SHOCK! UN Report Shows Global Warming May Be Caused By . . . THE SUN!

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Of course Man has some effect on climate

That's good to hear. I thought maybe you and others were on your way to the funny farm with remarks like:

To think that man can actually have an affect on the climate of the earth can only come from the minds of those that believe they are superior to others.

Reducing human CO2 production will have about as much effect on the climate as a rain dance.


Nobody denies that there are many influences other than man made, that is why it is so difficult to distimguish, but I understand the experts can identify the effect of man over and above all the other effects.

My position is clear - the science and modelling are very complex, there is great uncertainty, but it would be very foolish to assume that there is no effect and no danger. It would be equalliy foolish to think such a large number of eminent scientsts are under the influence of a global hoax, or are only doing it for research funding.

It is what is called the 'null hypothesis', difficult to demonstrate.

Nearly as foolish as to think one can have a sensible discussion on a sandbox full of fucktards and hooktards.

[CuteOldGuy]

So, Essence, how much of our freedom should we turn over to government to save us from this "climate change" which they can't even agree on?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

That's good to hear. I thought maybe you and others were on your way to the funny farm with remarks like:

To think that man can actually have an affect on the climate of the earth can only come from the minds of those that believe they are superior to others.

Reducing human CO2 production will have about as much effect on the climate as a rain dance.


Nobody denies that there are many influences other than man made, that is why it is so difficult to distimguish, but I understand the experts can identify the effect of man over and above all the other effects.

My position is clear - the science and modelling are very complex, there is great uncertainty, but it would be very foolish to assume that there is no effect and no danger. It would be equalliy foolish to think such a large number of eminent scientsts are under the influence of a global hoax, or are only doing it for research funding.

It is what is called the 'null hypothesis', difficult to demonstrate.

Nearly as foolish as to think one can have a sensible discussion on a sandbox full of fucktards and hooktards.

If we were having this discussion in the nineteen seventies. You'd be saying it's foolish think that a "large number of emiment scientists" could be wrong about the coming ice age. Well, they were.

If the science is so conclusive, why do they keep falsifying data?

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

If we were having this discussion in the nineteen seventies. You'd be saying it's foolish think that a "large number of emiment scientists" could be wrong about the coming ice age. Well, they were.

If the science is so conclusive, why do they keep falsifying data?

It is exactly the point you made above. Some things, like the mini ice age, are due to external factors. Then you add on the man made factors, and it influences.

Any predictions have a wide range of uncertainty. Doesn;t mean you can ignore them.


It's something like - the mini ice age would have been much worse if there hadn't been man made influences having a warming effect.

Geddit?

The problem with the non scientists is they all think it is all or nothing. They can;t deal with complexity.

[essence]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So, Essence, how much of our freedom should we turn over to government to save us from this "terrorism" which they can't even agree on?

Does that help?

Your idea of total personal freedom for all is a fantasy. We all have individual and collective responsibilities. Some things cannot be dealt with on a personal level.

Exactly how much of your personal freedom has been eroded by funding scientists to investigate the effect on climate of human activities? Not a lot, I would guess.

[CuteOldGuy]

Now you're lying about me. I have never said I support total personal freedom. That would be anarchy. I don't support that. But instead of answering the question, you make stuff up about me. Typical. Why not just answer the question?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

It is exactly the point you made above. Some things, like the mini ice age, are due to external factors. Then you add on the man made factors, and it influences.

Any predictions have a wide range of uncertainty. Doesn;t mean you can ignore them.


It's something like - the mini ice age would have been much worse if there hadn't been man made influences having a warming effect.

Geddit?

The problem with the non scientists is they all think it is all or nothing. They can;t deal with complexity.

The main problem with the concern over global warming is that we're doing real harm to our economy based on science that is inconclusive. It makes no sense to do certain damage in exchange for uncertain benefit.

I get the feeling the sacrifices we're making to reduce CO2 emissions are similar to what ancient civilizations used to do to insure bountiful crops: human sacrifice. I think the loony left is trying to appease Gaia.

[JD Barleycorn]

Please tell me the gold standard of global warming evidence. That one thing that removes all doubt. Something that has not happened before and can only be explained by humanity.

For the sake of argument lets say that global warming is true. Is it a bad thing for the world and humanity? Historically going back thousands of years man has done better when the climate warmed (yes, it has warmed before). Bjorn Lumborg is an internationally recognized author on global warming and economics. He believes in global warming but has written that it is more cost effective to survive global warming than to try to stop it which he says we don't have the money to do.

[essence]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The main problem with the concern over global warming is that we're doing real harm to our economy based on science that is inconclusive. It makes no sense to do certain damage in exchange for uncertain benefit.

I get the feeling the sacrifices we're making to reduce CO2 emissions are similar to what ancient civilizations used to do to insure bountiful crops: human sacrifice. I think the loony left is trying to appease Gaia.

If you are saying it's a balance of probabilities about uncertainty, I agree 1000%