The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do you support catastrophic climate change  (Read 23347 times)

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« on: 20/02/2009 09:56:12 »
As requested.Do you support the idea that the climate is changing in a catastrophic way or is just the result of normal climate change.
 
I don't and have been asked for some proof from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
I have only used the site of Sydney Airport if people want to trawl through the many other sites in Australia to prove me wrong then go for it.
First rainfall for the years 1971 to 2000

Sorry I can not get the links for temp and rainfall to work.So I am afraid you will have to take my summary for both for the time being

You will note that the annual average rainfall over this period was larger than the long term average.
Next the temperature for the same years
This does show a slight increase on annual average of 0.1 not exactly the 1 degree quoted in other parts of the site.
And finally severe weather which we get mainly in the form of tropical cyclones.

http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/cyclone/faq/index.shtml

You will need to go down to the section climatology  and click on question 6 of that section.
In essence it says that if anything there has been a slight decrease in the number of severe cyclones.
All in all not much to suggest we are in the middle of a catastrophe.

I was also ask for some proof that the  Australian CSIRO our premier scientific organization was not the trusted body it once was.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_heavy_says_dont_trust_csiros_scares/

This article quotes Art Raiche who worked for CSIRO for 35 years, the last 15 of which he held the rank of Chief Research Scientist.

Now for the IPCC.

Your chances of finding a scientist in the IPCC who disagrees with climate change  are less than finding a Muslim  in a mosque who disagrees with Islam.

And why don't the IPCC release the data and the models they use in their decisions what are they trying to hide.

And why of the 190 odd countries that are signatories to the Kyoto protocol is it only the 39 developed nations that have to do anything about it.
One would think that if you are all in a boat with a hole in it it is counter productive to be arguing who made the hole better for everyone to start bailing.But in the case of the developing countries not only are they not helping they seem to be intent to bail water into the boat.

As I have said in other threads here climate change is about two things
MONEY and POWER

Cheers
justaskin
« Last Edit: 20/02/2009 10:11:08 by justaskin »


 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Re: Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #1 on: 20/02/2009 10:05:25 »
Just a note - the first 2 links don't work, at least from where I am. They also have the same address....
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #2 on: 20/02/2009 10:20:13 »
Thank you dentstudent.I can give details of how to get to the data but it is of some length.
I did not think it was going to work when I also noticed they had the same address.See my edit.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #3 on: 20/02/2009 10:22:32 »
justaskin - have a look at this link:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain&region=aus&season=0112&period=1970

It will provide access to trend data for a variety of periods and for a variety of climate variables. It may be useful in your original post.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #4 on: 20/02/2009 10:27:06 »
There can be no doubt that facts and figures can be found to prove or disprove global warming/climate change. In some cases even the same facts & figures can be used to serve either purpose.

It's a bit like you saying 'the glass is half empty' while I say 'the glass is half full'.

Look at it this way though; if GW/CC is not happening, or if it is, but not as a result of man's actions, would it be damaging for man to reduce the extent of man made pollution?

If GW/CC is happening as a result of man's pollution and we do nothing about it, what would the consequences be?

Is it not better to er on the side of prudence and reduce our use of fossil fuels, reduce our waste etc.? Could environmental friendly actions actually be counterproductive?

The problem is, if we get it wrong, we may not have the chance to put things to right.

Biodiversity is essential to the world's ability to support life. Can we afford the relentless spread of man to wipe out rain forests, threaten microscopic sea life and cause countless species to become extinct?
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #5 on: 20/02/2009 10:29:32 »
And just a comment about the typhoons. They are driven by rising warm moist air. Since the patterns of where this moist air will be are changing, it would follow that where and the number of typhoons that form will change. So, it would not surprise me if there was a predicted reduction in expected typhoons in and around any given area. It is because of the changing climate that this is occuring.
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #6 on: 20/02/2009 10:37:07 »
Thanks denstudent that site will do for now but as a trend it does not account for individual places.But even from the trends we are only looking at 50mm of rain and 0.1 to 0.2 deg of temp.
The thing with severe storms is they keep telling us they are increasing and from the statistics they are not.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #7 on: 20/02/2009 10:47:08 »
I think that the thing to do is to identify ONE thing to discuss to its (logical) conclusion, and try not to bring in things that are irrelevent to the discussion. We (whoever wants to be involved in the discussion) should all agree on one topic, for example, changing precipitation patterns or temperature gradients etc. Since it is your thread justaskin, perhaps you would like to propose the first topic as a hypothesis?
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #8 on: 20/02/2009 11:59:41 »
The thing with severe storms is they keep telling us they are increasing and from the statistics they are not.


