Maths and climate change (Here, here village idiots)

[OwlHoot]

WTF!? Your take on science is quite unique. You (and sasg) are our special friends. Here's a special headline for you guys (and Tay and Diver):

As the weather gets hotter so the sheep are getting smaller

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1522223.ece

Observations of Soay sheep on Hirta island have shown that the warmer temperatures associated with global warming allow more smaller animals to survive the winter. And with greater numbers of smaller sheep living through the cold months, the average size of the animals falls.

I can't believe you highlight a simple summary of solar physics, which has been known about and uncontentious since at least the 50s, and then start drivelling on about sheep sizes

P.S. I did say "roughly", which I vainly hoped would make it clear the idea of an expanding spherical shell was a slight oversimplification (but evidently still not enough for you to grasp).

[The Lone Gunman]

God Almighty!

I don't know whether this denial of the bleeding obvious is just to wind up SG or what.

Surely the congregation can't be that thick that they imagine the melting of polar ice to unprecedented (as long as records have been kept) levels does not indicate that the climate is warming.

What is it with you guys? Being a dumb flip for the sake of it?

I have little doubt that climate change is happening, it would be odd if it wasnt, what I am (still) not convinced of is the contribution made by mankind to these changes.
Because of this I am dubious about how we can mitigate these changes. If 4x4s are not causing it then taxing them out of existence isn't going to change a thing is it?
I want to see measures taken to survive climate change rather than to stop it. World leaders and tree huggers can crow all they like about reduced emissions but that isnt going to stop vast populations being flooded and habitable areas changing.

Being less reliant on fossil fuels and producing less pollution would be a noble cause in it's own right without the hysteria surrounding AGW.

[sasguru]

I have little doubt that climate change is happening, it would be odd if it wasnt, what I am (still) not convinced of is the contribution made by mankind to these changes.
Because of this I am dubious about how we can mitigate these changes. If 4x4s are not causing it then taxing them out of existence isn't going to change a thing is it?
I want to see measures taken to survive climate change rather than to stop it. World leaders and tree huggers can crow all they like about reduced emissions but that isnt going to stop vast populations being flooded and habitable areas changing.

Being less reliant on fossil fuels and producing less pollution would be a noble cause in it's own right without the hysteria surrounding AGW.

Agreed.
Although the hysteria comes mainly from "think tanks" well-funded by the oil industry which don't actually do any research with the data but seize on isolated anomalies that don't necessarily disprove the totality of the AGW hypothesis.
Reminds me of the tobacco industry fighting tooth and nail with underhand tactics as the evidence mounted about the link between smoking and cancer.

[shaunbhoy]

*Plagiarised.

For "*Plagiarised" read extracted from what seems a plausible scientifically sound source. Unlike you, who claim to be something of an armchair guru, I prefer to look at all angles before drawing a conclusion. Your definition of a "reliable source" involves you, to a scarily significant degree, amalgamating a variety of ideas and putting them forward as your own as if they have some credence. A practice that is so far removed from being scientific that it is quite frankly bizarre, even if we were to assume for a moment that you were not hindered by the unassailable fact that you have the detective skills of a sea-horse with special needs.

[sasguru]

For "*Plagiarised" read extracted from what seems a plausible scientifically sound source. Unlike you, who claim to be something of an armchair guru, I prefer to look at all angles before drawing a conclusion. Your definition of a "reliable source" involves you, to a scarily significant degree, amalgamating a variety of ideas and putting them forward as your own as if they have some credence. A practice that is so far removed from being scientific that it is quite frankly bizarre, even if we were to assume for a moment that you were not hindered by the unassailable fact that you have the detective skills of a sea-horse with special needs.

Blah blah. Your source is a journalist and hence not "scientifically sound ".
You seem to think that lots of words whacked together make you erudite but you only come across as a clueless pompous ass.

HTH