and intrested parties are saying that bird pooh is gong to cause london to become a super dense blackhole that will sink to the center of the earth and destory all life in the solar system.
My reply was prefaced with the usual meaning after all.
thinfourth2 said:
But there are plenty of threads about CO2
However this thread is what it is, it's about CO2, and somebody else started it not me 
I'm just responding to the usual suspects (not you) aacting as though there is somethng concrete here to discuss. There isn't.
Oakey said:
Mr Gear said:
Lost BMW has chosen to highlight the word "decimate", but the real word of importance is "possibility". There is a possibility that it will decimate civilisation. There is a possibility that it will rise 5 degrees. There is also a possibility that it will do neither, or rise in temp so slowly long term that no decimation takes place at all. Who knows? I bet if you asked PBC (OBE) he would quite happily admit that he can't predict the future, but will stand by any of the science that lies behind this prediction.
Lost BMW has chosen his words carefully to create the usual hysteria on this topic. It's a sure fire hit, like sticking a picture of princess Diana on the front of the Daily Express, you always get the desired reaction from the audience.
The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.
So even with all the data and the computer models there's still only a 'possibility' temperatures will rise? So you're admitting the data and models are useless as they're not entirely sure either way?Lost BMW has chosen his words carefully to create the usual hysteria on this topic. It's a sure fire hit, like sticking a picture of princess Diana on the front of the Daily Express, you always get the desired reaction from the audience.
The usual crowds at PHs smugly chortling "look at these fools now!" when actually the joke is on them for being hooked by the same old bait once again.
As seen in Climategate 2 e-mails between the 'scientists', when models are run based on the believer view, with an emissions stabilisation scenario and without (called no-policy) there is no meaningful difference by the year 2200 for both scenarios.
Also, carbon-climate coupled models running over the same timescale cannot even predict what the level of carbon dioxide will be within 300ppmv.
Not to mention the acknowledgement from IPCC Guru Trenberth that "all forms of geomegineering" e.g. CCS and windymills are "pointless" from a more absolute perspective.
The entire edifice has collapsed even within the warmist world. It never really existed.
t
Oakey said:
So even with all the data and the computer models there's still only a 'possibility' temperatures will rise? So you're admitting the data and models are useless as they're not entirely sure either way?
They are models. There are almost certainly scenarios that have been run that will predict a drop in temp, or temp rises as much as 5 degs C. Of course all you ever hear about are the extremes. Everything from the gulf stream reversing its flow to a northward march of the Sahara. Models don't ONLY predict one extreme, but the media won't have much of a story to sell if they give a sober scenario like temp rise of 1 deg over 200 years. Mr Gear said:
They are models. There are almost certainly scenarios that have been run that will predict a drop in temp, or temp rises as much as 5 degs C. Of course all you ever hear about are the extremes. Everything from the gulf stream reversing its flow to a northward march of the Sahara. Models don't ONLY predict one extreme, but the media won't have much of a story to sell if they give a sober scenario like temp rise of 1 deg over 200 years.
But hold on, we're enacting policies that are ruining our ecnomy based on these models, the Climate Change Act for example. Mr Gear said:
That's for the political thread- nothing to do with this thread or the science thread.
But it is to do with this thread because apparently these are the actions we need to take to stop the possibility of mankind being decimated based on computer models that simply say "maybe, maybe not"Hugo a Gogo said:
to be fair, he does only say 'there's a possibility'
Yes that does rather make the 'science is settled, it's a fact!' rant that Lost_BMW followed it with look off beam. Uncertainty should be acknowledged and be part of the debate but the response of too many so called sceptics is 'no proof = no problem' (cos that's how science works innit!) which is more akin to denialism.To comment on that last observation...
If it was just one person saying it on BBC3 at 1am then fine.
It's being viewed in isolation, artificially, apart from all the rest of the baseless propaganda.
On top of decades of the same, it has a different taste.
Still waiting for any sign of the possibility, mind.
The idea that we have to wait for hundreds or thousands of years before dismissing a possibilty, when the evidence already exists on one side of the debate (dismissal) but is absent on the other, while spending £trillions along the way, is something that the precautionary principle should make us avoid.
If it was just one person saying it on BBC3 at 1am then fine.
It's being viewed in isolation, artificially, apart from all the rest of the baseless propaganda.
On top of decades of the same, it has a different taste.
Still waiting for any sign of the possibility, mind.
The idea that we have to wait for hundreds or thousands of years before dismissing a possibilty, when the evidence already exists on one side of the debate (dismissal) but is absent on the other, while spending £trillions along the way, is something that the precautionary principle should make us avoid.
kerplunk said:
Yes that does rather make the 'science is settled, it's a fact!' rant that Lost_BMW followed it with look off beam. Uncertainty should be acknowledged and be part of the debate but the response of too many so called sceptics is 'no proof = no problem' (cos that's how science works innit!) which is more akin to denialism.
The vast majority take the view 'No evidence of a problem = No evidence of a problem'Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff