Global warming.

[Digit]

No! Can't do that, Marduk hasn't objected yet!

[Forum Monk]

Don't worry, he won't object. He only objects to pseudoscience.

[Digit]

(He only objects to pseudoscience)

Who's definition?
But I have to be fair (Sob! Sob!) this is a lot livelier forum than some!

[marduk]

at some point someone might ask me why i object to pseudoscience
then everyone would see what a jolly nice bloke I really am

[Forum Monk]

So if I ask why, will you change your avatar to this;?

[Digit]

Not me Steve, I've got a bad heart!
The objection that I have to that definition is that it tends to be based that particular persons own ideology, 'I'm right you're wrong!'
When reputable scientists who object to the drama and hysteria currently associated with GW start receiving death threats, as some have reported, I see little difference between that and Galileo's stand before the inquisition.
Science, in some forms, is the new religion to some with the same degree of dogma on occasion as demonstrated by religion. And Steve, before you tell me that no one has been killed for a scientific stand, I would mention the suspicious circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's recent 'suicide'.

[Essan]

When reputable scientists who object to the drama and hysteria currently associated with GW start receiving death threats, as some have reported, I see little difference between that and Galileo's stand before the inquisition.

The difference being that there are lots more equally or even more reputable scientists who support GW, and none of them are involved in death threats

Also worth noting that all those climate scientists who support GW that I know also object to the hysteria surrounding the subject.

If only we could get rid of the media, the politicians and the lobbyists ....... Hmmm, anyone fancy building the B Ark?

[marduk]

So if I ask why, will you change your avatar to this;?

no but i would change it to this

And Steve, before you tell me that no one has been killed for a scientific stand, I would mention the suspicious circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's recent 'suicide'

.
well the Hutton verdict recorded Suicide
and the people who knew him best accepted that
so if you think you know better than his mother lets hear your evidence

theres just one more thing

Dr David Kelly died on 17 july 2003
Dr Harold Shipman died on 13 Jan 2004
exactly 180 days apart
I can only conclude that the muder was carried out by a darts fanatic who was trying to get three treble 20s
have the police investigated Eric Bristow


as for pseudoscience the dictionary definition is more than suitable

any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.

like when some twat says the cities of the Indus civilisation are older then 3000bce because a locally written religious text claims they were there at the creation of mankind
and while at the same time all the scientific data records no dates older than 3000bce
thats pseudoscience

If only we could get rid of the media, the politicians and the lobbyists ....... Hmmm, anyone fancy building the B Ark?

one day you'll realise Andy that no matter how many times you quote from HHGTTG only you and me are geeky enough to get that reference

[Digit]

Being in a majority Essan is unfortunately not a guarantee of being correst, as e check on scince's past record should amply demonstrate.
I would also point out that there are very few scientists around who have a sufficiently broad background to make reliable definitive statements.
Consider, to create an accurate model of how Earth's works you need accurate data on such things as, ocean currents, how they interact with seas around them and the land masses, their seasonal and long term variations.
Similarly for the jet streams.
Green house gases, water vapour being much more effective than CO2 of course.
Man's effects.
Earth's inclination and orbital variations.
The Sun's effects on the Earth.
Cloud cover at various heights and seasons.
The ozone layer depletion and reconstruction.
Add to that liitle lot some effect that may not yet even have been considered and you'll find that many scientists are simply supporting the theory because they like to get their name in the papers like politicians, one overt supporter of man made GW is Steven Hawking, yet as far as I know he is as qualified to pontificate on the subject as myself!

[Essan]

The earths atmosphere is 0.034% Co2

Currently 0.0385%

Co2 is the most insignificant of all the greenhouse gases

It's always been regarded as the most significant, in part due to it's longevity compared to others like methane. However, it's true the water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas.

Of the 0.034% Co2, man-made Co2 is about 3% of the of the total. Hence the earths atmosphere is comprised 0.001 percent man-made Co2.

Human contributions equate to about 25% of the total current level of CO2.

The ice core borings in the arctic showed that Co2 rises in the atmosphere lagged the temperature rise on average by 800 years (over the many millions of years prior to the industrial age).

The time lag is debated, but this is nonetheless irrelevant. No-one has ever claimed that interglacials are caused by rising levels of CO2.

The largest producer of Co2, the ocean, releases more gas when it is warmed and sinks more when it is cooled, possibly explaining the lag effect of Co2 from temperature rise.

How does this match with the Holocene Climatric Optimum and the MWP - when (supposedly in the latter case) the Earth was warmer than today and yet CO2 levels remained pretty constant.


It's near certain that increases in atmospheric CO2 are down to human activity and the science says that for a doubling of CO2 we should see a 1c temp rise. The question is whether natural factors are also changing the climate, and if so, what the respective contributions of human activity and nature are, what feedbacks will occur and what may happen in future.

The other issue is the media hysteria and political cynicism - the latter resulting in taxes being introduced when it's plain they will have no impact on climate change etc

Meanwhile, there are numerous other ways in which humans are affecting climate change ...... These are the Inconvenient Truths which both sides prefer to ignore. (Apparently, blaming Brazil, Indonesia and Uganda for climate change is not deemed politically acceptable, even when it's the truth)

[Digit]

(so if you think you know better than his mother lets hear your evidence)

The two paramedics who attended him at the site where he was found, if you remember Steve, both with years of experience, stated publicly that there was not sufficient blood at the scene for him to have died where he was found. Remember?
Unless of course his mother was in attendance I imagine she had to accept what she was told.

[marduk]

one overt supporter of man made GW is Steven Hawking

well his loony asnwer was

The China Daily asked Hawking about the environment, and he responded that he was "very worried about global warming." He said he was afraid that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees Celsius and raining sulphuric acid.

which if anything proves that theoretical physicists are not qualified to comment on climatology

[marduk]

The two paramedics who attended him at the site where he was found, if you remember Steve, both with years of experience, stated publicly that there was not sufficient blood at the scene for him to have died where he was found

then you think they were qualified to judge that when two experts refuted it

two of Britain's top forensic pathologists, Professor Chris Milroy and Professor Guy Rutty, dismissed the paramedics' claims, saying it is hard to judge blood loss from the scene of a death, as some blood may have seeped into the ground. Professor Milroy also told The Guardian that Kelly's heart condition may have made it hard for him to sustain any significant degree of blood loss

cherry picking evidence is also pseudoscience Digit

[Essan]

Consider, to create an accurate model of how Earth's works you need accurate data on such things as, ocean currents, how they interact with seas around them and the land masses, their seasonal and long term variations.
Similarly for the jet streams.
Green house gases, water vapour being much more effective than CO2 of course.
Man's effects.
Earth's inclination and orbital variations.
The Sun's effects on the Earth.
Cloud cover at various heights and seasons.
The ozone layer depletion and reconstruction.

Which is why I don't trust the models.

Add to that liitle lot some effect that may not yet even have been considered and you'll find that many scientists are simply supporting the theory because they like to get their name in the papers like politicians

Some, maybe. But the majority are the ones actually doing the research and whose names are not known outside of climatological circles.

One interesting snippet that isn't mentioned in the media: a lot of current research is aimed at investigating factors other than CO2 in climate change.


It's important to separate the true science from the popular media and political spin.

[Digit]

(The time lag is debated, but this is nonetheless irrelevant. No-one has ever claimed that interglacials are caused by rising levels of CO2. )

So what did? Till you can explain that how on Earth can you ignore the possibility that the sequence is repeating?
8 winters spaced 12 months apart would at least suggest that a 9th one will follow or logic at least vanishes!