I think there maybe a little misunderstanding here. It is not the quantity of sever storms that are predicted to increase but their strength and severity, infact their quantity is predicted to fall...fewer, but more severe.
 

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #9 on: 20/02/2009 12:15:49 »
Climate change is happening to the Earth as a whole. Localised measurements may or may not follow the trend.
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #10 on: 20/02/2009 12:22:47 »

Look at it this way though; if GW/CC is not happening, or if it is, but not as a result of man's actions, would it be damaging for man to reduce the extent of man made pollution?

If GW/CC is happening as a result of man's pollution and we do nothing about it, what would the consequences be?

Is it not better to er on the side of prudence and reduce our use of fossil fuels, reduce our waste etc.? Could environmental friendly actions actually be counterproductive?
What you are talking about here is insurance.So how much insurance should you have.You don't pay more in insurance then the cost of the item you are insuring.
You say we should err on the side of caution.Should we also take precautions against the world getting colder or just against it getting warmer.

Quote
The problem is, if we get it wrong, we may not have the chance to put things to right.
Exactly. If we go for warming and it doesn't happen then what.I think it is better to risk warming then to risk cold.

Quote
Biodiversity is essential to the world's ability to support life. Can we afford the relentless spread of man to wipe out rain forests, threaten microscopic sea life and cause countless species to become extinct?
On this we agree but don't expect a down turn in world population anytime soon.In fact it is almost heiricy.

I think that the thing to do is to identify ONE thing to discuss to its (logical) conclusion, and try not to bring in things that are irrelevent to the discussion. We (whoever wants to be involved in the discussion) should all agree on one topic, for example, changing precipitation patterns or temperature gradients etc. Since it is your thread justaskin, perhaps you would like to propose the first topic as a hypothesis?
Maybe it is just my paranoia kicking in but there seems to be some kind of concerted effort to close this discussion down.I was first asked to to post in a separate thread,which I did.And now I am being asked to break the topic down into how ever many small parts.
The topic is climate change.If that is not appropriate then remove the thread.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #11 on: 20/02/2009 12:32:10 »
The thing with severe storms is they keep telling us they are increasing and from the statistics they are not.


I think there maybe a little misunderstanding here. It is not the quantity of sever storms that are predicted to increase but their strength and severity, infact their quantity is predicted to fall...fewer, but more severe.
No no misunderstanding.More and more severe.
Now its your turn show us the figures that support you assertions.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #12 on: 20/02/2009 12:37:15 »
Climate change is happening to the Earth as a whole. Localised measurements may or may not follow the trend.
So how has this manifested itself in your part of the world has Melbourne become tropical over the last ten years.
Tell me what would your definition of climate change be?.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #13 on: 20/02/2009 12:56:28 »
justakin, as I wrote in my post:
Quote
Could environmental friendly actions actually be counterproductive?


I don't think any of us are qualified to decide which is the best course of action (or in-action) to take.

Australia is suffering from extreme heat right now, while the UK is enduring a harsh winter.

Is that Global warming, or climate change?

The Gulf & Jet streams have altered direction. To what? A direction they have never taken before, or the direction they used to take a few 1000 years ago?

You say
Quote
don't expect a down turn in world population anytime soon
. Do you mean a downturn in the numbers of humans, or in the number of species? If humans, I certainly don't expect to see any reduction, quite the opposite. If the number of species, you may well be right. As some become extinct, so others evolve, but we can do more to ensure that we do not cause the extinction of species, which at the moment we do.

I agree with you that it is necessary to debate the whole issue, since different aspects are linked, but dentstudant is also right, in that trying to debate the whole issue gets very complicated.

What to do for the best, I do not know.
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #14 on: 20/02/2009 13:15:25 »

Maybe it is just my paranoia kicking in but there seems to be some kind of concerted effort to close this discussion down.I was first asked to to post in a separate thread,which I did.And now I am being asked to break the topic down into how ever many small parts.
The topic is climate change.If that is not appropriate then remove the thread.

Cheers
justaskin

No, there is no attempt to close it down. There is, however, an attempt to rationalise the discussion into sub-topics. In my experience, nothing is ever gained by trying to discuss a topic as large as climate change as one statement. It is therefore better to discuss individual elements within the broad subject. At the moment, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. All I'm saying is, let's agree one topic that we can have a discussion/debate about in an effort to improve everyone's understanding. We may reach a concensus on this topic, which means that we could then discuss another one. It also means that we will be able to construct a knowledge-base.

