0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
would dare to risk their scientific reputations and credibility by airing content that was not scientifically sound.
The more pressing question is can we afford to wait (and do nothing) in order to find out?
The emailer is right to call in to doubt the accuracy of the climate models, they are made by programmers, not climatologists and even the IPCC think their present model is wrong, and they don't fully know how feedback loops of atmospheric water will work.
A good argument could be made that, going along with the consensus is the only way to get funding, get published and be recognised in the field. Trying to go against the IPCC and the so called "Gore lobby" can be career and social suicide.
The emailer is also correct when he (?) say the earth is cooling, albeit, ever so slightly.
But that is what we are doing, no amount of data or warning presented have really changed how governments act, they merely provide lip service to the green lobby or to convey their green credentials to a gullible and illinformed public.
There really is no debate within the scientific arena about CC (I don't know of any scientists who call it global warming). There are perhaps 2 or 3% who are denying it, but there is always this group whatever the cause.
The daily weather forecast is often wrong in the details, but this doesn't mean that the overall method of weather-forecasting is complete bunkum. Ditto for climate models.
QuoteThere really is no debate within the scientific arena about CC (I don't know of any scientists who call it global warming). There are perhaps 2 or 3% who are denying it, but there is always this group whatever the cause.I am not entirely sure how to interpret what you have said here, dentstudent, so if I am being repetitive (or contradictory  ), I mean it in a respectful tone. As youve stated, I dont know any scientists who still call it "global warming", and I dont know anyone who denies that the climate is changing (though Im sure theyre out there...I hear about them all the time). There is, however, debate in the climate community about anthropogenic induced change as opposed to natural cyclicity, and the degree to which each is affecting global climate.
As youve stated, the PIK is in close association with the IPCC, and does not disagree with their assessment.
In fact, by what you have posted here, I would say that they go even farther on some issues. That does not mean, however, that there is no dissent in the scientific community. There is a very healthy discourse between researchers concerning climate change within my own university, which is among the most respected schools in geosciences, as well as other very highly respected universities such as Stanford, Caltech, and MIT.
Admittedly I am only just a third year geoscience student with a focus on paleoclimatology
, and my pool of information is most assuredly not that of a think tank such as the PIK (nor of many on this forum), but when considering the geologic record, some of the points from the PIK seem inaccurate.
I have finals this week and then am heading out of town, so I do not have time to post point by point. I will post more next week if the topic is still alive. Sorry to be vague...gotta keep the GPA up!
Oh, you also say "aluminum" funny.
X sent a request using (Lil) Green Patch:What we all need on a chilly winter's day is something just a little hot and spicy! Er, just like me... :-)Here is a Hot Shot plant for your (Lil) Green Patch. Could you help me by sending a plant back? Together we can fight Global Warming!
Stuart, if I were an arse a sceptic, I would point out that all IPCC reports are full of words like, may, could, possibly and likely. But i'm not, so i will not say it.
Also have you noticed one of the worlds biggest social network site insists on calling it global warming?QuoteX sent a request using (Lil) Green Patch:What we all need on a chilly winter's day is something just a little hot and spicy! Er, just like me... :-)Here is a Hot Shot plant for your (Lil) Green Patch. Could you help me by sending a plant back? Together we can fight Global Warming!
It has also been mentioned that the problem with the general publics understanding and confusion may be down to the media, and their efforts to appear balanced and fair, be allowing both side of the argument to be heard. Actually, this is needed, people need to see and hear from both side, how else are they to make their own informed decision? We also need the doubters and sceptics "to keep it real".
Quote from: Paul. on 12/12/2008 13:04:58Stuart, if I were an arse a sceptic, I would point out that all IPCC reports are full of words like, may, could, possibly and likely. But i'm not, so i will not say it.Well, it's a good job we know our science, and know that science only ever provides a probability of something happening, its statistical significance or likelihood. There will never be a scientific journal anywhere that says anything about the "proof", only "disproof".