Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
There are, to my mind, interesting parallels between Climate Science and the ancient yet still unresolved black art of Alchemy (Various spellings over time). CO2 seems to be performing for the modern world the role that the Philosopher's Stone fulfilled for a few hundred years way back when.

Never underestimate the potential for a seemingly plausible and well protected belief to be propagated and nurtured for an extended lifetime. Humans expect to believe things. They are good at it. They like it. They like to be encouraged to believe, even if they can rationalise against such believing in others. Most "cultures" rely on that quirk of humanity one way or another.

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

254 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
Alchemy was never a dark art. It was, at the time, simply trying to see if we could break down other materials into what they thought was the noble metal, (one that could not be broken down any further with heat, etc).

It was basic chemistry curiosity, with the added bonus that you may have ended up with gold at the end.

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
They've done a good job of measuring the missing warming of late rofl
Is that the same missing warming that is now driving CO2 increases according to the latest science.
:jumpsupanddownandbangsheadonwalllaughing:

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
WinstonWolf said:
They've done a good job of measuring the missing warming of late rofl
Is that the same missing warming that is now driving CO2 increases according to the latest science.
:jumpsupanddownandbangsheadonwalllaughing:
According to the latest science it hasn't warmed for nearly two decades. Point me to where they predicted THAT... rofl

jshell

11,006 posts

204 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
LongQ said:
There are, to my mind, interesting parallels between Climate Science and the ancient yet still unresolved black art of Alchemy (Various spellings over time). CO2 seems to be performing for the modern world the role that the Philosopher's Stone fulfilled for a few hundred years way back when.

Never underestimate the potential for a seemingly plausible and well protected belief to be propagated and nurtured for an extended lifetime. Humans expect to believe things. They are good at it. They like it. They like to be encouraged to believe, even if they can rationalise against such believing in others. Most "cultures" rely on that quirk of humanity one way or another.
Nah it all started with the Holy Blood and The Holy Grail and then that tt's totally plagiarised version of it, The Da Vinci Code!

One religious belief was broken so another took it's place.

Simples!

Bring back the Church! It cost me less....

funkyrobot

18,789 posts

227 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
funkyrobot said:
Why are the companies making biofuels then? Historically, they have worked with oil and gas etc. Why would they move from such lucrative fossil fuel refinement if there wasn't an incentive?

Just look at wind farms. I read something a month or so ago that stated the companies making wind turbines wouldn't make any profit without subsidies. When the subsidies dry up, so will the wind turbine manufacturers.
The Chinese have more wind turbines than us even when expressed as a percentage rather than MW. They dont build them to get subsidies, they build them to get energy from them. Even the chinese know they cant buy all the coal in the world so need alternative. Thats just economics not climate science. And that is really what Im trying to focus on... through research and development stimulated by government intervention and increased demand, the cost of PV has fallen from £4,000 per kwPeak to about £1,300 / kwPeak now. In about 5 years. Once it gets to about £800 per kw peak... it will be cost comparble with grid electric. It might take 2 years or 5, bu pretty soon you wont need FITs or Green Deal to get people to buy solar, people will buy them as they want them. Perosnally I think theyre wasted in the UK due to our low insolation levels, but if they have a decent ROI... why not. To maximuse global energy production theyd be better off installed near the equator,, which is not much use if you live in the UK.

The incentive for making biofules is that even oil companies know it wont last for ever... in fact theyre the only ones who know the REAL reserves available. So getting the market prepped and understanding how to improve efficiency needs to start now. It cant be left till 2030 when unleaded might be £5 a litre. Again... nothing to do with CO2 here, just business and economics. An oil company exec has to balance every million invested with potential returns. Does he drill a new well or buy a bit farm land and plant jatropha? Or lease some sea and grow algae. The incentives are there to get the research done so that longer term we all benefit. These arent magic bullets... well have to try them all and pick the most cost effective, whther its nuclear, space mirrors or desert solar farms.
Sorry, but I don't agree with what you are saying.

Re wind farms - google 'America's rusting wind farms' and look at the results.

Re biofuels - If it is nothing to do with C02, why is everything labelled 'carbon emissions'? Why do I pay road tax based on the C02 emissions of my vehicle? Everything, at the moment, is about C02. This is why I find it really odd that you would destroy the lungs of the planet. Actually, it's pathetic and makes no sense whatsoever.