Justaskin, if you don't think that this is possible, then it is my opinion that it is impossible to have any sort of valuable discussion.
« Last Edit: 20/02/2009 13:19:27 by dentstudent »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #15 on: 20/02/2009 13:21:55 »
Australia is suffering from extreme heat right now.  
No that is not correct two states South Australia and Victoria went through heatwave conditions a week or so back but that is not an unusual occurrence at this time of year.Most of the rest is under water.

Quote
Is that Global warming, or climate change?
No to me that is just Australia.
 
Quote
You say
Quote
don't expect a down turn in world population anytime soon
. Do you mean a downturn in the numbers of humans, or in the number of species? If humans, I certainly don't expect to see any reduction, quite the opposite. If the number of species, you may well be right. As some become extinct, so others evolve, but we can do more to ensure that we do not cause the extinction of species, which at the moment we do.
I must have misunderstood your first reply but yes I was talking about humans.You say at the end of your quote that we are responsible for species extinction so how is more of us going to reverse that.
We have to reduce the number of humans on earth if we don't then us or the earth will do it for us.

Cheers
justaskin

 
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #16 on: 20/02/2009 13:35:26 »
Justaskin, if you don't think that this is possible, then it is my opinion that it is impossible to have any sort of valuable discussion.
Ok dentstudent if it helps.So do I just open threads on each topic like
Temperature
Rain
Storms
IPCC
UNFCCC
Carbon trading
Etc?.
Thank you all for an entertaining night.Now I need to get some sleep so I can attend to more immediate matters.Reducing my golf handicap. ;D
There's another question"does golf cause climate change". ;D

Cheer
justaskin
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #17 on: 20/02/2009 13:49:10 »
If that it the way that you want to do it, then that's fine. I would propose to start with something tangible, such as one of the climate parameters since those are the drivers of the whole process.
 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #18 on: 21/02/2009 15:56:33 »
I am all in favor of scientists questioning the statements of other scientists. Especially when evidence is brought forward that may contradict current scientific truth.

I wonder though, and I have asked this question in several other places, whether there are still large, independent, professional science organizations that question the existence of global climate change and human activities as at least one of the major causes. It seems that those organizations would not support a theory if it was not sound.

Can we (relatively safely) assume that global climate change is happening and is influenced by human activities when the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS,~150,000 members) says so too? How can you find better and more reliable scientific statements? Is what they officially declare just an opinion that can be swept to the side by any individual?

Whether this change is or will be "catastrophic" is difficult to say. It may be for some, it may not be for others. It may not be where you are but it may result in death and mayhem somewhere else.

 

Offline ukmicky

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #19 on: 21/02/2009 16:53:48 »
I believe no one knows what is going on if anything.. The climate is governed by too many unknowns, and their is no real evidence that we are doing anything detrimental. The science is way to complicated and totally beyond us all.

Having said that i did enjoy reading this and its links. http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0


 

Offline Karsten

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
    • View Profile
    • Fortunately still only a game
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #20 on: 22/02/2009 23:09:43 »
I believe no one knows what is going on if anything.. The climate is governed by too many unknowns, and their is no real evidence that we are doing anything detrimental. The science is way to complicated and totally beyond us all.

I don't understand such comments. It may be difficult to understand what is going on. Scientifically speaking that is. Many things are. Most don't bother us because they do not require us to change anything. However, there are thousands of scientists quite busy with this topic and they have come to certain conclusions. From what I understand those conclusions are that the global climate is changing faster than it should and that human activities are to a large extend causing this change. So, yes, we are doing something detrimental. We just cannot see the results immediately. If you turn on your car while it is with you in your closed garage it will take a few minutes for you to experiences the detrimental effects of your action. What we do as a species is in principle the same - you just have to wait longer for the effects and it is more complicated than that.

Why do we trust teachers, dentists, electricians, engineers, priests, car mechanics, day-care providers, city officials, etc. but we do not trust the carefully phrased, peer-reviewed findings of the best scientists on this planet in regard to climate change? Is this still a science issue?

Of course those findings could be wrong. I am certain that they will be adjusted like any scientific knowledge occasionally needs adjustments. But you have to ask yourself four questions:

1)What if they are right and we do nothing?
2)What if they are wrong and we do nothing?
3)What if they are right and we change our ways?
4)What if they are wrong and we change our ways?

