Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
odyssey2200 said:
Kawasicki said:
kerplunk said:
Your continuing efforts to change the subject are very weak TB.
I think TB is doing a fine job of keeping the focus on causality.I think that the warmists grasp on reality is very weak TBH
rovermorris999 said:
'Just in case' won't do.
That's a matter of opinion. If such concerns about proof were accompanied by some glimmer of due care re pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year I would take them more seriously, but when it's only matched by a zero regard for safety I call that fake concern and just a cop-out.Guam said:
Err you been keeping up on whats been happening in Germany KP?
You might want to read up a bit more old son?
"Fritz Vahreholt, a leader of the German environmental movement, has shocked many environmentalists by stating that he no longer believes in the predictions of the IPCC and the claim human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous warming. "
Actually I posted a link to an interview with Vahreholt in de spiegal last week so my reading up is fine Guam.You might want to read up a bit more old son?
"Fritz Vahreholt, a leader of the German environmental movement, has shocked many environmentalists by stating that he no longer believes in the predictions of the IPCC and the claim human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous warming. "
Edited by Guam on Monday 13th February 12:54
kerplunk said:
That's a matter of opinion. If such concerns about proof were accompanied by some glimmer of due care re pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year I would take them more seriously, but when it's only matched by a zero regard for safety I call that fake concern and just a cop-out.
Fake? CO2 is not and has never been a pollutant. Billions of tons sounds big but as a proportion of the atmosphere it's virtually insignificant. Now if you want to talk about heavy metal pollution, nitrates in water or small particulate matter I'd most likely agree with you. I care about the environment, I like clean air and water, who doesn't? But CO2 is not a problem.Edited by rovermorris999 on Monday 13th February 13:49
Guam said:
In which case why waffle on about "Fake concern" as if there really isnt an issue whats the problem??
Because his views haven't changed my mind. Why should they? He hasn't proved anything one way or the other, I don't find his reasoning very convincing, nor is he an authority. Without established causality, none if it is worth a dime, let alone £hundreds of billions on pointless windymills and the rest, not forgetting tens if not hundreds of thousands of cold-related deaths due to global non-warming, the suborning of science and barking mad foolishness of politicians.
Like it or not the greenhouse effect is the prevailing scientific paradigm for why the earth's climate is what it is (ie. a water planet and not a ball of ice). That right there is sufficient cause for due care re pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas per year into the atmosphere that we can't remove again in a hurry if need be.
Was that (kp) an appeal to consensus or authority or both just for good measure?!
If a consensus or paradigm is built around weak science, and if it exists at all, it won't survive. As we are seeing.
The junkscience of cooler atmospheric layers at altitude, supposedly heating already warmer lower layers contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, has been a regular attrition loop and yet still the Second Law stands, despite the regular onslaught of junk.
The supposed enhanced greenhouse effect, responsible for the non-heating of the troposphere
due to all that hidden energy 
delivering an invisible human signal 
courtesy of the missing sink 
represent triumphs of faith not science.
There is no causality to humans in any non-warming that may be happening or has happened recently, nor in bears or ice or winds or rain or Al Gore's bank balance. Hang on scratch that last one, Al Gore's bank balance is allegedly causally linked to the human traits of ignorance and gullibility.
If a consensus or paradigm is built around weak science, and if it exists at all, it won't survive. As we are seeing.
The junkscience of cooler atmospheric layers at altitude, supposedly heating already warmer lower layers contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, has been a regular attrition loop and yet still the Second Law stands, despite the regular onslaught of junk.
The supposed enhanced greenhouse effect, responsible for the non-heating of the troposphere
due to all that hidden energy delivering an invisible human signal courtesy of the missing sink represent triumphs of faith not science.There is no causality to humans in any non-warming that may be happening or has happened recently, nor in bears or ice or winds or rain or Al Gore's bank balance. Hang on scratch that last one, Al Gore's bank balance is allegedly causally linked to the human traits of ignorance and gullibility.
turbobloke said:
Was that (kp) an appeal to consensus or authority or both just for good measure?!
If a consensus or paradigm is built around weak science, and if it exists at all, it won't survive. As we are seeing.
The junkscience of cooler atmospheric layers at altitude, supposedly heating already warmer lower layers contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, has been a regular attrition loop and yet still the Second Law stands, despite the regular onslaught of junk.
The supposed enhanced greenhouse effect, responsible for the non-heating of the troposphere due to all that hidden energy delivering an invisible human signal courtesy of the missing sink represent triumphs of faith not science.
There is no causality to humans in any non-warming that may be happening or has happened recently, nor in bears or ice or winds or rain or Al Gore's bank balance. Hang on scratch that last one, Al Gore's bank balance is allegedly causally linked to the human traits of ignorance and gullibility.
It'll survive until it gets knocked over. Sitting on your hands demanding proof isn't going to achieve that.If a consensus or paradigm is built around weak science, and if it exists at all, it won't survive. As we are seeing.
The junkscience of cooler atmospheric layers at altitude, supposedly heating already warmer lower layers contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, has been a regular attrition loop and yet still the Second Law stands, despite the regular onslaught of junk.
The supposed enhanced greenhouse effect, responsible for the non-heating of the troposphere
due to all that hidden energy delivering an invisible human signal courtesy of the missing sink represent triumphs of faith not science.There is no causality to humans in any non-warming that may be happening or has happened recently, nor in bears or ice or winds or rain or Al Gore's bank balance. Hang on scratch that last one, Al Gore's bank balance is allegedly causally linked to the human traits of ignorance and gullibility.
Guam said:
kerplunk said:
Like it or not the greenhouse effect is the prevailing scientific paradigm for why the earth's climate is what it is (ie. a water planet and not a ball of ice). That right there is sufficient cause for due care re pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas per year into the atmosphere that we can't remove again in a hurry if need be.
OH not much of an attrition loop, with that statement is there lolkerplunk said:
It'll survive until it gets knocked over. Sitting on your hands demanding proof isn't going to achieve that.
KP that's not what science is!If you make an extraordinary claim it is up to you to prove it not for other people to disprove it.
That very basic mistake shows that you have no genuine understanding of what you are posting.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff