BP?

[thebish]

you seem to be rowing MILES back there.... first you said there was no human link to global warming - it was all bollox - now you seem to be saying that there is a link but it is merely overplayed...

also - "more and more" - you've already said you have no idea if this is true - else you could tell us how many "more" is - and who some of them are, surely?

Yes I've no idea if it's true, I've also no idea if the scaremongers utterings are true either. You see they are allegedly the experts, so I read what they pish out, and think about it.

But seeing as the warnings have given us little but more expense and taxes, and more and more scientists are crawling out of the woodwork to rebuff earlier claims, I'm leaning towards natural causes and government agenda rather than 'we're killing the planet'.

Sorry if that doesn't fit with the politically correct 'green' everything, but personally I think it's a load of pish, not too bothered if you think otherwise, that's your choice, and you're welcome to it, just don't expect everyone to tow the taxation line.

I'm not asking you to tow a taxation line or be to be "politically correct" or "green" (that rebuttal is the last refuge of scoundrels!) I am merely asking you what on earth you are basing your claim on.

you have now claimed THREE times that there are MORE and MORE scientists CRAWLING OUT OF THE WOODWORK etc... rebutting claims about the human impact on global warming. I really don't think there are - in fact I'd go as far as to say - there aren't.

yet - everytime I ask WHO or HOW MANY - you won't tell me.

97.5% of climatologists endorse the view that you say is merely govt propaganda to make us pay more tax...

that would leave 2.5% who don't. I am actually interested to hear which of those you are giving such credibility to.... (you must know who they are because you said you had read both sides)

[Gravedigger]

Take it full circle, for the nth time. Look at the list of climatologists. Zimbabwe? Cameroon? Well, there's two we can have a bloody good laugh at. There's a bloke in Milton Keynes does all my weather forecasting and he gets it right more often than than those wizards at Bracknell with multi-million poundsworth of gear. This is one of those arguments that cannot be proved, neither can it be disproved...well not in our lifetime anyway. Let's chuck two more jobbies into the pot. How come bathythermograph studies show a decrease in global oceanic temperature of some two degrees. Global warming would actually increase the oceanic temperatures as the oceans would be the actual storehouse. Then there's background radiation temperature studies of the universe which show an increase in temperature, which means we heat up people caused action or not. Now that smoking is banned in public places they'll dig out hand wringers saying chewing gum is a cause and ;let's get rid. Someone already said global warming is a mask so they can tax us more. I'll keep an open mind, but treat all this "Expert knowledge" with a bit of scepticism.

[thebish]

Take it full circle, for the nth time. Look at the list of climatologists. Zimbabwe? Cameroon? Well, there's two we can have a bloody good laugh at. There's a bloke in Milton Keynes does all my weather forecasting and he gets it right more often than than those wizards at Bracknell with multi-million poundsworth of gear. This is one of those arguments that cannot be proved, neither can it be disproved...well not in our lifetime anyway. Let's chuck two more jobbies into the pot. How come bathythermograph studies show a decrease in global oceanic temperature of some two degrees. Global warming would actually increase the oceanic temperatures as the oceans would be the actual storehouse. Then there's background radiation temperature studies of the universe which show an increase in temperature, which means we heat up people caused action or not. Now that smoking is banned in public places they'll dig out hand wringers saying chewing gum is a cause and ;let's get rid. Someone already said global warming is a mask so they can tax us more. I'll keep an open mind, but treat all this "Expert knowledge" with a bit of scepticism.

"Zimbabwe" and "Cameroon" are not included in the 97.5% of climatologists - for one thing, they are countries.

as for your bathythermograph claims....

1. That study (it was in 2006) reported a 0.02degree cooling - not a 2degree warming as you suggest (which would be quite staggering!)
2. It was at odds with every other study
3. the authors of the 2006 study have submitted a correction. It turns out that a fault in the software on some of the floats led to some temperature measurements being associated with the wrong depth.

they have published their correction online and you can read it here: http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf


of course that does not stop people endlessly repeating the claims of the uncorrected version as if they are some kind of scientific proof that all the rest of the studies are wrong.

[Gravedigger]

Read again, Bish, dear chap. Two degree cooling is what I said. The warming was background radiation temperature throughout our galaxy. If you really do have to talk down to everyone then kindly have the courtesy to read the posts correctly. A percentage of your climatologists were linked, however tenuously, with Zimbabwe and Cameroon. It is all to easy to fall into the trap of cutting and pasting via the internet and believing everything. As a theologean I know you are brainwashed into denying the big bang theory, but I acceptyou also have some expertise in geophysical history. But if you insist that you are correct then I expect we will have to put up with it.

[Puskas]

Read again, Bish, dear chap. Two degree cooling is what I said. The warming was background radiation temperature throughout our galaxy. If you really do have to talk down to everyone then kindly have the courtesy to read the posts correctly. A percentage of your climatologists were linked, however tenuously, with Zimbabwe and Cameroon. It is all to easy to fall into the trap of cutting and pasting via the internet and believing everything. As a theologean I know you are brainwashed into denying the big bang theory, but I acceptyou also have some expertise in geophysical history. But if you insist that you are correct then I expect we will have to put up with it.

Do you have a reference for the rise in background radiation temperature? Since it originated from the big bang, I find it suprising that it's changed that much, throughout the galaxy. Over what time period? Where's the energy come from to heat up the galaxy that much?

Oh - and your claim that that the ocean's cooled by two degrees is still out by a factor of 100, even if you ignore the correction issued....

[Gravedigger]

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/28 ... eversible/

Hi, Puskas. Here's a site that'll get you salivating. I can't pinpoint the paper that the universe is heating up which is causing global warming. I do have a source which I don't think I can put up as it's on a government intranet and I can't find it on general release for the internet, but give me a couple of days. And I have to admit my mistake in confusing the two degrees with 0.02 for which I apologise. An interesting point is that year on year there has been a corrected total of 3.5 degrees during 1995 and 2008.
Got to get back to contemplating my navel

[jenkz]

Global warming is a natural phenomenon, human actions speed up global warming releasing more greenhouse gases which deflect sunlight which in turn cools earth. This begins an ice age (see Thames River tudor markets in London) which freezes gases into the frozen water leading to a reduction in greenhouse gases, and therefore a reduction in deflected sunlight and so the temperature begins to rise.

If life continues during this time, which some form is likely to do, then ta da back to normal (or as normal as the heating and cooling of a planet can be).

May be a simple view and most likely ridiculed but its proven its a natural phenomenon, yet it has been increased during humanities age looking at ice coring samples.

LET THE BOMBARDMENT BEGIN!

[Gravedigger]

Get yer tin hat, Jenkz. Incoming!!

[TANGODANCER]

All seems a bit like a "Hear we go round the mulberry bush" argument. Experts disagre on almost everything, so how expert are they really? Is one better/more accurate than another? They're still arguing about the pyramids, King Arthur, the Turin Shroud, the Bible and what happened to Lord Lucan and Shergar. I'm with the "if we can do something about problems do it, rather than ust hope they go away" camp, but, in this case, nobody seems to know for sure if there is one.

[jenkz]

All seems a bit like a "Hear we go round the mulberry bush" argument. Experts disagre on almost everything, so how expert are they really? Is one better/more accurate than another? They're still arguing about the pyramids, King Arthur, the Turin Shroud, the Bible and what happened to Lord Lucan and Shergar. I'm with the "if we can do something about problems do it, rather than ust hope they go away" camp, but, in this case, nobody seems to know for sure if there is one.

Experts use statistics, statistics can be used to prove anything, so in that case there are no experts. Its almost impossible to prove anything. Strong conclusions can be made though and I do believe the globe is warming, accelerated by what humanity does.

However putting the whole global warming issue to the side for a minute, surely anything we can do to either recycle or use less material resources would be useful. I'd like to see the introduction of more efficient green energy whether anyone believes it or not. Obviously the factor is how much to do, thats really what they're worried about and how much its going to cost.

[Prufrock]

I am allowed to ignore anyone who still calls it global warming? That would suggest that despite claims to have surveys readily at hand and be au fait, you haven't actually read anything proper on the subject for quite some time. I don't pretend to be an expert. As with most things, when there is a large scientific peer reviewed consensus, I'm going to believe that over people who don't want to believe it because it will cost them more taxes and people employed by oil companies. What IS certain is that climate change is happening (though that is a pretty vague term in itself, climates don't by their nature tend to stay exactly the same) and whether or not it is man made doesn't actually seem that relevant as to whether or not we economise. There is only so much oil for a start, and therefore only so much fuel, and so much plastic. Recycling makes sense for more reasons. As does cutting emmisions. Living in London at the moment is the equivalent of smoking three cigarettes per day. Even if the planet isn't going to die, it's going to be a horrible place to be.

[TANGODANCER]

. Living in London at the moment is the equivalent of smoking three cigarettes per day. Even if the planet isn't going to die, it's going to be a horrible place to be.

Oooooh, three cigarattes a day!!!!!. Get the shrouds ready we're all going to die. On that basis, I'm on my ninth life. The first eight were spent as Moses, Methusalah, Rhameses, Walter Raleigh, Robin Hood, George Stevenson, Humphrey Bogart and Winston Churchhill

[Puskas]

there are no experts.

This is an interesting, although misguided view.

I have know idea what you do for a living, jenkz, but are you seriously saying that you could be replaced by anyone at all, and no one would no the difference?

After all, if there's no such thing as experts, anyone can do anything, right?

[Puskas]

. Living in London at the moment is the equivalent of smoking three cigarettes per day. Even if the planet isn't going to die, it's going to be a horrible place to be.

Oooooh, three cigarattes a day!!!!!. Get the shrouds ready we're all going to die. On that basis, I'm on my ninth life. The first eight were spent as Moses, Methusalah, Rhameses, Walter Raleigh, Robin Hood, George Stevenson, Humphrey Bogart and Winston Churchhill

Obviously, we're all going to die. Everyone ever will die. Sad but nowt we can do about it.

Our environment will speed that up. Possibly.

[Prufrock]

. Living in London at the moment is the equivalent of smoking three cigarettes per day. Even if the planet isn't going to die, it's going to be a horrible place to be.

Oooooh, three cigarattes a day!!!!!. Get the shrouds ready we're all going to die. On that basis, I'm on my ninth life. The first eight were spent as Moses, Methusalah, Rhameses, Walter Raleigh, Robin Hood, George Stevenson, Humphrey Bogart and Winston Churchhill

Weren't Moses and Methusaleh around at the same time? And Bogart and Churchill? How did you do that ?

Also, those three a day don't sound much, but when you add them onto the forty a day to start with haha!

[TANGODANCER]

. Living in London at the moment is the equivalent of smoking three cigarettes per day. Even if the planet isn't going to die, it's going to be a horrible place to be.

Oooooh, three cigarattes a day!!!!!. Get the shrouds ready we're all going to die. On that basis, I'm on my ninth life. The first eight were spent as Moses, Methusalah, Rhameses, Walter Raleigh, Robin Hood, George Stevenson, Humphrey Bogart and Winston Churchhill

Weren't Moses and Methusaleh around at the same time? And Bogart and Churchill? How did you do that ?

Also, those three a day don't sound much, but when you add them onto the forty a day to start with haha!

You never heard of split personalities?

[thebish]

Read again, Bish, dear chap. Two degree cooling is what I said. The warming was background radiation temperature throughout our galaxy. If you really do have to talk down to everyone then kindly have the courtesy to read the posts correctly. A percentage of your climatologists were linked, however tenuously, with Zimbabwe and Cameroon. It is all to easy to fall into the trap of cutting and pasting via the internet and believing everything. As a theologean I know you are brainwashed into denying the big bang theory, but I acceptyou also have some expertise in geophysical history. But if you insist that you are correct then I expect we will have to put up with it.

ok - i wrote warming when i meant cooling - a typo - sorry!

if you wrote that the study said the temp was cooling by 2degrees - then that is just plain wrong - the study said 0.02degress (100th what you are claiming) - and then the authors of the study published a rebuttal of their own study (which I referenced for you) saying it was wrong anyway.

so - do you have any evidence (save a study that authors admit was wrong due to faulty equipment) to support your claim that the oceans are cooling?

I could quote you a dozen peer-reviewed oceanographic studies that show the oceans are warming. that's because they are warming - as you'd expect with global warming.

no - a percentage of the climatologists were not linked with zimbabwe and cameroon. I referenced the research paper that backs the 97.5% figure I used when i first mentioned it - you can go and check if you like.

that's how science works - you see.

science works on an excellent system of peer review - they publish their results and research methods so that other scientists can reproduce the effect...

I can point you to the sources and papers for most of what I have said on this topic. You seem reluctant to provide ANY sources at all - and what "evidence" you hint at was actually denied by the very authors of the paper 4 years ago.

what I ssupect is going on here is a good example of a modern disease - the inability to spot the difference between science and journalism

what you read in sensationalist headlines in newspapers that begin "scientists have proved......." or "new scientific research has discovered....." is almost always bollox.

here's how it LOOKS..

Scientists prove that cheese causes cancer!

here's how it actually would be if they wrote it properly:

A second year undergraduate at Leicester University used the word cheese and cancer in an essay following some work he did. His research was inconclusive, but he is not saying that cheese causes cancer, merely that some people with cancer also eat cheese.


as for the big bang theory - where did I ever deny that? I accept the big bang theory as the best explanation we have to date - though it could be argued the science for that has more holes in it than the science you seem determined to reject around Global Warming...

your pathetic attempt to draw a lame link between my being a vicar - and theology - and therefore not accepting the big bang theory is (frankly) one of the most pathetic things I have read on these forums full-stop.


I suspect you are throwing smoke and kicking up sand merely to disguise the obvious fact that you have no basis for your scientific claims at all - it is all just a hunch (a bad one - but a hunch, no less) Everyone is allowed hunches - just don't try to pass it off as science.

[thebish]

All seems a bit like a "Hear we go round the mulberry bush" argument. Experts disagre on almost everything, so how expert are they really? Is one better/more accurate than another? They're still arguing about the pyramids, King Arthur, the Turin Shroud, the Bible and what happened to Lord Lucan and Shergar. I'm with the "if we can do something about problems do it, rather than ust hope they go away" camp, but, in this case, nobody seems to know for sure if there is one.

but on this particular question - 97.5% of climatologists who have researched the issue and published peer-reviewed studies - AGREE.

is that not enough?

and I am using a more precise term - "climatologists" - rather than the less-easy-to-define term "experts" - that you have introduced.

[jenkz]

I am allowed to ignore anyone who still calls it global warming? That would suggest that despite claims to have surveys readily at hand and be au fait, you haven't actually read anything proper on the subject for quite some time.

You know what I mean, climate change is happening, and 'experts' are trying to decide about global warming.
And I never said I had anything of the sort close to hand, just a keen interest in the comings and goings whether you call it one thing or another.

there are no experts.

This is an interesting, although misguided view.
After all, if there's no such thing as experts, anyone can do anything, right?

Although some are better than other at certain jobs, the point I was making is that although the 'experts' who are arguing, disagreeing and stepping forward or backward (mattering if they're 'proven' right or wrong by the next) are all well distinguished (or at least most), there are no true experts.

We will never know the exact problems that we will face, only what we can presume. Therefore we should not be battling a foe that we unsure will occur or trouble us, but instead improve our efficiency in the use of resources and reduce our impact on the globe.

[TANGODANCER]

All seems a bit like a "Hear we go round the mulberry bush" argument. Experts disagre on almost everything, so how expert are they really? Is one better/more accurate than another? They're still arguing about the pyramids, King Arthur, the Turin Shroud, the Bible and what happened to Lord Lucan and Shergar. I'm with the "if we can do something about problems do it, rather than ust hope they go away" camp, but, in this case, nobody seems to know for sure if there is one.

but on this particular question - 97.5% of climatologists who have researched the issue and published peer-reviewed studies - AGREE.

is that not enough?

and I am using a more precise term - "climatologists" - rather than the less-easy-to-define term "experts" - that you have introduced.

Pass the salt Bish. I take everything with a pinch of it.