Is global warming/climate change a crock?

[rah]

You my friend have to not believe everything you saw in the Movie "Inconvenitent Truth".

IT CANNOT BE STOPPED. Mother Nature will do what she does. The fact the earth was warm in the past without our help says to me that the climatic cycle is still part of the Earth's future, and I suspect we like to think we can do something, but as the dinosaurs found out, we cannot.


It is human conceit in our abilities (and maybe a lack of faith in something larger than ourselves) that leads us to believe that we are the source of this global warming and that we can stop it. A realist would look at the effects, and try to change human behaviour and where we live to take either advantage of it ( farming farther north ) or to mitigate its effects. There is so much propaganda about how this is all caused by CO2 but when no one is paying attention, the sun is the source of all heat and energy on this planet, and if its effects are up by 1 %, it has HUGE ramifications to our climate. Maybe someone should take note that Mars is reportedly warmer now too....and there are no SUV's there.

Not quite champ. I formed my opinion way before I saw the movie. The movie was flawed, but had some good points. I didn't like the fact that it seemed to be a fluff peice for Al Gore.

Man Made Global Warming can be stopped. As I have said before: I am not concerned by the fact that the planet is warming. I AM concerned about the speed of its warming and the change in makeup off the atmosphere.

Would a realist look at a few million displaced people that can no longer be fed and say we just have to move our farms north (or south)?

Can someone show me somewhere that the sun is warming. I think its bizare that people pull this little bit of myth out all the time and I have not seen any scientific evidence of it.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1740858.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233
I have plenty more where that came from if you are genuinly interested.

[rah]

Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton university, is an expert in examining climate records from the distant past. He has said:



There is also an article from him here (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=1). He mentions something I've been thinking since I first met the terms "climate change":

Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

[tinchote]

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.


The fact is that theh coolest period agreed with way higher concentrations of CO2 than today are considered deadly.



Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.

A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.

In any case your claim shows a lot of bias. For example, one question hanging here is whether the sun is radiating more these days than at certain times in the past. And that's a question for an astronomer, not a climatologist. And, as I said, if you want to assess the climate from more than 100 years ago, you need to study different kinds of evidence (trees' rings, ice layers, etc., etc.), and none of those are the area of expertise of a climatologist.

[Daniel]

Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.
It's the same planet my friend. Rather than just analysing one small bit of data he's using a lot more. Like me making the assumption that you must be an eco-nazi and nothing else just because I've only seen your posts on this thread. I could be right but I'm probably wrong. I have no other evidence of you doing anything else and I'll dismiss any other evidence you present with the line "What does it have to do with today's rah?"

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Can someone ask Professor Patterson what the hell climate records from 450million years ago has to do with todays planet?

A few things are different: The shape and configuration of continents was different. Vastly different flora. The sun was LESS luminous. The chemical makeup of the atmoshpere was different. The days were shorter.

Pattersons remarks have no bearing on todays climate. If you want to know what is happening right now, ask a climatologist. Not a geologist.

I've never really thought of it from that perspective. :dozey:

All of the factors that you mentioned will have a vast effect on the climate.

Oceans currents for example would be much different when the only continent was Pangaea. Small changes in ocean currents can cause major changes with the climate, as Great Britain may find out.

[rah]

The fact is that theh coolest period agreed with way higher concentrations of CO2 than today are considered deadly.



Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.

A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.

In any case your claim shows a lot of bias. For example, one question hanging here is whether the sun is radiating more these days than at certain times in the past. And that's a question for an astronomer, not a climatologist. And, as I said, if you want to assess the climate from more than 100 years ago, you need to study different kinds of evidence (trees' rings, ice layers, etc., etc.), and none of those are the area of expertise of a climatologist.

But the atmosphere 450million years ago was a completely different thing. The effect of large concentrations of CO2 will have a different effect then to now. Not to mention that light levels, contintal shape, size and location will have an effect on the atmosphere. The data from 450 million years ago, while very interesting, does not have meaning in todays world. Have a look at the Ordovican period to get an idea of the difference. This could help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician

Where do I show bias? Not saying I don't but I would like to know where. I do try to keep an open mind, however one does get carried away.

The Sun question is not hanging. It is dead. I can find more links to the research if the previous links were not good enough.

[rah]

It's the same planet my friend. Rather than just analysing one small bit of data he's using a lot more. Like me making the assumption that you must be an eco-nazi and nothing else just because I've only seen your posts on this thread. I could be right but I'm probably wrong. I have no other evidence of you doing anything else and I'll dismiss any other evidence you present with the line "What does it have to do with today's rah?"

Its a completely different planet my friend. Just using the same rock.

Eco-nazi is not only a very strong label, it is also a very insulting one.

If it makes you feel better, I like F1, MotoGP, WRC, V8 supercars, CC and a little IRL. I also like long walks in the park and pina coladas.

[Daniel]

How do you know? Were you there before? Were the scientists there? before? :mark: You can't be argued with though. You'll just say "That's wrong cos it's different now lyke" :dozey: I wish my life was as simple as modern climatology Been fun knowing you though.

[rah]

How do you know? Were you there before? Were the scientists there? before? :mark: You can't be argued with though. You'll just say "That's wrong cos it's different now lyke" :dozey: I wish my life was as simple as modern climatology Been fun knowing you though.

Hey dude, not sure if we are on the same page here. I don't want to be right. I don't want to beleive what just about every scientist in the related field is saying. But from my reading, all I can see is bad news. If you can tell me something I am missing please do. But have you pointed anything out? Can you shown me the evidence that I am missing.

There are some very smart minds working on this, and I am not one of them. Hell, there are people riding short buses to school that are sharper than me, but I do know how to read. Whenever you read something regarding AGW, check the sources.

[tinchote]

Where do I show bias? Not saying I don't but I would like to know where. I do try to keep an open mind, however one does get carried away.



I was concretely talking about the fact that you said the the only person qualified to talk about this is a climatologist. And I just don't agree with that. And, by the way, Patterson doesn't mention just things from 450 million years ago. He mentions that 6000 years ago temperature was 3C higher than it is now: can you deny that?

In any case, my main point is not to deny the warming, but to discuss its consequences. We are told that an increase in temperature is catastrophic. As I have asked many times: does that mean that a decrease in temperature will improve the world in any sense? Or does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I find that hard to believe.

