Well meaning idiots

[BlightyBoy]

Hang on...

I remember once reading an article about the evolution of dinosaurs into birds. The theory being that initially dinosaurs more sort of hopped and glided along, mainly due to their denser bone mass. Some were, however, capable of flight (even with denser bone mass) suggesting that the air density was higher then than now, possibly due to higher levels of water vapour in the atmosphere, and consequently an overall warmer earth.

Surely this suggests that the level of so-called "green-house" gases, or indeed global warming is nothing new, but potentially part of a larger natural cycle of the earth?

And what about the fact that GB was connected by land to the continent (animal remains being dug out of the North Sea and all). Would that not suggest that the entire water held in the North Sea was somewhere else? e.g. locked in Ice or held in atmopspheric suspension?

[Foxy Moron]

There are lots of confused issues here, the main stakeholders being:

1/ Those who want to use the climate change issue to change taxation, but not necessarily to change behaviour, hence using it to create revenue without any real change - i.e. The Government

2/ Those who want to carry on making money out of potentially damaging and often arcane technologies - Oil companies et al

3/ Those who accept change may be necessary but see that this should be encouraged through new clean technologies - I fall in this group

4/ Those who are suspicious of science, and often misunderstand it - the media, some people who post here

This is obviously an over simplification, but a reasonable outline of where people are coming from?

[sasguru]

I am coming to the conclusion that some people here are only comfortable when they have answers for everything. They must 'know' and they cant stand the thought of uncertainty or not knowing

Are you talking about yourself? You seem certain that AGW is wrong, in spite of the considerable evidence.

I don't have answers for everything.
The central ideas of the hypothesis of AGW may well prove to be wrong. Perhaps scientists have misinterpreted the evidence.
My problem is that there is no way to discuss that idea with people who don't understand the basic framework necessary for the debate, because they don't understand the scientific method or statistical inference.

[EternalOptimist]

One last thing. The fact that someone can't answer every objection or question about a theory (or perhaps nobody can) doesn't in itself disprove that theory.

Absolutely, but a good theory is a falsifiable theory. AGW has one scientific plank missing which is experimentation, the theory relies on modelling instead. So how are we going to falsify the theory of AGW?

Maybe wait four years to see if the North Pole is ice free as Al Gore has stated.

[BlightyBoy]

3/ Those who accept change may be necessary but see that this should be encouraged through new clean technologies - I fall in this group

I'm with you in that group FM.

On the one hand I think that change is required, if only because these cleaner technologies make more long-term sense (I need to imperical proof for this opinion) and yet on the other hand, so little is known about the Earth and it's systems that no-one can really be sure one way or the other - not to mention the effects on the Earth from our Sun (and the indisputable fact that as it ages, it gets hotter).

Notwithstanding those points, it is also pretty well accepted that the Sun has it's own rhythms, some which may occur once every 26,000 years (as suggested by the results of South Polar ice cores indicating previous eras of "warming" and "cooling" of the Earth)

Do we even have all the information to make an educated argument one way or the other?

[sasguru]

There are lots of confused issues here, the main stakeholders being:

1/ Those who want to use the climate change issue to change taxation, but not necessarily to change behaviour, hence using it to create revenue without any real change - i.e. The Government

2/ Those who want to carry on making money out of potentially damaging and often arcane technologies - Oil companies et al

3/ Those who accept change may be necessary but see that this should be encouraged through new clean technologies - I fall in this group

4/ Those who are suspicious of science, and often misunderstand it - the media, some people who post here

This is obviously an over simplification, but a reasonable outline of where people are coming from?

You forgot:

5/ The conspiracy theorists

6/ The plain stupid

Seems many people on here fall in (4) and hate (1) and hence get confused and become (5).
And there are some here who fall in (6).

[EternalOptimist]

I don't have answers for everything.
The central ideas of the hypothesis of AGW may well prove to be wrong. Perhaps scientists have misinterpreted the evidence.

At last you are coming round to my way of thinking. There is more rejoicing over one sinner etc etc.

excellent

so how do we go about finding out if it is wrong, or if the theory is right.

[Foxy Moron]

I imagine some of these guys would still be happy if London and other UK cities were still a smog of industrial waste, like they were 100 years ago. Where the population were dying early of various lung diseases.

so how do we go about finding out if it is wrong, or if the theory is right.

That's what they do everytime they test an hypothesis. The primary assumption is the hypothesis is false.

[BlightyBoy]

You forgot:

5/ The conspiracy theorists

6/ The plain stupid

Seems many people on here fall in (4) and hate (1) and hence get confused and become (5).
And there are some here who fall in (6).

But can those falling into (5) really be blamed? I mean, they have almost as much believable evidence as those championing Global Warming? Is it not the case that many organisations use Global Warming as an excuse/justification for pressurising small African nations with large fossile fuel reserves to not use them but to purchase expensive energy sources from the west?

Does anybody remember that global warming was first suggested by a swedish scientist whose theories were rubbished by the scientific community? Maggie Thatcher then took on the "climate change" mantle as a way of trying to push through new legislation for Nuclear Plants and to close all the coal mines in Wales and the North (because of those pesky striking miners)?

I'm not saying that contemporary theories are invalid, but historically this has always been a bit of band-wagon for those with other agendas.

[EternalOptimist]

That's what they do everytime they test an hypothesis. The primary assumption is the hypothesis is false.

I will say it again, just for you.
There are no global climate experiments, so scientists use modelling instead.