Interesting Read iF You Belive in "Climate Change" and "Carbon Footprints"

[DodgyAgent]

I think the reason is simpler than that. It takes courage to speak out against convention, and few scientists are prepared to be alienated by their community, so they don't. What we have now is much like Galileo being locked up for suggesting the conventional wisdom as spread by the church might not be entirely correct.

Few of us will ever directly examine the evidence, so it comes down to faith. You can say that petrolheads want to hear that it's all nonsense so will believe arguments like the one at the start of this thread, but you can equally say the ecomentalists want to hear that the car is to blame for everything. And of course politicians like to have a bandwagon to jump on, especially if they can justify tax increases as well. You can't trust the green movement to be objective anymore than you can trust Jeremy Clarkson. And you certainly can't trust the politicians.

Well put. At least Jeremy Clarkson does not pretend that his views are determined by a desire to do what is best for everyone else.

[Old Greg]

Well put. At least Jeremy Clarkson does not pretend that his views are determined by a desire to do what is best for everyone else.

We agree at last, Dodgy. Nobody could accuse Clarkson of wanting what is best for everyone else.

[DodgyAgent]

We agree at last, Dodgy. Nobody could accuse Clarkson of wanting what is best for everyone else.

He is like any other human being, though he is one of the few that are prepared to admit it.

[Old Greg]

The climate is always changing. The debate is about whether human beings are contributing adversly to climate change. Going back to Melanie Phillips, she also writes in the broadsheets including the Guardian, as do many journalists, so give it a go and write some nice logical counter arguments to show that your views are worth taking seriously. They usually do not mind having their views challenged. Furthermore research does not need to be actually "fixed" for it to be inbalanced. there are many subtle subconscious even dynamics at play without something needing to be fixed.

I'm not budging on Phillips. Many of us (or maybe it's just me) have columnists we won't read - she's in my list along with Littlejohn and Toynbee.

I'll continue to read both sided of the argument, and when I look at the balance of scientific opinion so overwhelmingly on one side, I'll continue to hold my view with them. I don't have much faith in government but I don't believe in the conspiracy - even a weak one. Not least because scientists in the US and Oz also support the man-made globalwarming theory, going against their govenrment's position. If you were right, Dodgy, why wouldn't they be agreeing with their masters in government?

[dang65]

I think the reason is simpler than that. It takes courage to speak out against convention, and few scientists are prepared to be alienated by their community, so they don't. What we have now is much like Galileo being locked up for suggesting the conventional wisdom as spread by the church might not be entirely correct.

People often cite this Galileo thing, but Galileo's science wasn't generally disputed, even by the Pope and other high ranking church officials. He was put under house arrest by the Inquisition on suspicion of 'heresy'.

In the case of the odd scientist coming up with rogue theories about climate change, their ideas are routinely challenged and proved to be incorrect by repeated research and consensus by other scientists. i.e. their peers. It's not "much like Galileo" at all.

[Rantor]

I'm not budging on Phillips. Many of us (or maybe it's just me) have columnists we won't read - she's in my list along with Littlejohn and Toynbee?

Oh come on, live a little

Littlejohn is not particularly worth reading except for the bozo vibe.

Phillips & Toynbee are my favourites and I will go out of my way to read either just for the indignation rush. For my money, Toynbee is by far the worse of the two though I wouldn't want either of them calling the shots.

There's also that bloke Heffer - he must have use some random-rant generator for his stuff.

[VectraMan]

In the case of the odd scientist coming up with rogue theories about climate change, their ideas are routinely challenged and proved to be incorrect by repeated research and consensus by other scientists. i.e. their peers.

Is that true? I'd have to take your word for it. You could look at it the other way around and say the consensus is being routlinely challenged and proved incorrect by the odd scientist. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

I think when science can't accurately predict the weather a week ahead, the only conclusion is that these people are portraying their facts as more concrete than they really are. This is not the same kind of science that says when you drop something it will fall, or makes your mobile phone work.

[Old Greg]

Is that true? I'd have to take your word for it. You could look at it the other way around and say the consensus is being routlinely challenged and proved incorrect by the odd scientist. Just because the majority believe something doesn't make it true.

I think when science can't accurately predict the weather a week ahead, the only conclusion is that these people are portraying their facts as more concrete than they really are. This is not the same kind of science that says when you drop something it will fall, or makes your mobile phone work.

Yes, I think the problem is that nothing can be 'proved'. Scientists know this and present their arguments in terms of how certain they are, and what the range of possible outcomes are with probabilities attached to outcomes. Journalist and politicians simply don't get this and either come down on one side as 'the truth' or decide that 'there are two sides to every story' so we sould have even balance.

[Bagpuss]

The whole notion that UK science is corrupt is more absurd than any of the other (wildest) white man van arguments on the board. If only DA and the likes knew how closely scrutinised research is in this country. Manipulation of results is easily identifiable, very rare, and roundly scourned upon.

[BlasterBates]

The reason I think this whole CO2 thing is exaggerated, is that CO2 as a greenhouse gas, is a tiny bit of the atmosphere 0.0003% to be exact, and cloud cover has a massive green house effect compared to CO2. Then there is the sun where all the heat actually comes from. If I were to do away with a greenhouse and flood my tomato patch with CO2, I think this wouldn't work. I think all the other possible effects on temperature dwarf CO2.