I know I'm biased on this particular bit, but being someone that walks to work in January under -40 weather, it's tough to convince me that "warmer is worse" ;)

[rah]

I was concretely talking about the fact that you said the the only person qualified to talk about this is a climatologist. And I just don't agree with that. And, by the way, Patterson doesn't mention just things from 450 million years ago. He mentions that 6000 years ago temperature was 3C higher than it is now: can you deny that?

In any case, my main point is not to deny the warming, but to discuss its consequences. We are told that an increase in temperature is catastrophic. As I have asked many times: does that mean that a decrease in temperature will improve the world in any sense? Or does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I find that hard to believe.

I know I'm biased on this particular bit, but being someone that walks to work in January under -40 weather, it's tough to convince me that "warmer is worse" ;)

Ahh no, what I said was if you want to know what is happening now, ask a climatologist. I never said they are the only people qualified to talk about the climate.

Not sure about the temp 6000 years ago, can you post a link?

As I have said before, an increase in temp is not catastrophic. The speed of the increase is.

Fair enough on the -40 bit. Never experienced that kind of temp so its hard for me to guess what it is like. But spare a thought for the environmental refugees. At least your country is not disappearing.

[Daniel]

Ahh no, what I said was if you want to know what is happening now, ask a climatologist. I never said they are the only people qualified to talk about the climate.

Not sure about the temp 6000 years ago, can you post a link?

As I have said before, an increase in temp is not catastrophic. The speed of the increase is.

Fair enough on the -40 bit. Never experienced that kind of temp so its hard for me to guess what it is like. But spare a thought for the environmental refugees. At least your country is not disappearing.
As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century? The climate has always been changing. Get used to it.

[BDunnell]

As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century? The climate has always been changing. Get used to it.

No, I won't 'get used to it'. because plenty of scientists who, with respect, know more about the situation than you do think otherwise. Do you seriously think that they have discounted the differences over long periods of time in their calculations? I do not believe that they would have made such a fundamental error.

Why not ring one up and ask them if they have investigated this particular point?

[Daniel]

Ok. You tell me how much of a change in air temperature would cause a large body of water like the Thames to freeze over. Then tell me that we've not seen larger changes in air temperature in the past when CO2 levels have been high, not as high or just downright bloody irrelevant.

[BDunnell]

Ok. You tell me how much of a change in air temperature would cause a large body of water like the Thames to freeze over. Then tell me that we've not seen larger changes in air temperature in the past when CO2 levels have been high, not as high or just downright bloody irrelevant.

I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Neither are you.

[Daniel]

Scientists once thought the earth was flat and the sun went into the underworld at night. I could go on....

[BDunnell]

Scientists once thought the earth was flat and the sun went into the underworld at night. I could go on....

You choose to believe some scientists, though.

[Daniel]

But I do that on the understanding that it's only theory and possibly wrong. When as Tinchote states there have been periods where CO2 levels have been high but temperatures low. Explain that? If CO2 is such a strong greenhouse gas then why weren't temperatures at alltime highs?

[BDunnell]

But I do that on the understanding that it's only theory and possibly wrong. When as Tinchote states there have been periods where CO2 levels have been high but temperatures low. Explain that? If CO2 is such a strong greenhouse gas then why weren't temperatures at alltime highs?

I can't. I'm not a scientist. Why do you think that so many climatologists have failed to take this point you keep making into account? If you think they're all wrong, tell one and see what they say.

[Daniel]

Can't be bothered. No use telling a religious/cultist person that one of the cornerstones of their religion/cult may be incorrect.

[Tomi]

As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century?

Very simple explanation, the water was colder then. ;)

[BDunnell]

Can't be bothered. No use telling a religious/cultist person that one of the cornerstones of their religion/cult may be incorrect.

I rather resent the fact that you think that anyone who holds the same views as I do is a 'religious/cultist person'. I don't see it that way at all.

[Malbec]

Patterson's remarks have as much authority as anyone else. The guy's an expert in understanding the climate in terms of geological evidence.

A climatologist cannot go very far without data. And where can they get their data? The atmosphere has been seriously studied for less than 100 years. And with that data they can tell what will happen in another 100 years? Hard to believe. Science works in terms of theories, and climate theories are not known to be particularly sound. Because even if the theory is perfect (which I doubt it is) then to make predictions you have to implement computer models, and that could be really tricky.

The problem is that our ability to extrapolate geological records into the average temperature of certain periods isn't accurate either and it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain short term fluctuations in temperature if you're looking at records over several thousand years old. Manmade records are of course imperfect because they only go back for such a short period of time but they are accurate.

Therefore I don't see how your climatologists evidence is more sound than the current consensus in the scientific community.

[Malbec]

In any case, my main point is not to deny the warming, but to discuss its consequences. We are told that an increase in temperature is catastrophic. As I have asked many times: does that mean that a decrease in temperature will improve the world in any sense? Or does it mean that the current temperatures are "perfect"? I find that hard to believe.

I know I'm biased on this particular bit, but being someone that walks to work in January under -40 weather, it's tough to convince me that "warmer is worse" ;)

Sea levels are linked to average temperature due to the increase/decrease in ice in the polar caps taking water out of or pushing more into the system.

Such increases or decreases in sea level didn't matter so much when we as a species either didn't exist or lived a nomadic lifestyle. However since many of the most economically productive cities are now most at risk since they lie either on the coast or not very far from one an increase in sea level is going to have a serious effect. Then there are certain countries whose very existence is at threat, the Netherlands and some Pacific states come to mind.

We do have ways of getting around a rise in sea level of course, flood defence technology has improved in leaps and bounds over the past few years but whether or not we invest in them now depends on whether we believe there actually will be an increase in sea level... hence the debate.

Of course poor countries won't be able to afford such defences but then we're not so concerned about them are we.

When cities like NY, Tokyo, London are flooded on a regular basis and insurance claims rise through the roof, stock markets fall because of uncertainty as to the extra cost of coping with such disasters in the future I suspect you'll find it'll hurt you in the pocket too.

I doubt you can argue that maintaining sea levels at their current position or even reducing them will have the same negative effects as increasing them.

[Malbec]

Can't be bothered. No use telling a religious/cultist person that one of the cornerstones of their religion/cult may be incorrect.

That applies equally to you since I've not been able to see a single coherent argument from you as to why the scientific consensus is incorrect yet hold tenaciously to your position.

Constant name-calling (eco-Nazi, religious/cultist person) is not an adequate replacement for a reasoned argument btw.

[Daniel]

That applies equally to you since I've not been able to see a single coherent argument from you as to why the scientific consensus is incorrect yet hold tenaciously to your position.

Constant name-calling (eco-Nazi, religious/cultist person) is not an adequate replacement for a reasoned argument btw.
The fact that graphs have been posted which show obscenely high levels of atmospheric CO2 while there have been low temps kind of points out that there may be merit to my argument. Oh wait you ignore anything which doesn't agree with what the scientists think and any scientist which doesn't agree with popular belief is said to be working for the oil companies :rolleyes:

[Daniel]

I rather resent the fact that you think that anyone who holds the same views as I do is a 'religious/cultist person'. I don't see it that way at all.
It is a religion. If you speak out against it you are beset upon by hordes of eco-warriors blindly following the scientists (prophets?) who ignore any evidence to the contrary ;)

[BDunnell]

It is a religion. If you speak out against it you are beset upon by hordes of eco-warriors blindly following the scientists (prophets?) who ignore any evidence to the contrary ;)

No it isn't. For you to say so is, with respect, ridiculous.

As I have said time and time again, your assertion that every scientist who has studied global warming and come to the conclusion that it's man-made is misguided on the basis that you reckon they have forgotten to take natural causal factors into account has little foundation. Go and talk to just such a person and I am sure they would put you right.

[Daniel]

No it isn't. For you to say so is, with respect, ridiculous.

As I have said time and time again, your assertion that every scientist who has studied global warming and come to the conclusion that it's man-made is misguided on the basis that you reckon they have forgotten to take natural causal factors into account has little foundation. Go and talk to just such a person and I am sure they would put you right.
My point with regards to this thread was merely to say that it's possible that the scientists could be wrong......... As I said scientists with the best scientific knowledge available to them in the past have made errors of judgement. I don't think anyone honestly knows. That's my opinion and perhaps ib 50 years time I might change my mind. I still think we should make efforts to increase the efficiency of powerplants and cars and so on to conserve fossil fuels and dare I say it also to decrease CO2 emmisions.

[BDunnell]

My point with regards to this thread was merely to say that it's possible that the scientists could be wrong......... As I said scientists with the best scientific knowledge available to them in the past have made errors of judgement. I don't think anyone honestly knows. That's my opinion and perhaps ib 50 years time I might change my mind. I still think we should make efforts to increase the efficiency of powerplants and cars and so on to conserve fossil fuels and dare I say it also to decrease CO2 emmisions.

OK, fair enough. That's more reasonable. However, I think that to label the climate change theory as being equivalent to a religion is going too far. I also suspect, still, that scientists who are convinced of climate change would argue that they do know.

[Malbec]

The fact that graphs have been posted which show obscenely high levels of atmospheric CO2 while there have been low temps kind of points out that there may be merit to my argument. Oh wait you ignore anything which doesn't agree with what the scientists think and any scientist which doesn't agree with popular belief is said to be working for the oil companies :rolleyes:

And there have been graphs that show a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature too, such as the one 2/3 of the way down the first page of this thread.

Daniel, you continue to berate the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community using the logic "they've been wrong before" without formulating your own argument as to WHY they are wrong. Your graphs prove nothing because there are plenty of other graphs that support the hypothesis behind global warming.

It is also your insistence on name calling that draws attention to the fact that you don't appear to have an argument. I'd avoid it in the future if you want to be taken seriously.

[Daniel]

And there have been graphs that show a correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature too, such as the one 2/3 of the way down the first page of this thread.

Daniel, you continue to berate the opinion of the vast majority of the scientific community using the logic "they've been wrong before" without formulating your own argument as to WHY they are wrong. Your graphs prove nothing because there are plenty of other graphs that support the hypothesis behind global warming.

It is also your insistence on name calling that draws attention to the fact that you don't appear to have an argument. I'd avoid it in the future if you want to be taken seriously.
Shut up for gods sake. I merely said they COULD be wrong. I'm not saying they have been wrong in the past so therefore they are wrong now. If you can't understand that then I don't know what hope the human race has if this is indead the biggest threat to our survival :rolleyes:

I'd avoid your insistence of attacking my posts on points which I'm not actually trying to say if you want anyone to take you seriously as well.

If you don't understand what the word precedent means then I suggest you don't post on this thread. I'm merely trying to say that scientists aren't always correct.

Yet again it's a case of "your graphs are wrong because ours say otherwise". That ranks alongside "My brother's bigger than yours and he's going to beat your brother up and then, then, then your brother will go home crying" as the silliest way of proving your argument. Explain why Tinchote's graph that was posted earlier is wrong rather than just saying ours are right so yours must be wrong. Don't be rude and dismissive just because I don't have the arrogance to suggest my race of foolish humans knows everything about how this planet works OK?!?!?!?!?!?!

Every single point I put across such as the thames freezing over 40 years ago, CO2 being shown in graphs to have little or no correlation to the temperature of the planet and so on it met with "Ummm errr the evidence says otherwise" or somesuch ludicrous way of dismissing what are actually really good points. I see little point in "discussing" this with people who only have a one track mind.

[rah]

As I said before. Explain the Thames freezing over in the middle of this century? The climate has always been changing. Get used to it.

Sure, what would you like to know about it? It got cold and froze. It has frozen several times in the past, but that was the most recent one. The recent years that it has frozen are 1963, 1953, 1947, 1940, 1895-6, 1880, 1857... I can go on if you wish.

This begs the question: what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that the climate has warmed and the Thames can no longer freeze? I actually doubt that that is the reason, but I would love to know what it is you are thinking.

Yes the climate is always changing. And as I have said, repeatedly, it is not the fact that the world climate is changing. The problem is the speed at which it is happening.

[Daniel]

Sure, what would you like to know about it? It got cold and froze. It has frozen several times in the past, but that was the most recent one. The recent years that it has frozen are 1963, 1953, 1947, 1940, 1895-6, 1880, 1857... I can go on if you wish.

This begs the question: what point are you trying to make? Are you saying that the climate has warmed and the Thames can no longer freeze? I actually doubt that that is the reason, but I would love to know what it is you are thinking.

Yes the climate is always changing. And as I have said, repeatedly, it is not the fact that the world climate is changing. The problem is the speed at which it is happening.
My point is.... such a major event like the thames freezing over? What made that happen and what made it happen again and again against this trend of global warming? And if the recent wet spell in the UK was down to climate change then why is it that a major body of water that's not easy to freeze, freezing isn't? :mark:

If next year the climatologists predict in rough terms the variance from the "average" weather that we get. Perhaps I'll side with them. But currently they sound like the people who make up the starsigns you hear on the radio. "Cancer, expect the unexpected". If Climatologists know the impact that warming is going to have and have an idea how quickly warming is taking place then surely they can at least give a decent ballpark estimate of what sort of climatic variance from the norm we're going to see. But they are no better and predictions than the person who makes up those starsigns.

[BDunnell]

Daniel, in telling people who are putting across perfectly reasoned arguments to 'shut up' and so on, I really think you're going way over the top now.

Looking at a few graphs and seeing the odd article here and there does not make you enough of an expert on this topic to start going on in this way. I'd say that whatever opinion you were expressing.

[Daniel]

Daniel, in telling people who are putting across perfectly reasoned arguments to 'shut up' and so on, I really think you're going way over the top now.

Looking at a few graphs and seeing the odd article here and there does not make you enough of an expert on this topic to start going on in this way. I'd say that whatever opinion you were expressing.
I told Dylan to "shut up" because he was taking my remarks out of context and putting words into my mouth.

[rah]

My point is.... such a major event like the thames freezing over? What made that happen and what made it happen again and again against this trend of global warming? And if the recent wet spell in the UK was down to climate change then why is it that a major body of water that's not easy to freeze, freezing isn't? :mark:

If next year the climatologists predict in rough terms the variance from the "average" weather that we get. Perhaps I'll side with them. But currently they sound like the people who make up the starsigns you hear on the radio. "Cancer, expect the unexpected". If Climatologists know the impact that warming is going to have and have an idea how quickly warming is taking place then surely they can at least give a decent ballpark estimate of what sort of climatic variance from the norm we're going to see. But they are no better and predictions than the person who makes up those starsigns.

What made the Thames freeze over? it was cold weather. Why has it not frozen over since? Well maybe because it is warmer. But it is more likely the case that there have also been changes to the banks of the Thames that reduce the chance of it freezing over.

But what does that have to do with Global Warming? not much. The Thames freezing over is a local event, not a global event.

A climatologist can predict trends over years. Not whetere its going to rain more next year. They could predict if it is going to rain more as a continuing trend over your region.

[CharlieJ]

My point is.... such a major event like the thames freezing over? What made that happen and what made it happen again and again against this trend of global warming? And if the recent wet spell in the UK was down to climate change then why is it that a major body of water that's not easy to freeze, freezing isn't? :mark:

Measurements of Global Warming are based on the observation of MEAN GLOBAL temperatures. That is the average temperature across the whole planet over the whole year.

The Thames freezing for a short while in one or two years is a local weather event, and can be caused by fluctuations in global airflow and sea currents that would, at the same time, mean that somewhere else is warmer than usual.

[Daniel]

Measurements of Global Warming are based on the observation of MEAN GLOBAL temperatures. That is the average temperature across the whole planet over the whole year.

The Thames freezing for a short while in one or two years is a local weather event, and can be caused by fluctuations in global airflow and sea currents that would, at the same time, mean that somewhere else is warmer than usual.
Fair point ;) So why is it that when there's a drought somewhere and semi-monsoonal conditions elsewhere that it's the effects of global warming?

[tinchote]

The problem is that our ability to extrapolate geological records into the average temperature of certain periods isn't accurate either and it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain short term fluctuations in temperature if you're looking at records over several thousand years old. Manmade records are of course imperfect because they only go back for such a short period of time but they are accurate.

Therefore I don't see how your climatologists evidence is more sound than the current consensus in the scientific community.

I don't see any evidence as "sound". In particular, I still struggle to understand (and no one helps me in this regard) why is it obvious that "warmer is worse". From that, do we have to conclude that "cooler is better"? :confused:

[CharlieJ]

Fair point ;) So why is it that when there's a drought somewhere and semi-monsoonal conditions elsewhere that it's the effects of global warming?
Much of it is due to "normal" variations - we've always had droughts and floods.

What is happening at the moment is that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and one of the cornerstones of the GW scenario is exactly that.

And even those scientists who are firmly convinced of GW are surprised by the current rate of loss of Arctic ice, which is much greater than forecast by even the most pessimistic.

Incidentally, I don't believe that we are solely responsible - as has been pointed out, the Earth does go through warming/cooling phases, but the current rate of change is extreme, and if we can possibly do anything to lessen the effects, then we should.

[Daniel]

What made the Thames freeze over? it was cold weather. Why has it not frozen over since? Well maybe because it is warmer. But it is more likely the case that there have also been changes to the banks of the Thames that reduce the chance of it freezing over.

But what does that have to do with Global Warming? not much. The Thames freezing over is a local event, not a global event.

A climatologist can predict trends over years. Not whetere its going to rain more next year. They could predict if it is going to rain more as a continuing trend over your region.
That's rubbish. Climatologists are quite good at predicting change and if they're not right they simply put any miscalculations down to global warming. I'm not saying that they should be able to predict tomorrows weather or even next week's weather. But huge seasonal variations should be fairly easy to predict considering we're so knowledgable about the atmosphere and how it works. Oh wait we don't actually know how it works and therefore we can't predict what the weather's going to be like for next year with any huge degree of accuracy. :rolleyes:

I agree Tinchote. Is colder better or worse? Were we at the "right" temperature before man supposedly warmed the planet?

[tinchote]

What is happening at the moment is that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent

Is that a fact? I would like to see the evidence. Because we obviously have a more communicated World these days, and even a few decades ago news would travel a lot slower or not at all.

I'm still amazed about how people seem to be surprised every year about their local whether (i.e. they seem to forget it's cold in the Winter, hot in the Summer, it's always a surprise), and it's probably the same with "extreme whether events".

[Daniel]

Is that a fact? I would like to see the evidence. Because we obviously have a more communicated World these days, and even a few decades ago news would travel a lot slower or not at all.

I'm still amazed about how people seem to be surprised every year about their local whether (i.e. they seem to forget it's cold in the Winter, hot in the Summer, it's always a surprise), and it's probably the same with "extreme whether events".
As humans we want everything to be easy to understand. We don't want to not know how something like the weather and world climatew works....

[tinchote]

And even those scientists who are firmly convinced of GW are surprised by the current rate of loss of Arctic ice, which is much greater than forecast by even the most pessimistic.


But then, they won't mention at all those areas in the Artic which are cooler than usual, and with more ice. I have Inuit friends, and for the last two years the yearly ice retreat in the Summer, at their hometown, has been way slower than what they are used to. When you find the melting in the Artic mentioned, and these phenomena not mentioned at all, you are in presence of an agenda.

[BDunnell]

That's rubbish. Climatologists are quite good at predicting change and if they're not right they simply put any miscalculations down to global warming. I'm not saying that they should be able to predict tomorrows weather or even next week's weather. But huge seasonal variations should be fairly easy to predict considering we're so knowledgable about the atmosphere and how it works. Oh wait we don't actually know how it works and therefore we can't predict what the weather's going to be like for next year with any huge degree of accuracy. :rolleyes:

I suspect most climatologists would be rather insulted to hear a layman saying that if they're not right, they just blame global warming. How do you know that this isn't actually the right reason? Truth is, you don't.

And I suspect that, earlier in this thread, you were given a perfectly good explanation as to why climatologists can't predict exact weather events.

[Daniel]

I suspect most climatologists would be rather insulted to hear a layman saying that if they're not right, they just blame global warming. How do you know that this isn't actually the right reason? Truth is, you don't.

And I suspect that, earlier in this thread, you were given a perfectly good explanation as to why climatologists can't predict exact weather events.
Thing is, I'm critical of this retrospective science. Tell us what the effects are and then if they happen there is some kind of loose proof for the argument. But merely trying to explain any inconsistencies in the weather with a one argument fits all excuse it tiring at best.

[BDunnell]

Thing is, I'm critical of this retrospective science. Tell us what the effects are and then if they happen there is some kind of loose proof for the argument. But merely trying to explain any inconsistencies in the weather with a one argument fits all excuse it tiring at best.

How do you know that it's not absolutely right, though?

[Blancvino]

How do you know that it's not absolutely right, though?

We don't ... That's the rub!

Let's take a T-Rex as an example of science getting it wrong
1) The theory was they walked upright - now the theory is walked parallel to the ground.
2) The theory was they ran 40 miles an hour -now the theory is they creped along.
3) The theory was they were predators - now the theory is they were scavengers.

Another Crock of Doodle
CFCs caused the hole in the Ozone layer. REALLY?! The Ozone layer was discovered in the beginning of the 20th century. When was the first hole discovered? In the 1970's. Were there holes before that at some point? I'll bet yes. Oh and the CFCs must break down into chlorine to cause the hole. But the CFCs have to get higher than 30,000 feet in the atmosphere for that to happen. How does a gas 3X the weight of air get up there? It's like pushing a rock uphill.

I am sure global warming is real but I will stand on my belief it is not caused by primarily by man UNTIL there is REAL proof. Real proof that I suspect never materializes.

- Can you see why I am skeptical?

[RaikkonenRules]

I am with the global warming not existing clan. I personally believe that it won't be the end of us and even if it does exist I think it will only cause another ice age which we survived the last time.

Only this morning I had a debate with some classmates at school about global warming existing and I was shocked by the amount of people that had allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the ecologists. :eek:

People, stop trying to save the world because about 99% of people that can actually make the slightest difference have better, more important things to worry about. ;)

[BDunnell]

I am sure global warming is real but I will stand on my belief it is not caused by primarily by man UNTIL there is REAL proof. Real proof that I suspect never materializes.

What would you consider to be real proof? What do you feel is missing from what has been said already?

[BDunnell]

I am with the global warming not existing clan. I personally believe that it won't be the end of us and even if it does exist I think it will only cause another ice age which we survived the last time.

Only this morning I had a debate with some classmates at school about global warming existing and I was shocked by the amount of people that had allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the ecologists. :eek:

People, stop trying to save the world because about 99% of people that can actually make the slightest difference have better, more important things to worry about. ;)

Why do you feel it's a case of 'brainwashing'? What is there about the science that you doubt, and on what grounds?

[jso1985]

What would you consider to be real proof? What do you feel is missing from what has been said already?

a good explanation of what caused the previous "warm ups" in the planet and why this couldn't one of those cases

[BDunnell]

a good explanation of what caused the previous "warm ups" in the planet and why this couldn't one of those cases

But again, I must ask whether you seriously think that the scientists who have concluded that global warming is to blame for climate change would be so dumb as to ignore this factor in their calculations.

[jso1985]

I never said global warming isn't to blame for the climate change!

what I still doubt is if it's man caused or not

[CharlieJ]

But then, they won't mention at all those areas in the Artic which are cooler than usual, and with more ice. I have Inuit friends, and for the last two years the yearly ice retreat in the Summer, at their hometown, has been way slower than what they are used to. When you find the melting in the Artic mentioned, and these phenomena not mentioned at all, you are in presence of an agenda.
As I already said... GW observations are based on looking at the OVERALL picture... NOT local variations.

[Blancvino]

What would you consider to be real proof? What do you feel is missing from what has been said already?

Interesting you latched onto my sckepticism and request for proof when I offered 2 examples of how science got it wrong regarding other maters. I believe GW is real. Did you get that point? It's the root causes of GW I have trouble with. I only want to see some empirical or direct evidence of what part of GW is caused naturally. That is missing from EVERY hypothesis I have EVER read.

I can and will become a believer if there is indisputable proof GW is a caused primarily by man.

Fair enough?

[BDunnell]

Interesting you latched onto my sckepticism and request for proof when I offered 2 examples of how science got it wrong regarding other maters. I believe GW is real. Did you get that point? It's the root causes of GW I have trouble with. I only want to see some empirical or direct evidence of what part of GW is caused naturally. That is missing from EVERY hypothesis I have EVER read.

I can and will become a believer if there is indisputable proof GW is a caused primarily by man.

Fair enough?

Sorry — I was asking what you'd consider to be real proof while bearing your belief in global warming in mind. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[tinchote]

As I already said... GW observations are based on looking at the OVERALL picture... NOT local variations.

The overall picture is that the World's average temperature is up. But every time you read about GW they mention the melting in the Artic, the melting in the Alps, the starving polar bears, etc. There is nothing "overall" about that, so why wouldn't I mention examples that don't follow the supposed trend.

And I also keep asking: we are being told that there is an increase in episodes of "extreme weather". What are exactly the statistics supporting that assertion? How precise is the data of the "extreme weather" of a few decades ago?

[CharlieJ]

The overall picture is that the World's average temperature is up. But every time you read about GW they mention the melting in the Artic, the melting in the Alps, the starving polar bears, etc. There is nothing "overall" about that, so why wouldn't I mention examples that don't follow the supposed trend.

And I also keep asking: we are being told that there is an increase in episodes of "extreme weather". What are exactly the statistics supporting that assertion? How precise is the data of the "extreme weather" of a few decades ago?
It has been recorded that both the thickness and total area of Arctic ice is deceasing year on year.

There are very accurate weather records for most of the planet for the last century and a half.

http://www.heatisonline.org/weather.cfm

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2901009.ece

[tinchote]

There are very accurate weather records for most of the planet for the last century and a half.

http://www.heatisonline.org/weather.cfm

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2901009.ece

"Most of the planet"? I find that really hard to believe. You want to tell me that there are detailed records of tornados and floodings from 100 years ago in - for example - all of the former USSR or in China?

[RaikkonenRules]

Why do you feel it's a case of 'brainwashing'? What is there about the science that you doubt, and on what grounds?

The 'brainwashing' is done by the 'go green' groups that try to make us believe that we are the only cause of global warming when there is no scentific prove saying that we are.

[BDunnell]

The 'brainwashing' is done by the 'go green' groups that try to make us believe that we are the only cause of global warming when there is no scentific prove saying that we are.

Yet again, do you believe all the scientists that say man has made a significant contribution to global warming are wrong? What makes you believe that you know better than them?

[RaikkonenRules]

I'm not saying that they are definately wrong I'm just saying we shouldn't beleive what they say without definate proof. I presonally believe global warming is a natural process, hence the last ice age and that we are merely helping it along, not actually causing it.

[BDunnell]

I'm not saying that they are definately wrong I'm just saying we shouldn't beleive what they say without definate proof. I presonally believe global warming is a natural process, hence the last ice age and that we are merely helping it along, not actually causing it.

What other scientific viewpoints do you doubt in a similar way then? Why the fuss about global warming in this respect?

[Erki]

What proof do you need? And how the hell would it be even possible to prove it? If you sit here, waiting for the proof, or even looking for it, I'm sure the proof will come when it's already late anyway. :)

[Blancvino]

What other scientific viewpoints do you doubt in a similar way then? Why the fuss about global warming in this respect?

I provided 2 a while back (T-Rex and the Ozone Layer hole). Science gets it wrong all the time. Steven Hawkins was debunked a couple of years ago too. Need more?

Just tell me about or point me to research that identifies how much global warming is natural (not caused by man as a percentage). Then it's simple math. No one EVER tells us what is natural GW.

You use the argument scientist "must have factored the naturally cased GW in" but then offer not a shred of evidence to back that statement up with facts.

[BDunnell]

What proof do you need? And how the hell would it be even possible to prove it? If you sit here, waiting for the proof, or even looking for it, I'm sure the proof will come when it's already late anyway. :)

:up:

The truth is that the vast majority of people wouldn't know what that proof is, because they are not scientists.

[BDunnell]

I provided 2 a while back (T-Rex and the Ozone Layer hole). Science gets it wrong all the time. Steven Hawkins was debunked a couple of years ago too. Need more?

Just tell me about or point me to research that identifies how much global warming is natural (not caused by man as a percentage). Then it's simple math. No one EVER tells us what is natural GW.

You use the argument scientist "must have factored the naturally cased GW in" but then offer not a shred of evidence to back that statement up with facts.

I don't see it as my job to do so, because I am not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist or researcher. A lot of people who, like me, are neither seem to believe that they know better than those who are.

Out of interest, what other scientific theories do you doubt in a similar way, or is it just this one?

[Daniel]

I'm not saying that they are definately wrong I'm just saying we shouldn't beleive what they say without definate proof. I presonally believe global warming is a natural process, hence the last ice age and that we are merely helping it along, not actually causing it.
Exactly. But noooooooooo don't say that RaikkonenRules. The Eco-Nazi's will attack you. Just agree with them to shut them up. When the next ice age comes along they'll find a way to link it with stepladders or some other such rubbish and start outlawing stepladders.

[CharlieJ]

"Most of the planet"? I find that really hard to believe. You want to tell me that there are detailed records of tornados and floodings from 100 years ago in - for example - all of the former USSR or in China?
yeah... they were a lot more civilised and organised than you sem to think.

The key word you use is "believe". You have a belief, and, like a Johovah's Witness, you won't accept anything that might possibly contradict it.

I won't repeat myself again, I've said everything I have to say, and I'm out of this argument.

[BDunnell]

Exactly. But noooooooooo don't say that RaikkonenRules. The Eco-Nazi's will attack you. Just agree with them to shut them up. When the next ice age comes along they'll find a way to link it with stepladders or some other such rubbish and start outlawing stepladders.

Daniel, I'm sorry, but you're starting to get silly again. It is not a question of 'eco-Nazis' or anything similar, no matter what the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and other right-wing columnists would have you believe.

Why do you think you know better than the many experts in the field who have concluded that global warming exists and is man-made? Go and ask one and find out whether they have taken natural phenomena into account when doing their calculations. You won't be able to work that out from doing a search on the internet and looking for another graph. And, if scientists are so unreliable, which other scientific conclusions are you going to question next?

[Daniel]

yeah... they were a lot more civilised and organised than you sem to think.

The key word you use is "believe". You have a belief, and, like a Johovah's Witness, you won't accept anything that might possibly contradict it.

I won't repeat myself again, I've said everything I have to say, and I'm out of this argument.
Why accuse Tinchote of being "religious" in his belief that global warming doesn't exist when the same can be said for the opposite side of the argument?

[Daniel]

Daniel, I'm sorry, but you're starting to get silly again. It is not a question of 'eco-Nazis' or anything similar, no matter what the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and other right-wing columnists would have you believe.

Why do you think you know better than the many experts in the field who have concluded that global warming exists and is man-made? Go and ask one and find out whether they have taken natural phenomena into account when doing their calculations. You won't be able to work that out from doing a search on the internet and looking for another graph. And, if scientists are so unreliable, which other scientific conclusions are you going to question next?
Because it's true. No one wants to have a rational discussion with you when you say you don't believe. They simply say my big brother (lots of scientists) says you're wrong so ner ner ner.

[BDunnell]

Because it's true. No one wants to have a rational discussion with you when you say you don't believe. They simply say my big brother (lots of scientists) says you're wrong so ner ner ner.

But their big brother probably knows far more than you do about this subject. With respect, all you've done is read the odd article and look at a few graphs.

And I ask you again — which other scientific judgments will you be questioning next, or are you happy to go along with all of them except this one?

[CharlieJ]

Why accuse Tinchote of being "religious" in his belief that global warming doesn't exist when the same can be said for the opposite side of the argument?
My views are based on rational balanced examination of the evidence, not "belief". GW is happening. Initially the evidence seemed to show that man is resposible for it; I'm absolutely prepared to accept that there is now evidence that there is a natural element to it, but to deny against all the evidence that GW exists at all is not rational or reasonable.

[RaikkonenRules]

GW is going to happen whenever we go green or not because it is mostly natural. Even if it was all man-made we'll never get everyone to cut back on pollution. ;)

[Erki]

I wonder what's behind the rage of those who believe that climate change/global warming/environmental troubles is natural. How does it impact their personal life?

[Erki]

Even if it was all man-made we'll never get everyone to cut back on pollution. ;)

As Rollo already said, they will if the price of polluting starts chewing their wallet.

[BDunnell]

I wonder what's behind the rage of those who believe that climate change/global warming/environmental troubles is natural. How does it impact their personal life?

I believe the fact that we are on an automotive forum may have something to do with it. I see the same in the aviation world — that a lot of people 'don't believe' in global warming. Coincidence? Don't think so.

[Daniel]

I believe the fact that we are on an automotive forum may have something to do with it. I see the same in the aviation world — that a lot of people 'don't believe' in global warming. Coincidence? Don't think so.
That's the exact logic these scientists have used to make their decision. Oooh 2 graphs match. Must be fact.

[BDunnell]

That's the exact logic these scientists have used to make their decision. Oooh 2 graphs match. Must be fact.

So you're seriously saying that you're as much of a scientist as them?

[Daniel]

Yes of course that's what I'm saying. :rolleyes: All I'm saying is what i've said 1000 times before. I feel their logic is flawed and they haven't proved their theory.

[BDunnell]

How would you know whether they have or haven't? Not having studied this to any depth at all, the truth is that you can't. Instead, you make statements about the quality of their work that many of them would surely find rather insulting, without knowing the first thing about it. I don't know any more than you, but I'm not dismissing a lot of scientific opinion on the basis that I somehow think they've been slapdash in their approach. As I've said a thousand times before, go and ask a climate scientist your unanswered questions.

And, incidentally, you still haven't answered my question as to which other scientific theories you think are flawed in the same way. Why single this one out?

[tinchote]

My views are based on rational balanced examination of the evidence, not "belief". GW is happening. Initially the evidence seemed to show that man is resposible for it; I'm absolutely prepared to accept that there is now evidence that there is a natural element to it, but to deny against all the evidence that GW exists at all is not rational or reasonable.

Interesting, you are accusing me of not being rational. Being that I am a professional mathematician, I tend to consider myself more or less on the "rational" side ;)

In any case, and this has been said many times, what is questioned is not the fact that some warming is happening (after all that's about measuring and some elementary statistics), but its possible cause and it's possible consequences. And when you get there you move from fact to speculation.



And, if scientists are so unreliable, which other scientific conclusions are you going to question next?

Being an active scientist also gives me some perspective on how the publishing/funding works. There are trends, and usually the people deciding on the funding/publishing on each area tend to be a few. This means that if your research project contradicts the "accepted model" your chances of being funded are slim, and the same happens with your attempts to publish your articles (assumming you finally got some money to do your research, and that you still have a job).

There are many examples of this. To mention one that is far removed from climatology, consider Physics. Theoretical particle Physics this day has to go around String Theory, or you'll be kind of removed from the establishment, risking your career. This, when String Theory - beautiful as it is - has not shown any concrete value as a scientific theory. I have this in mind because just today I was reading the review of the book "The trouble with physics : the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next", by Lee Smolin.

[Daniel]

OMFG the ozone hole is bigger than ever!!!!! Wait a moment!!!!! :rolleyes: No it's not Something frigging random happened and it's smaller. I thought we understood the atmosphere and how it worked well enough to predict what was going to happen in the next 50 years? Seems we don't understand it as well as we thought we did. It seems things can change in a surprisingly short period of time.

I don't doubt the science behind ozone depletion because you can put Ozone in a jar and see the efects that CFC's have on it. How the hell do you replicate an atmosphere and test the effects of a particular gas???????

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/04/ozone_hole/

I know the hole in the Ozone layer isn't linked directly to the greenhouse effect but this is just an indication of how n00bish scientists can be at times and how we don't actually know how the atmosphere works. Anything you've seen on a graph showing how we're going to have rainforests in the UK soon is just a guestimate at best in my uneducated and not-trying-to-get-funding-by-merely-publishing-alarmist-and-unproven-theories-so-I-can-have-a-job opinion. I was accused of being biased by BDunnell :) How can someone be impartial when they're job depends on being alarmist?

Perhaps it's man made global warming that caused the hole in the ozone layer to get smaller? :laugh:

[BDunnell]

OMFG the ozone hole is bigger than ever!!!!! Wait a moment!!!!! :rolleyes: No it's not Something frigging random happened and it's smaller. I thought we understood the atmosphere and how it worked well enough to predict what was going to happen in the next 50 years? Seems we don't understand it as well as we thought we did. It seems things can change in a surprisingly short period of time.

I don't doubt the science behind ozone depletion because you can put Ozone in a jar and see the efects that CFC's have on it. How the hell do you replicate an atmosphere and test the effects of a particular gas???????

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/04/ozone_hole/

I know the hole in the Ozone layer isn't linked directly to the greenhouse effect but this is just an indication of how n00bish scientists can be at times and how we don't actually know how the atmosphere works. Anything you've seen on a graph showing how we're going to have rainforests in the UK soon is just a guestimate at best in my uneducated and not-trying-to-get-funding-by-merely-publishing-alarmist-and-unproven-theories-so-I-can-have-a-job opinion. I was accused of being biased by BDunnell :) How can someone be impartial when they're job depends on being alarmist?

Perhaps it's man made global warming that caused the hole in the ozone layer to get smaller? :laugh:

Whose jobs depend on being alarmist? Have you undertaken independent scientific analysis of their research? No, wait — you're just commenting from afar again, with no knowledge at all of their research processes or anything more to do with this topic than what you've read in a few places. What do you think gives you the ability to know better than scientists? I simply don't get this.

[Daniel]

I didn't say I know better than them. I'm simply pointing out yet-frigging-again that scientists don't actually understand how the atmosphere works.

[BDunnell]

I didn't say I know better than them. I'm simply pointing out yet-frigging-again that scientists don't actually understand how the atmosphere works.

And you do? How do you know they don't understand the atmosphere? Spoken to many about it, have you?

[Daniel]

If they knew how it worked then why would they be so frigging wrong a good deal of the time? I liken modern climate change study to the study of aerodynamics back before WW2. Yeah they knew a bit but in the big scheme of things they knew sod all. Like I said before. This is not like Ozone depletion where you can merely put some ozone in a jar with some CFC's and see what happens. It's not even like making a scale model of an aircraft and using luminescent dye on the surface of the aircraft to see if the airflow is as you'd expect it. It's a whole frigging planet and no matter how arrogant you want to be about how intelligent we as a race of pathetic unintelligent morons who think we know everything there's still a helluva lot of room for error, ignorance and stupidity.

I don't claim to know better than samples which show that CO2 levels were significantly higher during periods of ice age. Do you? Do these scientists?

[BDunnell]

If they knew how it worked then why would they be so frigging wrong a good deal of the time? I liken modern climate change study to the study of aerodynamics back before WW2. Yeah they knew a bit but in the big scheme of things they knew sod all. Like I said before. This is not like Ozone depletion where you can merely put some ozone in a jar with some CFC's and see what happens. It's not even like making a scale model of an aircraft and using luminescent dye on the surface of the aircraft to see if the airflow is as you'd expect it. It's a whole frigging planet and no matter how arrogant you want to be about how intelligent we as a race of pathetic unintelligent morons who think we know everything there's still a helluva lot of room for error, ignorance and stupidity.

I don't claim to know better than samples which show that CO2 levels were significantly higher during periods of ice age. Do you? Do these scientists?

No, I don't, but I have never tried to do so. Neither have you. Others know better, and I'm more prepared to rely on their work than your opinions, which — I'm sorry — seem to be based on the view that you somehow know better than people who have researched this for years. You don't.

[Daniel]

Yes master/all important knowing stuff dude. Lets go into a building and just blindly listen to words which people are saying which directly contradict facts which have widely been published. Some will blame god/allah/god-type-dude for anything bad that happens, scientists merely blame carbon dioxide. Take your pick of which religion you want. Priests study for years and years to become priests but at the end of the day does God actually exist? Who knows. You call it science I call it religion. I'd rather go to church every Sunday than listen to uproven twaddle that's being peddled as fact. At least I know for a fact that I shouldn't steal and so on. As for man made global warming. Who knows? Could be right but we don't actually know.

[BDunnell]

Yes master/all important knowing stuff dude. Lets go into a building and just blindly listen to words which people are saying which directly contradict facts which have widely been published. Some will blame god/allah/god-type-dude for anything bad that happens, scientists merely blame carbon dioxide. Take your pick of which religion you want. Priests study for years and years to become priests but at the end of the day does God actually exist? Who knows. You call it science I call it religion. I'd rather go to church every Sunday than listen to uproven twaddle that's being peddled as fact. At least I know for a fact that I shouldn't steal and so on. As for man made global warming. Who knows? Could be right but we don't actually know.

I don't know anything about the science of any of this. That's why I haven't been coming up with half-baked notions in relation to it. I choose to believe those who have done rather more research. Of course it may be flawed, but I feel that there is enough of a consensus to enable this layman to go along with it. Neither do I subscribe to the conspiracy theories that some come up with, and certainly not this stupid 'religion' idea that flies in the face of a lot of perfectly good scientific research.

[rah]

OMFG the ozone hole is bigger than ever!!!!! Wait a moment!!!!! :rolleyes: No it's not Something frigging random happened and it's smaller. I thought we understood the atmosphere and how it worked well enough to predict what was going to happen in the next 50 years? Seems we don't understand it as well as we thought we did. It seems things can change in a surprisingly short period of time.

I don't doubt the science behind ozone depletion because you can put Ozone in a jar and see the efects that CFC's have on it. How the hell do you replicate an atmosphere and test the effects of a particular gas???????

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/04/ozone_hole/

I know the hole in the Ozone layer isn't linked directly to the greenhouse effect but this is just an indication of how n00bish scientists can be at times and how we don't actually know how the atmosphere works. Anything you've seen on a graph showing how we're going to have rainforests in the UK soon is just a guestimate at best in my uneducated and not-trying-to-get-funding-by-merely-publishing-alarmist-and-unproven-theories-so-I-can-have-a-job opinion. I was accused of being biased by BDunnell :) How can someone be impartial when they're job depends on being alarmist?

Perhaps it's man made global warming that caused the hole in the ozone layer to get smaller? :laugh:

Actually the scientists are not wrong about the ozone layer. Their research has led to a better idea of how the Chlorine and Bromine effect the ozone layer. This research is yet to be confirmed and could be wrong. It could be right and will lead to a better understanding.

The reduction in use of CFC's led to a reduction in ozone depletion. AGW will actually increase ozone depletion due to stratospheric cooling.