It's all bullst.

Let's not forget that the planet's climate has changed many times in the past. We weren't around then to influence it, so how do you explain that?

IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Er, next, so mine wasn't a straw man argument. If it was a straw man argument - I'd have said something like contrarians don't believe CO2 causes climate change because they think the scientific method doesn't take into account calcium in the sea. i.e. It depends on me making as statement about someone else's belief is based on some nonsense - which is easily disputed. But might win an argument if it gets passed unchallenged.
The strawman is the effigy you set up claiming it to be the crux of the argument. It was clearly implicit in your choice of questions and interpretation of the answers. i.e. the implication that people are denying those 4 fairly trivial points and claiming that they have some bearing on 'our' position.


TransverseTight said:
I know you don't think CO2 causes climate change, and aren't claiming that you believe otherwise. What I have asked is, if all these facts are true - how can we ignore CO2 as a contributor when we burn so much stuff!
But I do think CO2 causes climate change. It's a GHG. It just doesn't fit the profile it's given in policy driven by the modelling.


TransverseTight said:
To elaborate:

1) CO2 is a warming gas. This has been known since the 1850s. It's only a small percentage of the atmospheric make up. It used to be 0.00028 measured, and is now 0.00039 but that little bit - makes a big difference to the mean global surface temperature. There are about 3,000 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, (rounded to make the following maths easier later).

2) Burning stuff makes CO2. Basic chemistry I don't think anyone can argue that.

3) We burn lots of stuff - as measured by governments around the world so they can collect taxes. Give or take a few million tonnes, we add about 30 billion tonnes extra to the atmosphere each year.

4) 30 billion of man made emissions each year over 3000 billion there already is 1%. Note this ignores volcanoes and cow farts, which are natural. The CO2 increase each year is offset by plants consuming 1/2 of that, visible in the annual CO2 graphs. Which bring net annual increase to 0.5%.
Trying to build such a simple model of such a complex set of interactions is where you're going to fall over. Your trivial set of assumptions and fag-packet maths effectively invalidates all that follows. Just one simple fact - out-gassing from oceans in RESPONSE to temperature changes blur the picture. Increased efficiency of CO2 consumers in a CO2 rich environment (which we aren't yet in by a long shot) muddies it further.

The simple science is so far from simple that models way more complex than yours do not account accurately.


TransverseTight said:
We established in point 1, that 0.00025. is enough to make a difference to the earth's temperature i.e the green house effect (which for idiots is not climate change, but the stable state) – why can we claim that scientists who think increasing the 0.00025 to 0.00039 is irrelevant – when that's a 40% increase in the thing that does part of the warming. I'm not claiming it will lead to a 40% warming, maybe 1% but also maybe 1000%. Because that's the bit even after years of reading up on it no one can give an accurate estimate of. For people saying it's bugger all of bugger all, I'll repeat that... a change from 280 to 390ppm is an increase of 40% in a couple of hundred years.
I think you probably need to go and read some simple papers on the subject that aren't published on climate fear propaganda sites. You know, appropriately peer reviewed papers. As a simple experiment, what would the surface temperature be with the following CO2 values:

  • 0ppm
  • 100ppm
  • 200ppm
  • 400ppm
  • 1000ppm
What best describes the trend line?

Once you've answered that you'll see why concerned about rising CO2 isn't quite as pressing as some think.


TransverseTight said:
More worryingly - the current 400ppm is 50ppm higher than recent records show. Now when you say CO2 has been higher in recent times - do you mean since life began or since mankind was around? I'm sticking to the one that I'm more interested in the part where my ancestors were here.
Recent on a geological scale and certainly in the context of life on earth thriving. Not recent ans in "last Tuesday". The Cambrian period is widely accepted as the bit where life exploded and, from memory, CO2 levels were in the 3500-7000ppm range...

TransverseTight said:
If you think something other than burning stuff is responsible for the CO2 increase (ignoring whether or not it causes temperature rise for now) I'd like to know what it is. Please don't say volcanoes or cow farts. The other way to say this is that after burning a known amount of fossil fuel which gives rise to a known amount of CO2 how can we not expect that to end up in the air?
Given CO2 lags temp changes in the records it's hard to see it as the (or even "a") major driver...


