Well meaning idiots

[TimberWolf]

Even going back to the second world war, scientists were using modeling to successfully grow more efficient crops. They performed small scale experiments which via modelling enabled them to formulate the best practices on a large scale. It worked, no need to waste tons of resources only to find out it wasn't the best way.

I'm not sure 'more efficient' is the right term for the solution or that that solution is a sustainable one. The answer to growing more crops appears to have been to utilise cheap oil (in the form of fertilisers), whereas before that it was Sunlight, and animals running on sunlight.

[OwlHoot]

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?

That's true. Global warming is nothing new, and Nature evens everything out eventually. But the point is mankind, and other life on Earth, would suffer in the process.

If you don't mind sea levels rising a hundred feet, and every continent being an arid desert more than a few miles inland, like Australia today and Pangea 150 millions years ago, and atmospheric oxygen levels plummeting like in those days, then there's nothing to worry about.

[threaded]

It's very simple to me: those on the global warming side have been shown on several occasions to have faked their data to produce bogus results, whilst those on the other side have not, but have had tulip heaped on them for their troubles.

To my mind the scientific consensus is that global warming is some new age snake cult and one doesn't shout too loud or the cultists will come for you.

HTH

[sasguru]

It's very simple to me

Anyone who starts a statement on a complicated topic with the above words has got to be simple-minded.

HTH

[shaunbhoy]

Anyone who starts a statement on a complicated topic with the above words has got to be simple-minded.

HTH

Meanwhile............in the slack-jawed camp.......something stirred!

[EternalOptimist]

Anyone who starts a statement on a complicated topic with the above words has got to be simple-minded.

HTH

I also think that the non-AGW-believers have a better class of insult


compare AGWers

nutters
simple-minded
idiots

to non-AGWers

algernon
intellectually anorexic

[sasguru]

Meanwhile............in the slack-jawed camp.......something stirred!

Hey SB, where've you been?
BTW you're the best argument for euthanasia that I know of.

[shaunbhoy]

Hey SB, where've you been?
BTW you're the best argument for euthanisia that I know of.

What on earth is "euthanisia"? I think your modelling has gone awry SG.
I have been busy........doing as little as possible.

[sasguru]

I also think that the non-AGW-believers have a better class of insult


compare AGWers

nutters
simple-minded
idiots

to non-AGWers

algernon
intellectually anorexic

I wasn't trying to insult, simply making statements of descriptive fact.

HTH

[threaded]

Anyone who starts a statement on a complicated topic with the above words has got to be simple-minded.

HTH

No, I was not discussing a complicated topic. I was talking about how anyone who stands up to the global warming crowd get shouted down by a group who use the same techniques as creationists and other religious nut-jobs to give themselves an air of 'scientific respectability' in order to fool those who don't know any better.

Quite simple really.