View Single Post
Old 18.03.2007, 23:10
Jamesk's Avatar
Jamesk Jamesk is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 156
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Jamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeableJamesk is considered knowledgeable
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

View Post
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.

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.
The question is not whether or not climate change is happening, it clearly is.

The question is if CO2, a harmless gas that makes up just 0.4% of the air, most of which is from nature, is causing it.

Whatever way you look at it, this is an absurd thing to say, it is IMPOSSIBLE - like saying that superman exists and can heat up the earth permanently by blowing on it.

When I started this thread, I thought that this would by blatantly obvious to everyone on this forum, judging from the quality of the other posts that I read. I thought that the responses would address the question of why?

Why this organized campaign against CO2, which is in fact a nutrient - plant life depends on it? Why are politicians, media and their huge army of very clever, clever scientists telling us that CO2 is heating the world up?

Who is pulling the strings?

From the responses that have been posted here, I'm wondering why so many people here are so adamant that CO2 = Global Warming?

Do you really believe that?

In theory, in an ideal, romanticized world, scientists rely on evidence, based on the raw data - in practice this is never the case as we are all likely to be in the pay of vested interests in one form or another. At the moment I'm doing some consultancy work for a subsidiary of Haliburton - do you suppose that I, or anyone else in the pay of haliburton or doing business with them can say anything in public against the interests of or even without the permission of haliburton?

Do you really believe that David Kelly killed himself?

The BBC Radio 4 debate about whether or not CO2 = Global Warming ended with the quote I mentioned from Voltaire about the dangers of going against the authorities.

Reading between the lines, why would the program have ended with that quote?
Reply With Quote