TransverseTight said:
I agree we can then debate how much warming is caused by that.
Now we're getting somewhere. This is where the debate is actually at right now; it's not 2001 anymore. The problem is you've already made your mind up that CO2 increase is going to lead to catastrophic warming!



TransverseTight said:
If you tell me the ice records evidence is flawed because recent studies show CO2 was probably much higher than the ice climate scientists had previously thought, how can you prove this? If the ice records can't be used to prove scientists got the estimating method wrong, you can't claim any other method is more correct... as neither method involves the use of measuring apparatus and a time machine. You can't say don't trust scientist who think man made warming is real – you can only trust scientists who say it isn't.
One major issue with the ice cores is one of resolution and, in some papers, conclusions that cannot be supported by good science. Guam will be able to expound on the issues here-in but a general misuse of stats techniques abounds in too many papes (on both sides of the warming-divide. Look at WM Briggs' blog for a statisticians view on much that passes for climate science.



TransverseTight said:
This applies to the latest lead vs lag debate. It was only last year the hot topic of alarmists was there's been no warming for the last decade. Now were being told – that its the warming that is causing the CO2. Surely both these statements can't be true?
Lead v Lag is not a recent debate. It's not even a debate. The data used to show a long-term tracking of CO2 and temps only supports CO2 lagging temps which was conveniently glossed over in certain Nobel winning documentaries.



TransverseTight said:
I would ask - is this enough evidence 1 or 2 papers? To state there is no man made warming. Just like for year we were told there isn't enough evidence there is warming, with a few thousand reports to back it up? I've always said to mates / colleagues etc, don't you think if someone could prove categorically there's no warming, it would be Nobel Prize level stuff. We could get on with solving world hunger or something more useful. Like how to get energy for free.
Who says that there has been no warming? Oh, and since when? Please justify your start date for the data series. Show your working. We can, from the data, pick 'average' temps. We can even do this for short time-series. It's effectively meaningless. There are massive issues even defining an 'average' temp for the globe and it's actually much more meaningful to discuss regional averages and trends.

If we look at current trends in comparison to the models we see the models (all of the buggers) fail to predict the current flattening of the average temps. This says that the predictive capabilities of the models aren't worth squat.

If we look at the general view of warminsts we see an interesting change in their claims of significance.

First they said 10 years of flatlining would sound alarms.
Then it got extended to 15 years after ~8 years.
Now we're approaching 15 years it's been extended to 17/18 years as none of the models predict that.

They're plainly hanging on to something that doesn't work in the vain hope that nature will come back into line. IMO they would be better off spending our tax on actually trying to model nature rather than policy.


TransverseTight said:
This issues are why I sit on the fence - but 75% in the its man made camp. There's still decent - which is good, but I've not seen anything yet that will get that Nobel prize for proving its all nonsense.
These issues are why, after a few years of trying to educate myself on the topic, I came down off the fence... Now, some 10+ years after gaining an interest in the topic, reading various reports, papers (where it's not beyond my simple brain) and opinion from both sides of the debate I find it hard to see how anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the topic could possibly be anywhere but where I sit as a climate realist.


TransverseTight said:
I've got bored of replying to all this - got to much other stuff to do, I'm not here to try and change your mind but to ask you questions and to challenge my thinking....
I think the best approach to useful debate (i.e. non personal, evidence based discussion) would be to actually cover the topics in a more systematic manner that the scatter-gun approach. Sadly I think the better educated on here ar tired of rehashing the same points over and over again.


TransverseTight said:
For the record – I'm a conflicted eco worrier/petrol head who, whilst aware of the issues has recognises that until there's a big push that doesn't involve taxation, there's sweet FA I can do on me own. Enjoy our V8's whilst we still can. I've done the maths and owning a 3 litre straight 6 costs me about £400 a year more than a 1.2 eco box. A price worth paying IMHO. Actually – mine sits on the drive most of the time as it's quicker and more relaxing to get to work by train. LOL.
I'll not hold up my hands to being an eco-warrior but I do hold the view that we should be minimising detrimental impact on our immediate environment, recucling, reusing, being efficient where reasonable. We recycle more than we bin. I'm certainly not going to give up my cars easliy, certainly now I'm out of the South and we don't actually have public transport!