Those four scenarios have meaning. One (the last) may be wicked expensive and we will look back and think that we panicked for no good reason and will never listen to science again that quickly. Another scenario (the first) may end life for human beings on this planet. It is a matter of intelligent risk management. The first scenario is just not acceptable. We cannot do nothing.
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #21 on: 23/02/2009 01:26:20 »
Why do we trust teachers, dentists, electricians, engineers, priests, car mechanics, day-care providers, city officials, etc.
A good number of the people on that list are not trusted.

Quote
But we do not trust the carefully phrased, peer-reviewed findings of the best scientists on this planet in regard to climate change? Is this still a science issue?
The reason that I don't trust the scientists on the IPCC panel is because some of them have been caught massaging data to support their position and the fact that the IPCC does not have any scientists on the panel that actually disagree with the hypothesis of climate change.If the IPCC was a truly representative body of scientific opinion there would be one or two scientists that don't support the hypothesis on the panel.
The other thing about the IPCC is why don't they freely publish their data and modeling
so other scientists who don't support their position can peer review their data and methods.What is the IPCC hiding.
I would be more prepared to support climate change if.
1)The science was more open.
2)If I didn't see banks and financial institutions lining up to run carbon trading schemes
3)If I was not being bombarded on a daily basis by climate alarmists with outlandish statements.
4)And finally if I could see some tangible evidence of a change in the climate.

Cheers
justaskin
 

 
 
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #22 on: 23/02/2009 02:45:21 »
First, to be rigorous about this, justaskin, you need to do your homework.

The climate is NOT restricted to Sydney Airport and the data for that site OR is it restricted to just Australia - it concerns the whole world, the weather and ocean currents, as ocean currents are driven by the wind and the two forces interact. No meaningful approach can be made until that fact is taken into consideration.
After you have looked at and managed to wade through all of the data for the world, then I would consider you opinion informed.

I will also state that MY opinion is not informed with respect to what I just suggested that you do. I am somewhat more informed as I have studied the effects of climate on my field of science, sedimentology, a branch of geology that concerns both sand deposits and limestone deposits, including coral.

I am sure that being Australian you are aware that the Great Barrier Reef is in a drastic decline. Many scientist, MOST scientist, in fact Australian Scientist, believe it is due to to climate warming that has also raised the water temperatures of the ocean the reef is located in.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/media/media_archive/2009/2008_01_07

SO in at least one respect, your statement that Australia is not experiencing climate warming is incorrect. It has been measured by the Australian Government. Park scientists, not the CSIRO.

Now for Art Raiche. He is one person. Is it scientifically correct to base a conclusion on the opinion of one person rather than a larger number, both of these choices being from people who are informed about climate and its effects? NO. it is downright counter to the scientific norm.

You said 30,000 scientists are dissatisfied with climate models - yes, that is true. It is damned difficult to get all of the variables into the model to do one that satisfies everyone. I believe there are more than half a million scientist in the world that are satisfied that the models are the best now available.

Fourth, you asked "And why don't the IPCC release the data and the models they use in their decisions?"

You obviously didn't check their web site (or your grammar - FOG). Start here - http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/activity . It will lead you to the meeting reports, the scientist involved and the publications that are available in scientific journals. You will also find original reports, with science and everything included at this site, including http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/activity/publications/ar4/working-group-iii-fourth-assessment-report There is one hell of a lot more data and research there, as well.

Next, you asked "And why of the 190 odd countries that are signatories to the Kyoto protocol is it only the 39 developed nations that have to do anything about it." The reason is simple. These 39 countries account for 99% or more of all the problem that are to be addressed by the Protocol.

Now, as I am not a person who does climate study full time, but am only do it as a PART of the rest of the science I do, I do know a few things about climate change.

1. The climate is always in flux
2. For the last 13,000+ years the world's climate has been slowly warming - 15,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was a grassland, the Gobi Desert was very much smaller and glaciers covered most of Canada, parts of the northern US, Europe, Scandinavia, The Himalayas, much of Northern Asia were all under hundreds of feet of ice.
3. The Southern Hemisphere is less affected by climate variation than the northern hemisphere. You thus would notice it less in Australia than in Europe or America.

It is my conclusion from these facts - not opinions, but things that can be checked from independent sources - that the earth has been warming for at least the last 13,000+ years.

Now for the main question - all of the evidence points to the fact that man is probably responsible for the escalated increase in the mean temperature of the earth in the last 200 years. I said "probably," not conclusively - but that probability is much greater than 50-50, it is more like 85%. It began rising much more when coal became more important as the Industrial Revolution took place. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ & http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm

That is an educate, informed OPINION. Notice three words "educated and informed" and OPINION." I see none of the first two reflected in your posting. According to you it is all due to money and power. I guess conspiracy theorist will not ever try informing themselves first before they express an opinion. This is contempt prior to investigation. 

