Is Catastrophic Global Warming a big mistake?

[hyperD]

Do you have to believe in MMGW to be a scientist?

Surely there are some reputable scientists (i.e not discredited or in the pay of fuel companies etc) who are more sceptical, dubious or take a more 'wait and see' standpoint?

I really do blame the lack of blow jobs within the CAGW truebeliever fraternity.

Just think, more of these delightful acts could bring forward the true nirvana of cheap energy and freedom for all.

[KimberleyChris]

It just puzzles me how it always seems that 'real' Scientists believe in it, but any Scientist who is even a little doubtful soon becomes 'a discredited Scientist'.

I imagine that you can't just call yourself a Scientist?

I know how to play the piano ... you just sit on a stool and push some black and white things down with your fingers, but that doesn't make me a pianist.

Surely both the doubtful and the 'on-message' scientists had to all pass the same exams at university?

If you find the politically 'wrong' result to an observation, do your hard-won qualifications become void?

[pjclarke]

Surely there are some reputable scientists (i.e not discredited or in the pay of fuel companies etc) who are more sceptical, dubious or take a more 'wait and see' standpoint?

Of course. There are about 40. IN THE WHOLE WORLD.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And you might want to cross-reference that list with the recent revelations from the Heartland Institute's budget plans:-

Our current budget includes funding for high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message. At the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found.

And this http://www.monbiot.com/2005/05/10/junk-science/

[d000hg]

Wow, a wiki page edited by who-knows-who, with a huge "this page isn't very good" warning plastered at the top. I'm sure convinced.

[KimberleyChris]

Thanks PJ. I'll have to have a good read over the weekend.

I'm not a Scientist of course, I just did Physics and Mech Engineering at tech, but I'm still very interested.

I'll keep an open mind. Put me down as an 'agnostic' not an atheist :-)

[EternalOptimist]

Thanks PJ. I'll have to have a good read over the weekend.

I'm not a Scientist of course, I just did Physics and Mech Engineering at tech, but I'm still very interested.

I'll keep an open mind. Put me down as an 'agnostic' not an atheist :-)

Look. the whole point about a civil society is that everyone gets a say.
even the idiots get a vote.
An idiots vote carries the same weight as a proffesor of global explosions vote.

The whole idea is that we know that sometimes people go off the rails.

Therefore the entire notion of 'only 40 blah blah blah blah' is not only anti scientific, it's anti democtratic and it's anti logic.

We dont need more scientists handing down tablets of stone with their truth written on them, we need more data .

[KimberleyChris]

we need more data .

Uh-oh. Now you've done it .......

Incoming graphs!!!!

[EternalOptimist]

Uh-oh. Now you've done it .......

Incoming graphs!!!!

look. have you ever known me to be wrong about anything ?

no, therefore I am right about this, and CAGW is a crock.

thats logic that is. hic

[KimberleyChris]

I'm sort of in the middle.

I don't doubt that the climate changes and is changing, because it always does, but I'm sceptical about the percentage of the change that can be laid at the door of revenue-generating hydrocarbon fuels.

When you look out of a plane window at 38000 feet, it looks like a very big atmosphere, a very bright sun, and a very tiny mankind somewhere far below. Even huge power station chimneys look like matchsticks. It just doesn't add up.

MMGW was a gift from the gods for politicians, who saw at as a great justification for taxation. I don't trust them.

[EternalOptimist]

I'm sort of in the middle.

I don't doubt that the climate changes and is changing, because it always does, but I'm sceptical about the percentage of the change that can be laid at the door of revenue-generating hydrocarbon fuels.

When you look out of a plane window at 38000 feet, it looks like a very big atmosphere, a very bright sun, and a very tiny mankind somewhere far below. Even huge power station chimneys look like matchsticks. It just doesn't add up.

MMGW was a gift from the gods for politicians, who saw at as a great justification for taxation. I don't trust them.

Well that sure is the best place to be. Not sure, Not convinced, a little bit cynical but I dont care.

thats a bluddy good default position