TransverseTight said:
That's why I object to being labelled warming central as if I've got an agenda to push, when in fact I'm asking questions that seem time and time again to be overlooked. Just basic simple stuff on CO2 balances.
Genuine apologies from that, an ad hom that wasn't really helpful. Sadly borne from seeing the same weak arguments trotted out by, likely paid, advocates.

Discussion of data is what this forum is for. Having people come on here and put up data and papers for discussion, pro or anti-CAGW would probably be welcome from all.

Edited by IainT on Wednesday 24th July 11:09

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
TheHeretic said:
Alchemy was never a dark art. It was, at the time, simply trying to see if we could break down other materials into what they thought was the noble metal, (one that could not be broken down any further with heat, etc).

It was basic chemistry curiosity, with the added bonus that you may have ended up with gold at the end.
That was how it was presented by the practitioners and desired by those who they preyed on to fund them.

No doubt for some practitioners it was indeed something they passionately believed it was worth pursuing. For others it was mainly a route to riches and influence so long as they could keep the concept afloat and find the next source of investment.

So far as I can see all the experiments relied on a secret ingredient - the Philospher's Stone - if they were to be likely to succeed.

So we have the faithful, the fortune seekers and a 'magic' ingredient. Plus as many excuses as you might wish for as to why the discovery could take a long time despite periodic claims of success - none of which could be substantiated other than by word of mouth.

Remarkably similar really.

IMHO.



mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
mondeoman said:
You cannot measure the temperature of the ocean to the degree of accuracy that they claim has been done to show even a hint of warming.

Its bks, pure and simple.

Sure, with the volume of water an increase in bulk temperature of a hundredth of a degree would indicate a huge energy input, but we dont/cant/will never be able to measure the whole ocean (ffs we cant even measure the whole land surface accurately, let alone the ocean which is twice the size and has the third dimension, depth, added in just to make it even more interesting), so any attempt to suggest that the "heat is hidden in the oceans" is, scientifically speaking, bullst.
With what level of accuracy can you claim that? Scientists can claim to measure how long it takes a photon to travel through 7km of rock. Surely that's BS Too?

Alternatively they claim they can measure the time difference between a signal sent from satellites only a few thousand km apart, when we all know radio waves travel at the speed of light.

They're all liars. Or maybe they can measure small things smaller than 1 degree to quite a level of accuracy!??
All you've said is that some things can be measured accurately. We're not talking about "somethings", we're talking about the ocean.

You can't claim to have measured the ocean's temperature when you have measurement points spread hundreds, if not thousands of miles, apart; when not all of the oceans /seas etc... are included; when the measurements are at 1 point in a 3d structure and don't cover the total depth range. It's all supposition and assumption, interpolation and guesswork, based on a failed theory.

Le TVR

3,092 posts

250 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
All you've said is that some things can be measured accurately. We're not talking about "somethings", we're talking about the ocean.

You can't claim to have measured the ocean's temperature when you have measurement points spread hundreds, if not thousands of miles, apart; when not all of the oceans /seas etc... are included; when the measurements are at 1 point in a 3d structure and don't cover the total depth range. It's all supposition and assumption, interpolation and guesswork, based on a failed theory.
yes

Once you start evaluating the errors associated with absolute measurements in a non-homogenous medium you will understand why so much of the data is suspect.
Then to try and fit this data into a model where they don't even know if they have all the required terms of the polynomial but think that they can 'tweak' the feedback coefficients into some semblance of reality....
This form of science is 'leap of faith'.
Better to go away and research just which terms of their model are missing (or not included because they didn't fit the agenda).

Can we have the last few pages transferred to the politics thread where it would be more appropriate please?

SkepticSteve

3,598 posts

193 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
IainT said:
TransverseTight said:
Er, next, so mine wasn't a straw man argument. If it was a straw man argument - I'd have said something like contrarians don't believe CO2 causes climate change because they think the scientific method doesn't take into account calcium in the sea. i.e. It depends on me making as statement about someone else's belief is based on some nonsense - which is easily disputed. But might win an argument if it gets passed unchallenged.
The strawman is the effigy you set up claiming it to be the crux of the argument. It was clearly implicit in your choice of questions and interpretation of the answers. i.e. the implication that people are denying those 4 fairly trivial points and claiming that they have some bearing on 'our' position.


TransverseTight said:
I know you don't think CO2 causes climate change, and aren't claiming that you believe otherwise. What I have asked is, if all these facts are true - how can we ignore CO2 as a contributor when we burn so much stuff!
But I do think CO2 causes climate change. It's a GHG. It just doesn't fit the profile it's given in policy driven by the modelling.


TransverseTight said:
To elaborate:

1) CO2 is a warming gas. This has been known since the 1850s. It's only a small percentage of the atmospheric make up. It used to be 0.00028 measured, and is now 0.00039 but that little bit - makes a big difference to the mean global surface temperature. There are about 3,000 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, (rounded to make the following maths easier later).

2) Burning stuff makes CO2. Basic chemistry I don't think anyone can argue that.

3) We burn lots of stuff - as measured by governments around the world so they can collect taxes. Give or take a few million tonnes, we add about 30 billion tonnes extra to the atmosphere each year.

4) 30 billion of man made emissions each year over 3000 billion there already is 1%. Note this ignores volcanoes and cow farts, which are natural. The CO2 increase each year is offset by plants consuming 1/2 of that, visible in the annual CO2 graphs. Which bring net annual increase to 0.5%.
Trying to build such a simple model of such a complex set of interactions is where you're going to fall over. Your trivial set of assumptions and fag-packet maths effectively invalidates all that follows. Just one simple fact - out-gassing from oceans in RESPONSE to temperature changes blur the picture. Increased efficiency of CO2 consumers in a CO2 rich environment (which we aren't yet in by a long shot) muddies it further.

The simple science is so far from simple that models way more complex than yours do not account accurately.


TransverseTight said:
We established in point 1, that 0.00025. is enough to make a difference to the earth's temperature i.e the green house effect (which for idiots is not climate change, but the stable state) – why can we claim that scientists who think increasing the 0.00025 to 0.00039 is irrelevant – when that's a 40% increase in the thing that does part of the warming. I'm not claiming it will lead to a 40% warming, maybe 1% but also maybe 1000%. Because that's the bit even after years of reading up on it no one can give an accurate estimate of. For people saying it's bugger all of bugger all, I'll repeat that... a change from 280 to 390ppm is an increase of 40% in a couple of hundred years.
I think you probably need to go and read some simple papers on the subject that aren't published on climate fear propaganda sites. You know, appropriately peer reviewed papers. As a simple experiment, what would the surface temperature be with the following CO2 values:

  • 0ppm
  • 100ppm
  • 200ppm
  • 400ppm
  • 1000ppm
What best describes the trend line?

Once you've answered that you'll see why concerned about rising CO2 isn't quite as pressing as some think.


TransverseTight said:
More worryingly - the current 400ppm is 50ppm higher than recent records show. Now when you say CO2 has been higher in recent times - do you mean since life began or since mankind was around? I'm sticking to the one that I'm more interested in the part where my ancestors were here.
Recent on a geological scale and certainly in the context of life on earth thriving. Not recent ans in "last Tuesday". The Cambrian period is widely accepted as the bit where life exploded and, from memory, CO2 levels were in the 3500-7000ppm range...

TransverseTight said:
If you think something other than burning stuff is responsible for the CO2 increase (ignoring whether or not it causes temperature rise for now) I'd like to know what it is. Please don't say volcanoes or cow farts. The other way to say this is that after burning a known amount of fossil fuel which gives rise to a known amount of CO2 how can we not expect that to end up in the air?
Given CO2 lags temp changes in the records it's hard to see it as the (or even "a") major driver...


TransverseTight said:
I agree we can then debate how much warming is caused by that.
Now we're getting somewhere. This is where the debate is actually at right now; it's not 2001 anymore. The problem is you've already made your mind up that CO2 increase is going to lead to catastrophic warming!



TransverseTight said:
If you tell me the ice records evidence is flawed because recent studies show CO2 was probably much higher than the ice climate scientists had previously thought, how can you prove this? If the ice records can't be used to prove scientists got the estimating method wrong, you can't claim any other method is more correct... as neither method involves the use of measuring apparatus and a time machine. You can't say don't trust scientist who think man made warming is real – you can only trust scientists who say it isn't.
One major issue with the ice cores is one of resolution and, in some papers, conclusions that cannot be supported by good science. Guam will be able to expound on the issues here-in but a general misuse of stats techniques abounds in too many papes (on both sides of the warming-divide. Look at WM Briggs' blog for a statisticians view on much that passes for climate science.



TransverseTight said:
This applies to the latest lead vs lag debate. It was only last year the hot topic of alarmists was there's been no warming for the last decade. Now were being told – that its the warming that is causing the CO2. Surely both these statements can't be true?
Lead v Lag is not a recent debate. It's not even a debate. The data used to show a long-term tracking of CO2 and temps only supports CO2 lagging temps which was conveniently glossed over in certain Nobel winning documentaries.



TransverseTight said:
I would ask - is this enough evidence 1 or 2 papers? To state there is no man made warming. Just like for year we were told there isn't enough evidence there is warming, with a few thousand reports to back it up? I've always said to mates / colleagues etc, don't you think if someone could prove categorically there's no warming, it would be Nobel Prize level stuff. We could get on with solving world hunger or something more useful. Like how to get energy for free.
Who says that there has been no warming? Oh, and since when? Please justify your start date for the data series. Show your working. We can, from the data, pick 'average' temps. We can even do this for short time-series. It's effectively meaningless. There are massive issues even defining an 'average' temp for the globe and it's actually much more meaningful to discuss regional averages and trends.

If we look at current trends in comparison to the models we see the models (all of the buggers) fail to predict the current flattening of the average temps. This says that the predictive capabilities of the models aren't worth squat.

If we look at the general view of warminsts we see an interesting change in their claims of significance.

First they said 10 years of flatlining would sound alarms.
Then it got extended to 15 years after ~8 years.
Now we're approaching 15 years it's been extended to 17/18 years as none of the models predict that.

They're plainly hanging on to something that doesn't work in the vain hope that nature will come back into line. IMO they would be better off spending our tax on actually trying to model nature rather than policy.


TransverseTight said:
This issues are why I sit on the fence - but 75% in the its man made camp. There's still decent - which is good, but I've not seen anything yet that will get that Nobel prize for proving its all nonsense.
These issues are why, after a few years of trying to educate myself on the topic, I came down off the fence... Now, some 10+ years after gaining an interest in the topic, reading various reports, papers (where it's not beyond my simple brain) and opinion from both sides of the debate I find it hard to see how anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in the topic could possibly be anywhere but where I sit as a climate realist.


TransverseTight said:
I've got bored of replying to all this - got to much other stuff to do, I'm not here to try and change your mind but to ask you questions and to challenge my thinking....
I think the best approach to useful debate (i.e. non personal, evidence based discussion) would be to actually cover the topics in a more systematic manner that the scatter-gun approach. Sadly I think the better educated on here ar tired of rehashing the same points over and over again.


TransverseTight said:
For the record – I'm a conflicted eco worrier/petrol head who, whilst aware of the issues has recognises that until there's a big push that doesn't involve taxation, there's sweet FA I can do on me own. Enjoy our V8's whilst we still can. I've done the maths and owning a 3 litre straight 6 costs me about £400 a year more than a 1.2 eco box. A price worth paying IMHO. Actually – mine sits on the drive most of the time as it's quicker and more relaxing to get to work by train. LOL.
I'll not hold up my hands to being an eco-warrior but I do hold the view that we should be minimising detrimental impact on our immediate environment, recucling, reusing, being efficient where reasonable. We recycle more than we bin. I'm certainly not going to give up my cars easliy, certainly now I'm out of the South and we don't actually have public transport!


TransverseTight said:
That's why I object to being labelled warming central as if I've got an agenda to push, when in fact I'm asking questions that seem time and time again to be overlooked. Just basic simple stuff on CO2 balances.
Genuine apologies from that, an ad hom that wasn't really helpful. Sadly borne from seeing the same weak arguments trotted out by, likely paid, advocates.

Discussion of data is what this forum is for. Having people come on here and put up data and papers for discussion, pro or anti-CAGW would probably be welcome from all.

Edited by IainT on Wednesday 24th July 11:09
IainT

I'd just like to thank you for pulling that to pieces.

The original posting of TransverseTight at 22:55 last night reads like some propaganda poster.
It very cleverly ASSERTED the points he wanted to make (others to read) as fact, while engaging any unsure "fence-sitter" readers into a pact of sympathy to his side of the debate.

Having myself had media training many years ago, it stood out as ticking all the boxes of a good interview.

A Very clever posting and one that students of psychology might like to dissect?

I think TransverseTight wrote earlier that he worked for an Energy Company, but not which sector.

Renewables?

IainT

10,040 posts

237 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
Cheers Steve.

In reality the rebuttals (and engagement to be fair) with many of Transvers' points are worth of essays with appropriate references but an intellectually honest reader will view my post for what it is - a summary of a lot of info.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
PW said:
I'm not an expert though, and without going into each sides' claims in depth, I'm left standing in the middle of two groups
And another wave parachutes in from the Ludplunk College of Obfuscation...

You'd think they'd be avoiding the fence-sitting thing by now. Some people never learn.

Coming thick and fast now, who's next?

Apache

39,731 posts

283 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
PW said:
Even if CO2 is a red herring, the idea of polluting the environment less, investing in new technologies, more efficient power sources, and generally creating a better standard of living for people around the world seems the sort of thing anyone with an interest in science and technology would be behind.
And that, my friend is the nub of the matter, right there, in that sentence.

The expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" was coined for a reason and the 'political' drive behind fighting MMGW/CC/extreme weather or whatever it is now has spawned some godawful misguided and frankly dangerous ideas........actually that is a load of crap, none of these ideas were a 'good intention' just another way to make money for the already rich.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027708/Sa...

it's depressingly predictable

chris watton

22,477 posts

259 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
PW said:
Oh yeah, totally convinced now. What a compelling argument. rolleyes

When will either side understand that this attitude will never convince anyone about the argument in general, ONLY that you, specifically, are a desperate, pathetic fk up?

There's nothing I can do that meaningfully affects the outcome either way. The only advantage to picking one side over the other is I halve the number of people calling me a retard. Not really a game worth playing.

fk you.
Can you please go and 'contribute' on the politics thread instead of contaminating this one, thank you. smile

grumbledoak

31,504 posts

232 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
Ah, religion. How apt.

Not in this thread, please.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
PW said:
mybrainhurts said:
And another wave parachutes in from the Ludplunk College of Obfuscation...

You'd think they'd be avoiding the fence-sitting thing by now. Some people never learn.

Coming thick and fast now, who's next?
Oh yeah, totally convinced now. What a compelling argument. rolleyes

When will either side understand that this attitude will never convince anyone about the argument in general, ONLY that you, specifically, are a desperate, pathetic fk up?

There's nothing I can do that meaningfully affects the outcome either way. The only advantage to picking one side over the other is I halve the number of people calling me a retard. Not really a game worth playing.

fk you.
That's told me then...

PS...try reading this thread and the numerous ones that went before it. You'll find all you need therein if you can manage to apply a bit of effort.

No need to get wound up over the whimsies. They're whimsies you can't understand until you read the threads.

Nice talking to you, sweetypie...wavey

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
PW said:
mybrainhurts said:
And another wave parachutes in from the Ludplunk College of Obfuscation...

You'd think they'd be avoiding the fence-sitting thing by now. Some people never learn.

Coming thick and fast now, who's next?
Oh yeah, totally convinced now. What a compelling argument. rolleyes

When will either side understand that this attitude will never convince anyone about the argument in general, ONLY that you, specifically, are a desperate, pathetic fk up?

There's nothing I can do that meaningfully affects the outcome either way. The only advantage to picking one side over the other is I halve the number of people calling me a retard. Not really a game worth playing.

fk you.
Don't let the door hit your arse on he way out.

nelly1

5,630 posts

230 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
PW said:
It seems less like a "scentific debate" and more like watching 2 drunk people trying to have a fight in a pub carpark. There's no motivation to go support either side.

Globs said:
Just another fervent and true CO2 believer I'm afraid.

These people fail on several levels:

fkers.

stupid theory

idiot greens

fking retards.
You really think that's going to convince anyone who is a "believer" that they're wrong? Or convince anyone who is undecided that they should side with you? What does it achieve?
Well said. You were doing quite well, until...

PW said:
fk all of you, quite frankly.
PW said:
fk you
Kudos at undermining your entire argument.

You've just windmilled into the carpark fight trying to stop people fighting!

Well done thumbup



mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 24th July 2013
quotequote all
Stunning skill...hehe
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED