Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

MONTHLY MEAN CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE

2007 is roughly the same as the late 90s.

So what you're saying is that if I defy your creative image of the AGW or CC crowd than I'm waffling?

You're a clown, not a scientist.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

So what you're saying is that if I defy your creative image of the AGW or CC crowd than I'm waffling?

You're a clown, not a scientist.

T
K
O

I have been a regular follower of this thread for a long time, diest, and I attempt to see beyond the hype of this issue. So far, there is mostly hype and little evidence to support all the angst out there. If it matters, I have a degree in science, and practiced the profession for a good number of years, and have seen alot of hypothesis and theories rise and fall flat, so yes, count me a person with a good dose of healthy skepticism. I look at the data and form my own opinions, I am not going to jump on a bandwagon simply because it is popular to do so.

World climate systems are simply too complex and controlled by too many factors that range from poorly understood to totally not understood, to almost unknown, just my opinion. This science is in its infancy, and for all of this computer modeling to be even close to accurate would be miraculous to say the least. A computer only knows what it is told, and garbage in garbage out, that addage is still applicable.

Once science enters the political arena, and the politicians begin running with it, you should begin to be highly suspicious, as there are other motives involved besides sound science.

Diest TKO wrote:

So what you're saying is that if I defy your creative image of the AGW or CC crowd than I'm waffling?

You're a clown, not a scientist.

T
K
O

I have been a regular follower of this thread for a long time, diest, and I attempt to see beyond the hype of this issue. So far, there is mostly hype and little evidence to support all the angst out there. If it matters, I have a degree in science, and practiced the profession for a good number of years, and have seen alot of hypothesis and theories rise and fall flat, so yes, count me a person with a good dose of healthy skepticism. I look at the data and form my own opinions, I am not going to jump on a bandwagon simply because it is popular to do so.

World climate systems are simply too complex and controlled by too many factors that range from poorly understood to totally not understood, to almost unknown, just my opinion. This science is in its infancy, and for all of this computer modeling to be even close to accurate would be miraculous to say the least. A computer only knows what it is told, and garbage in garbage out, that addage is still applicable.

Once science enters the political arena, and the politicians begin running with it, you should begin to be highly suspicious, as there are other motives involved besides sound science.

okie wrote:

2007 is roughly the same as the late 90s.

Yes, okay: it's all roughly the same "since this graph began recording in 1978".

If you believe that there is little evidence, then why reject the most qualified source? The IPCC report is out there for all to see.

Just saying there is little evidence, does not make it true. I believe this is what Set referes to as the argument ad nauseum.

Just keep saying it, over and over.

T
K
O

I can't understand why one would argue that just b/c we can't fully understand the incredibly complex system that is our environment, that we shouldn't act with caution!

Why should we act with caution in regards to social or political matters - after all, as a Conservative, that's your position - but not with our environment?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I can't understand why one would argue that just b/c we can't fully understand the incredibly complex system that is our environment, that we shouldn't act with caution!

Why should we act with caution in regards to social or political matters - after all, as a Conservative, that's your position - but not with our environment?

Cycloptichorn

If you can't identify the problem, then you cannot devise a proper solution. It is totally common for politicians to devise solutions that not only do not address a problem, but often make them worse. Actually, I am on the side of acting with caution, continue to study the issue, but do not devise economically damaging energy policies and other policies when they are not at all warranted. This is an argument that requires sound logic, and I don't see liberal politicians using any.

Actually, I am on the side of acting with caution, continue to study the issue, but do not devise economically damaging energy policies and other policies when they are not at all warranted. This is an argument that requires sound logic, and I don't see liberal politicians using any.

But seriously, describe to be how global enviromental law is a bad thing.

T
K
O

Uh, Walt, you miss a lot, obviously.

"The amount of misinformed and truly frightened people with no clue about the implications of their ignorance is reflected in the global warming crowd."

What? this is nonsense. Do you mean frightening as opposed to frightened? Have you ever considered the possibility of you being ignorant about earth system science? Its your thinking that is dangerous, limited appreciation of the facts and instant recourse to weapons. You can shoot all the "global warming crowd" tomorrow, it wont solve the problem for your children.

Steve 41oo wrote:

"The amount of misinformed and truly frightened people with no clue about the implications of their ignorance is reflected in the global warming crowd."

What? this is nonsense. Do you mean frightening as opposed to frightened? Have you ever considered the possibility of you being ignorant about earth system science? Its your thinking that is dangerous, limited appreciation of the facts and instant recourse to weapons. You can shoot all the "global warming crowd" tomorrow, it wont solve the problem for your children.

You don't get it either. I think you can do better.