BP?

[thebish]

Says you proffessor Pru! Not been keeping up to date then that scientists are slowly backing away from the great doom and gloom climate change!

errr... apart from being utter bollox - that is pish and indeed tosh, not to mention guff.

I suppose you are from the brain washed wing then like your hero and his film! lets throw in a few false/dodgy/debateable bits and frighten everyone into more tax!!! I know lets get the kids onboard, that will work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

The debunking of the Climate change "facts"

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 83352.html

I haven't seen any films about climate change - have you? - I have no climate change "heroes".

1. The BBC news link you offer us - the judge, Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans.

2. relying on John Coleman for a balanced and sane view on Global Warming is like relying on Nick Griffin for a balanced and sane view on racial harmony. He has done precisely NO research at all into global warming.

3. 99% of scientists utterly and completely accept the idea that human activity IS causing global warming.

[Prufrock]

Says you proffessor Pru! Not been keeping up to date then that scientists are slowly backing away from the great doom and gloom climate change!

errr... apart from being utter bollox - that is pish and indeed tosh, not to mention guff.

I suppose you are from the brain washed wing then like your hero and his film! lets throw in a few false/dodgy/debateable bits and frighten everyone into more tax!!! I know lets get the kids onboard, that will work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

The debunking of the Climate change "facts"

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscor ... 83352.html

I haven't seen any films about climate change - have you? - I have no climate change "heroes".

1. The BBC news link you offer us - the judge, Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans.

2. relying on John Coleman for a balanced and sane view on Global Warming is like relying on Nick Griffin for a balanced and sane view on racial harmony. He has done precisely NO research at all into global warming.

3. 99% of scientists utterly and completely accept the idea that human activity IS causing global warming.

I wouldn't mind, but that wasn't even the bit Hoboh took issue with, I said, "whether or not climate change exists, which it definitely does, and whether or not it is man made, which is open to debate". Hoboh took issue not with the idea that it is caused by man, but that it is happening at all!

I think 99% is perhaps a rhetorical flourish Bishy! There are certainly more than 1% who don't believe it is man made, though admittedly most of them are in the pay of the oil companies.

[thebish]

I wouldn't mind, but that wasn't even the bit Hoboh took issue with, I said, "whether or not climate change exists, which it definitely does, and whether or not it is man made, which is open to debate". Hoboh took issue not with the idea that it is caused by man, but that it is happening at all!

I think 99% is perhaps a rhetorical flourish Bishy! There are certainly more than 1% who don't believe it is man made, though admittedly most of them are in the pay of the oil companies.

ok - I will add the phrase "with any credibility on the issue" - does that help?

[Prufrock]

You're saying Jeremy Clarkson has no credibility on the issue ?! :shocked:

[thebish]

You're saying Jeremy Clarkson has no credibility on the issue ?! :shocked:

only in hobo's little book of trusted scienceatrists...

[Puskas]

I wouldn't mind, but that wasn't even the bit Hoboh took issue with, I said, "whether or not climate change exists, which it definitely does, and whether or not it is man made, which is open to debate". Hoboh took issue not with the idea that it is caused by man, but that it is happening at all!

I think 99% is perhaps a rhetorical flourish Bishy! There are certainly more than 1% who don't believe it is man made, though admittedly most of them are in the pay of the oil companies.

ok - I will add the phrase "with any credibility on the issue" - does that help?

I wouldn't say that helped - the question isn't "How many scientists [and how do you define scientists - does the opinion of quantum physicists with no experience in this area count?] agree with it" but, "Does the hypothesis tally with the evidence?"

That question, like all interesting ones, is rather complicated. It's best answered, "Probably". And then only after studying the data for some time, rather than listening to tv personalities.

The question that sceptics might like to ponder is one of risk. If they're right, there's either no risk, or there's nothing we can do about the risk (take your pick). However, on the off-chance that they're wrong, there is a huge risk, and one that can be prevented. Is it not worth taking the view that we can prevent the worst case from happening, rather than shrugging our shoulders and carrying on as if nothing were wrong?

Of course, I have no interest in this - I'll be dead by the time the worst of it kicks in and have no children - indeed, I despise children, so have no interest in the welfare of yours. You may have some interest in that, however. In which case, consider the risks/rewards, and try to evaluate them.

[fatshaft]

3. 99% of scientists utterly and completely accept the idea that human activity IS causing global warming.

What a load of drivel. Cows account for far more damage than humans, that is an accepted fact.

The debate is whether what we do is enough to cause any significant global warming, and more and more scientists are saying that it is negligible, and of course we all know from last week's expose that the govt study released last year were the worst case scenario, rather than a balanced view on what could happen.

[thebish]

3. 99% of scientists utterly and completely accept the idea that human activity IS causing global warming.

What a load of drivel. Cows account for far more damage than humans, that is an accepted fact.

