View Single Post
Old 18.03.2007, 15:23
BeastOfBodmin's Avatar
BeastOfBodmin BeastOfBodmin is offline
Forum Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Zürich
Posts: 842
Groaned at 3 Times in 2 Posts
Thanked 320 Times in 215 Posts
BeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond reputeBeastOfBodmin has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

View Post
I've got to agree with you completely.

The "war against climate change" is the new "war on terror", and it is really good for diverting attention to what's happening in oil-rich countries with wars started by oil-influenced and benefiting politicians.

I'm of the mind that global warming is caused mostly by just normal earth trends towards temperature and climate, exaggerated by man's contributions.
May I ask what research you have done on this? In my opinion, popular accounts as read in the newspapers, or seen on BBC news bulletins, often just get it wrong. It happens quite often that a "scientific report" has the original scientists disagreeing with the way their statements were represented. I think this has as much to do with the technical ignorance of most reporters as the need to sell papers or gain viewers. And why scientists don't learn either ...

One should go as close as possible to the science, because that takes you closer to the data. It is the data that are used to support the scientists' conclusions, and it is the data that are scrutinised by their peers. Scientific debate is (usually!) of a rather different character than you might see on the BBC's Newsnight, Question Time or especially Prime Minister's QT. In science, the less conclusive the data supporting a theory, the more the debate looks like a political argument.

View Post
The current hype about it is nothing more than a man-made (or should we say propaganda-made?) contribution.
I agree it is hyped at the moment, but you have to do better than make up your mind by weighing up the polemics and arguments that go on in the media. Is your decision based upon an emotional, value judgement calculated from how you "feel" about the people arguing this way or that? Or are you being objective, having looked at facts?

Climate scientists have been theorising about the effects of climate change for decades now. The general public are only now becoming aware of it (the hype you speak of). It's even getting through the self-interested, technically and scientifically retarded skulls of our corrupt political leaders.

The scientists, however, have become more and more forthright because over time their datasets are more extensive over time and in depth, and their models are better. And the models are predicting some nasty scenarios.

Dig a little deeper, and I feel you would probably reverse your opinion, or even decide the official IPCC scenarios are too optimistic. At the same time, you might emerge better equipped, knowing such things as the basic assumptions and the weakest assumptions.
Reply With Quote