[dentstudent]

Also have you noticed one of the worlds biggest social network site insists on calling it global warming?

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!

Who would use such a thing!  [:I]

[DoctorBeaver]

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".

I was not condemning the media for allowing both sides to be heard. My point was that if you have 1 person in favour & 1 against, it can give the impression that the scientific community is split 50/50. I realise you can't have 99 scientists in favour for every 1 against - that's impractical - but the way things are done gives a false impression of the situation.

[DoctorBeaver]

I remember there was a report on some news program a couple of years ago. They had a top scientist with more letters after his name than there were in it speaking for the reality of CC, and David Bellamy speaking against it. Bellamy looked really stupid compared to the other chap. He was certainly not a good choice.

[paul.fr]

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.

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".

Touche

[justaskin]

Why is it that the IPCC is, to say the least, reluctant to release the data or the
models they use to come to there conclusions?.
How many climate scientists on the IPCC disagree completely with the science of AGW?.
What would be the point of the IPCC if AGW did not exsist?.
Why is it only the 37 industrialised  countries that can save the world by giving away
there knowledge,time and wealth?.
No the IPCC supply the science and the UNFCCC provide the social engineering?.
Is that Karl Marx I see standing over in the corner?. []

Cheers
justaskin