Climate change

[BlasterBates]

It always ends this way. What are we to make of Watts, the Mail and the deniers who quote them?

That they're winning the argument. One can sense your frustration.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/m...uary-2012.html

Have a nice day....

[pjclarke]

Get back to us when Watts or the Mail comes up with the killer scientific argument that demonstrates where the IPCC, the National Science Academies, and every professional scientific body on the planet is wrong.

[BlasterBates]

Get back to us when Watts or the Mail comes up with the killer scientific argument that demonstrates where the IPCC, the National Science Academies, and every professional scientific body on the planet is wrong.

Prove they're right.



You can't can you, because even they admit it's all about probabilities.

You can prove Einstein's theories, you can prove Newton's theories, but you can't prove AGW.

Here is Dr Tim Ball's perspective on how you're losing the argument:

http://drtimball.com/2012/sensationa...lures-exposed/

It must be painful to be on the losing side...as comes through in your posts. At the end of the day you need to win the support of the majority and you're losing it, your support dwindles on a daily basis, because in the end the globe isn't getting any warmer, and the populace isn't stupid.

....and yes you'll post a new graph no doubt, but we can all see through it.

[pjclarke]

No. You cannot prove either Einstein or Newton. That's a fundamenntaly wrong expression of how science works. In fact Einstein demonstrated that Newton's Laws of Motion are not universally correct. Physical theories are always provisional, subject to falsification and confirmation, never proof. You get proof in mathematics, while pretty much all science is about the balance of probabilitiies and the weight of evidence. On this, informed opinion has been clear for some time

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile.../2005/9649.pdf

Ah - that would be Tim Ball the liar?

Richard Littlemore | Ball Bails on Johnson Lawsuit

[BlasterBates]

No. You cannot prove either Einstein or Newton. That's a fundamenntaly wrong expression of how science works. In fact Einstein demonstrated that Newton's Laws of Motion are not universally correct. Physical theories are always provisional, subject to falsification and confirmation, never proof. You get proof in mathematics, while pretty much all science is about the balance of probabilitiies and the weight of evidence. On this, informed opinion has been clear for some time



http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile.../2005/9649.pdf


Ah - that would be Tim Ball the liar?

Richard Littlemore | Ball Bails on Johnson Lawsuit

You can use both Newton's and Einstein's theories to predict things, engineer things. You can't make AGW predictions

oh and most of the members of the Royal Society have nothing to do with climate science, so not exactly in their comfort zone are they.

read Judith Curry's paper from last year, she is a climate scientist.

Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster

The “monster” is therefore the confusion and ambiguity associated with knowledge versus ignorance, objectivity versus subjectivity, facts versus values, prediction versus speculation, and science versus policy.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/16/ta...ainty-monster/

Hardly seems to be "certain" is it, and brings into clarity how political advocacy is getting mixed into the debate.

[sasguru]

You can prove Einstein's theories, you can prove Newton's theories,.

That just shows that you haven't got a fooking clue about anything.
HTH

[BlasterBates]

That just shows that you haven't got a fooking clue about anything.
HTH

There are levels of proof, but climate change can't be proven at all, not unless you got a sample of 50 or so planets and you tweak the atmosphere.

You're just showing your ignorance and pjclarke.

[original PM]

whatever

will still be filling the kids paddling pool this weekend.

But then I live in the northwest and we do not appear to have that many problems...

[sasguru]

There are levels of proof, but climate change can't be proven at all, not unless you got a sample of 50 or so planets and you tweak the atmosphere.

You're just showing your ignorance, and pjclarke as well.

My God, you really are a genuine 100% certifiable moron, aren't you?

[BlasterBates]

Ok well maybe the term proof is wrong but certainly subject to experimental validation.