That is part of the conspiracy-theory oriented, paranoid mind.
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #23 on: 23/02/2009 08:25:02 »
The climate is NOT restricted to Sydney Airport and the data for that site OR is it restricted to just Australia - it concerns the whole world, the weather and ocean currents, as ocean currents are driven by the wind and the two forces interact. No meaningful approach can be made until that fact is taken into consideration.
I think you will find that I did not claim that climate was restricted to Sydney Airport.
Quote
I am sure that being Australian you are aware that the Great Barrier Reef is in a drastic decline. Many scientist, MOST scientist, in fact Australian Scientist, believe it is due to to climate warming that has also raised the water temperatures of the ocean the reef is located in.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/media/media_archive/2009/2008_01_07

SO in at least one respect, your statement that Australia is not experiencing climate warming is incorrect. It has been measured by the Australian Government. Park scientists, not the CSIRO.
The GBR is a great political football in Australia.Here is a link that refutes the above link.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/global-warming-unlikely-reason-for-slow-coral-growth/

Quote
Now for Art Raiche. He is one person. Is it scientifically correct to base a conclusion on the opinion of one person rather than a larger number, both of these choices being from people who are informed about climate and its effects? NO. it is downright counter to the scientific norm.
I was not asked for any scientific proof. Just to verify my statement that the CSIRO was not a trusted source of science anymore.

Quote
You said 30,000 scientists are dissatisfied with climate models.
No I don't think I did.

Quote
Fourth, you asked "And why don't the IPCC release the data and the models they use in their decisions?"

I don't think they release the algorithms they use to gain their climate results do they.

Quote
Next, you asked "And why of the 190 odd countries that are signatories to the Kyoto protocol is it only the 39 developed nations that have to do anything about it." The reason is simple. These 39 countries account for 99% or more of all the problem that are to be addressed by the Protocol.
And what would those problems be exactly.

Quote

It is my conclusion from these facts - not opinions, but things that can be checked from independent sources - that the earth has been warming for at least the last 13,000+ years.
Then why wasn't it a problem 10,000 years ago or 1000 years ago or 100 years ago or even
40 years ago.Then we were all told by the scientists we were entering an ice age.
Have a look at any temperature graph for the last 200 years and tell me why if global temperature rise  is in lock step with CO2 increase did the temperature fall from 1880 to 1910.That would be when the industrial revolution was in full swing.So the temperature should have been going through the roof but it didn't.Why?.
Quote
Now for the main question - all of the evidence points to the fact that man is probably responsible for the escalated increase in the mean temperature of the earth.
No all the evidence does not point to man.There is evidence of water vapor's effect there is also evidence of sun's effect
Quote
That is an educate, informed OPINION. Notice three words "educated and informed" and OPINION." I see none of the first two reflected in your posting.
And finally for the big put down.I am not a scientists therefore I am uneducated,uniformed
and am not entitled to an opinion.
Correct me if I am wrong but when did I say I had done any scientific work.
If being a scientist is a criterion for be allowed to  comment on climate change then I guess that lets.
Al Gore
Nicholas Stern
Most Hollywood actors
Maurice Strong
Yvo de Boer
Out

Quote
According to you it is all due to money and power.
Thats what it seems to be about so far.Maybe you should do some reading about the UNFCCC and its plans for the world.Maybe what CDM's  and JI's are.
Quote
I guess conspiracy theorist will not ever try informing themselves first before they express an opinion. This is contempt prior to investigation. 

That is part of the conspiracy-theory oriented, paranoid mind.

Yep.Just remember just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #24 on: 23/02/2009 14:29:08 »
Quote
I guess conspiracy theorist will not ever try informing themselves first before they express an opinion. This is contempt prior to investigation. 

That is part of the conspiracy-theory oriented, paranoid mind.

Yep.Just remember just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you

Cheers
justaskin

Then there was no point in you posting the question - you didn't want to discuss it - you wanted to argue your opinion, not the science of the subject in question. So as far as I am personally concerned just go away. You are contributing nothing and taking up bandwidth that could be better used for scientific discussion, not conspiracy theory-mongering. This site is for people interested in science, not the purveyors of conspiracy theory. If we wanted that, we would read newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch.

This site cost money for ever bit of traffic used. You are wasting the money.


 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #24 on: 23/02/2009 14:29:08 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums