ArSee wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
ArSee wrote:
A real scientist, not one with shares.
I'm sure you know who said it.
I don't.
if you had any grasp on science you would know that consensus is
not a word that is used in the world of science.
This is a grand sweeping generalisation which a moment of thought
will tell you isn't true. There are huge slabs of science where
there is no controversy or where there is controversy about 1% at
the leading edge and consensus on the remaining 99%. When
preparations were in progress to launch orbiting spacecraft where
were the contrarians who said "no, no your equations are all wrong
you cannot launch it that way"? Issues like orbital mechanics have
been settled for a long time and we have tested the theory so many
times with the same results that nobody really expects to ever get
any other outcome. Logically it is possible for falsification to
come out of the blue. Practically it is so unlikely that it doesn't
exist. Even when there is a major shift it often modifies the existing
body
of knowledge rather than discarding it. Einstein didn't destroy
Newton's ideas he showed that they were not quite right in extreme
situations. One thousand people
could support your theory or supposition, and one person can falsify
it and completely destroy it.
Quite so in theory. But how often does this actually happen? The
classic paradigm shift is a rare bird indeed. All science is
subject to falsification by new data. This doesn't mean that is
likely. It doesn't mean therefore science is all wrong or that we
can never know anything about the world. Joe Blow typing from his
blog is entitled to express an opinion on climate change. It
doesn't mean that the opinion of is automatically as good as any
other opinion that might be found - say amongst the authors of the
IPCC reports.
Since the IPCC has observed in its 2001 report that of all the CO2
in the atmosphere, only 4% is of anthropogenic origin.
I cannot find that figure so I would be obliged if you would give me
a cite for it. Even if it is true what is your interpretation of the
statistic? Are you assuming that it cannot be significant? How do
know? Here is what the IPCC said on the matter:
"In conclusion, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are virtually certain to
be the dominant factor determining CO2 concentrations throughout the
21st century."
which I found he
http://www.grida.no/publications/oth...ar/wg1/125.htm
Another
recent report has indicated that this ratio of natural to
anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same for over 15 years.
What report is that? I would like to read it.
I hope this can take you there. Im a little busy at the moment.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...ant-over-time/
So, you could take every one off this planet, and every trace of
them ever being here, and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
by only 17 ppm, which considering there is currently 388 ppm, is
bugger all.
Is that your conclusion? How do you know that?
Not mine at all.
Unfortunately the fors and againts are arguing as loudly as you and
me. And the problem is simply put, if sceintists cant agree, who the
hell are you and me to try and solve this problem.
I am getting tired of your style. Each time address one of your points and
I show you are not talking sense you ignore that and start on something
else. Most of what you are pushing is just FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt)
All I can do is quote and hope there's honesty in all of this....
My attitude is this, it appears the place is hotting up.
This does not mean the should rob people blind for something that is
theoretical at the best at the moment.
Theyre calling for the scientist FROM the ECU who wrote these emails
to be sacked.
What does that tell you?
Nothing relevant to whether climate change is happening and man made, just
FUD
An ETS will not help this situation, nor anything that man can do,
what we need is the courage and sense to do nothing.
Are you CERTAIN that this is a risk that it is sensible to take? Above
you tell us how doubtful science is but you are personally
convinced it is all wrong so it is OK to gamble with the livelihood
of our children and theirs. I am glad I don't have your kind of
confidence.
David I'm not gambling. I'm saying that the taxes will do nothing.
You and others are being stooged.
You ARE gambling. Doing nothing is gambling that the problem will just go
away. Moreover you are not even gambling with your own stake at the table
but that of our descendants.
I have said nothing at all about taxation although it seems to exercise your
mind a lot. If you cannot unlink the two questions, is climate change real
and man-made (a scientific one) with, what to do about it (a political one)
you are not going to make any progress. It looks to me that the main reason
you say climate change isn't happening is that you don't like the proposed
remedy. They are two different issues that must be decided separately.
Someone has to see it for what it is.
Distastefull as the apparent situation is, it looks like the majority
of sceintists arent skeptics but are even now painfully aware of
tainted research
Another sweeping statement. Show your evidence that "a majority of
scientists are sceptical" or admit this is just more FUD
What about the Doctor who falsified DNA research in
Korea?
What about him? This has nothing to do with climate change you are just
trying to blacken scientists in general. More FUD
It goes on to make headlines, then fizzles when found out.
I say we cant do much about the climate change.
Weather control isnt scientists's strongest point.
If you don't know the difference between climate and weather I am wasting my
time trying to educate you.
Unless you come up with much more substance I am not going to spend any more
time on this.
David