The debate is whether what we do is enough to cause any significant global warming, and more and more scientists are saying that it is negligible, and of course we all know from last week's expose that the govt study released last year were the worst case scenario, rather than a balanced view on what could happen.

how many is "more and more" - and who are they?

(incidentally - re. the cow thing - scientists discovered the other day that cumin powder can help the cow-wind - and also research into the non-farting kangeroo is beinbg undertaken...)

[fatshaft]

3. 99% of scientists utterly and completely accept the idea that human activity IS causing global warming.

What a load of drivel. Cows account for far more damage than humans, that is an accepted fact.

The debate is whether what we do is enough to cause any significant global warming, and more and more scientists are saying that it is negligible, and of course we all know from last week's expose that the govt study released last year were the worst case scenario, rather than a balanced view on what could happen.

how many is "more and more" - and who are they?

(incidentally - re. the cow thing - scientists discovered the other day that cumin powder can help the cow-wind - and also research into the non-farting kangeroo is beinbg undertaken...)

Who are they? No idea, just like I've no idea who the guys who came out with their highly biased climate change report are. Not sure it makes a diference who they are, there are plenty calling for a does of reality against the headlong rush from the end is nigh merchants.

[Puskas]

3. 99% of scientists utterly and completely accept the idea that human activity IS causing global warming.

What a load of drivel. Cows account for far more damage than humans, that is an accepted fact.

The debate is whether what we do is enough to cause any significant global warming, and more and more scientists are saying that it is negligible, and of course we all know from last week's expose that the govt study released last year were the worst case scenario, rather than a balanced view on what could happen.

how many is "more and more" - and who are they?

(incidentally - re. the cow thing - scientists discovered the other day that cumin powder can help the cow-wind - and also research into the non-farting kangeroo is beinbg undertaken...)

Who are they? No idea, just like I've no idea who the guys who came out with their highly biased climate change report are. Not sure it makes a diference who they are, there are plenty calling for a does of reality against the headlong rush from the end is nigh merchants.

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

[The Ghost of Burnden]

Cows account for far more damage than humans, that is an accepted fact.

and another sad fact is that it is not from their farts but from their belching!!!

Yes, okay, was bored last night and was watching a documentary about it on one of the satellite channels!

[Gary the Enfield]

Would there be so many cattle if there wasn't a worldwide increasing clamour for Milk and Beef?

Not entering the debate, just saying that the reason cattle are increasing emissions is that they are now bred in such large numbers to cope with demand. Ergo, an increase of Methane.

Introducing a chain top predator to the English countryside would go some way to redressing the balance.

What does Lofty do in the off season?

[fatshaft]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

[thebish]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

y'see - that is simply untrue.

[Gravedigger]

http://www.npl.co.uk/educate-explore/pr ... -briefing/

Really, who the fcuk knows for sure. Cows belching and farting, diesel fumes, volcanic ash, hydrocarbons and flourides. You'd have to go back to caveman times to cancel out modern lifestyles as a cause. There's an argument that says it's a natural cycle and another that says it's not. Bit like "The earth is/is not flat". You'll never get a definitive answer in your lifetime. Bish can give a damn good ecclesiastical argument, Mummy a legal argument, most of us a sensible argument that cannot be proven. Link above is the best you'll get as I can't be arsed sourcing MIT. But if, in the middle of winter, you tell me it's global warming, I'll tw@t you.

[thebish]

OK - I will try to be more scientific than my 99%

the most widely respected study of scientific consensus on global warming and the place of human activity in it was done by Peter T . Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman in 2009...

A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

so - I'm happy to amend my original wild "99% of scientists" to "97.5% of climatologists."

[thebish]

Really, who the fcuk knows for sure. Cows belching and farting, diesel fumes, volcanic ash, hydrocarbons and flourides. You'd have to go back to caveman times to cancel out modern lifestyles as a cause. There's an argument that says it's a natural cycle and another that says it's not. Bit like "The earth is/is not flat".

or - alternatively - not one bit like that at all....

[Gravedigger]

Cubist SOB

[Gravedigger]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=17



I can chuck facts at you all day long. Can't prove em, but nobody can. My dad once said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". It became so famous Freud used it in his book, "Noddy humps his relatives".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 071248.htm

The lower one gives another view by experts(?)

[fatshaft]

So in other words, you haven't a clue what you're on about, and simply sticking your head in the sand, promoting these airy-fairy-everything's-fine-merchants.

You need to get a dose of reality against them, and study the evidence from the more depressing realists.

Yes I have a clue what I'm on about. So the fact I have no idea who the global warming scientists are either is fine by you, but not the anti-gw ones? That's about par for the course for the global warming scaremongers, everything we say is right, everyone else is wrong.

I've read both sides of the argument, I'm also aware that less than 20 years ago we were all heading for the next ice age according to these exact same experts. Oh and nuclear power was the devil, now it's the saviour, etc etc.....

y'see - that is simply untrue.

Yes it is, unless you mean it was a bit further back than that?