Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

[jet_noise]

Dear All,

It's actually better than we thought for a change.


In other news, and inspired by one of the comments:
Ursine sylan toilet habits revealed,

regards,
Jet

[TheHeretic]

jet_noise said:

Dear All,

It's actually better than we thought for a change.


In other news, and inspired by one of the comments:
Ursine sylan toilet habits revealed,

regards,
Jet

You mean that the vegetation in the earth acts as some sort of natural scrubber? Who'd have thunked it.

[jet_noise]

Dear TH,

TheHeretic said:

You mean that the vegetation in the earth acts as some sort of natural scrubber? Who'd have thunked it.

Yup, just think of it as nature's <insert name of orange lass of loose behaviour with many offspring by different fathers here>

regards,
Jet

[CommanderJameson]

So I was looking at this here interactive map thing, and pondering the consequences of a 1-2M rise in sea levels.

On the one hand, fragile and irreplaceable ecosystems in the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades would be destroyed.

On the other, Middlesbrough, Scunthorpe and Hull would also be submerged.

Hmm.

Tricky.

[Otispunkmeyer]

From the politics thread:

New paper published claiming Atmospheric CO2 lags changes in land and sea temperature (Done using all the usual and freely available temperature and CO2 records, so nothing bespoke). See here:

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest...

Download the paper here: (well if you access from a university you can get it.... Erm, nudge nudge wink wink...PM)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

[Otispunkmeyer]

CommanderJameson said:

So I was looking at this here interactive map thing, and pondering the consequences of a 1-2M rise in sea levels.

On the one hand, fragile and irreplaceable ecosystems in the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades would be destroyed.

On the other, Middlesbrough, Scunthorpe and Hull would also be submerged.

Hmm.

Tricky.

Nowt wrong with Boro!

[CommanderJameson]

Otispunkmeyer said:

CommanderJameson said:

So I was looking at this here interactive map thing, and pondering the consequences of a 1-2M rise in sea levels.

On the one hand, fragile and irreplaceable ecosystems in the Louisiana Bayou and the Florida Everglades would be destroyed.

On the other, Middlesbrough, Scunthorpe and Hull would also be submerged.

Hmm.

Tricky.

Nowt wrong with Boro!

For suitably large values of "nowt", yes.

[d0ntp4n1c]

Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.

If you don't believe science works then you can think what you like but inventions like the internal combustion engine and the internet show that in general it's been pretty successful.

[IainT]

d0ntp4n1c said:

Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.

If you don't believe science works then you can think what you like but inventions like the internal combustion engine and the internet show that in general it's been pretty successful.

Fantastic argument, I think that's most of us convinced.

Argumentum ad populum

Wiki it.

[Silver Smudger]

d0ntp4n1c said:

Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.

If you don't believe science works then you can think what you like but inventions like the internal combustion engine and the internet show that in general it's been pretty successful.

Because my car started this afternoon, and because I can type this to you tonight, no scientist has any doubt about any scientific issue? or is this just in the field of climate science?

[PRTVR]

IainT said:

d0ntp4n1c said:

Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.

If you don't believe science works then you can think what you like but inventions like the internal combustion engine and the internet show that in general it's been pretty successful.

Fantastic argument, I think that's most of us convinced.

Argumentum ad populum

Wiki it.

yep that's me convinced,
how long have I spent reading paper after paper all to no avail and the answer was easy, good first post.

Edit to add

Edited by PRTVR on Sunday 24th February 21:43

[Gun]

d0ntp4n1c said:

Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.

If you don't believe science works then you can think what you like but inventions like the internal combustion engine and the internet show that in general it's been pretty successful.

I must've missed that memo.

[mybrainhurts]

Gun said:

d0ntp4n1c said:

Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.

If you don't believe science works then you can think what you like but inventions like the internal combustion engine and the internet show that in general it's been pretty successful.

I must've missed that memo.

One tittered out loud...

[d0ntp4n1c]

You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.

[odyssey2200]

d0ntp4n1c said:

You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.

Ludo?

Is that you?

[hidetheelephants]

d0ntp4n1c said:

You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.

Evidence would be nice, a logically argued hypothesis would be better but I'll settle for just evidence. Even the hockeystick merchants acknowledge the wagon is thoroughly separated from its wheels and the ball is stuck irretrievably upon the slates.

[Globs]

hidetheelephants said:

d0ntp4n1c said:

You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.

Evidence would be nice, a logically argued hypothesis would be better but I'll settle for just evidence. Even the hockeystick merchants acknowledge the wagon is thoroughly separated from its wheels and the ball is stuck irretrievably upon the slates.

Hmm - the retards at Bad Science and on the 'Independent' and Guardian forums are convinced its still warming. They cling to this, point at the arctic, and shrilly claim this means the extra 110ppm CO2 in the air is a) our fault and b) will destroy the planet.

Meanwhile temperatures refuse to go up, and massive snowfalls carry on, impossibly, all around the world. The intense cold, ice and snow appear not to phase them, as they bravely push through the ice and snow to protest about the excessive warmth.

Belief systems are strong. Very strong. Much stronger than logic, evidence, maths and their own eyes and senses.

[nelly1]

odyssey2200 said:

d0ntp4n1c said:

You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.

Ludo?

Is that you?

LostBMW bored again?

[QuantumTokoloshi]

d0ntp4n1c said:

"consensus"

This is not a scientific concept, "scientific consensus" agreed the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that atoms did not exist, that stomach ulcers were only caused by stress and diet, luckily "scientific consensus" was ignored and evidence was preferred.

[jet_noise]

Dear d0ntp4n1c,

d0ntp4n1c said:

<snip> You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.

Oh goody another one. You are Prof. Lewendowski AICMFP.
It'll be like Piranhas around a thrashing fawn cast carelessly on the waters of scepticism that is PH.

Troll?
Oh, all right I'll bite.
One does not "believe" in science. Belief is for religion. Science is what it is. Wrong or right. Hypothesis or theory backed up with experiment or evidence rigorously achieved by the scientific method unaffected by bias or consensus.

Remove these last two items and re-evaluate your data. Doesn't look so convincing now does it? It's not even hockey-stick shaped

regards,
Jet

P.S. Good username though