- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
I'm sure many scientists would own houses so that may be a good thing to do. It is a good thing to not fall into the trap of believing in epistemic arrogance.
Let us know what you hear from them.
Cheers..
I'm sure many scientists would own houses so that may be a good thing to do. It is a good thing to not fall into the trap of believing in epistemic arrogance.im thinking of heading over to a science board to get an opinion on the stability of the australian housing market.
Cut out the the crap and get involved in some reasoned debate.
Posting more and more articles from the mainstream media adds nothing to this thread.
However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.
Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.
ps. an ad hominem insult is an attack on you, personally. I am more concerned with the material you put up, which is mostly rubbish. If you want to insinuate an extension to yourself, that's your call. I haven't met you, I don't know you. I simply read your posts.
Hence the uphill battle of proving versus disproving.In simple terms the difference is self evident when looking at a globe of the earth: Antarctica is totally surrounded by three great oceans. The Artic is almost landlocked - surrounded by Europe, Asia and North America.
Antarctica is a land mass covered with massive ice sheets. The Arctic is just water and ice - you plant a flag on the ocean floor when you reach the north pole!
The Arctic tends to act as a barometer of change as its geography and climatology "amplifies" weather events. However, unless a similar trend (albeit latent) is shown to correspondingly affect Antarctica we can hardly talk about "global climate change".
The issue on manmade climate change is incidental to the above. How we measure it is clearly debatable.
Blunders by governments and scientists are common and the role is to prove what is not disprovable. It is a big hill to climb.btw snake
read Flannery's book, the Weather Makers - or read any flaming book for that matter. I'd be interested to see evidence that you've researched this in the slightest.
That invitation goes for Wayne as well - especially as he proclaims an interest in saving wildlife. Read about the number of species of critters that have died / become extinct and are gonna die in the next 50 years or so.
Explod,This has probably been covered and nuked by the skeptics but thought the following letter published in the Weekend Australian 3-4thjan is worth noting by the faithful.
Explod,
What are you saying this actually means?
I consider the temperature changes over the past 150 to be within the bounds of "natural" influences.Rob,
I must point out that "reasoned" debate includes the admission of reasonable points from your opposition, otherwise it becomes a polarized sh!tfight.
So far you have shown no capability of such reason, choosing to refute all sensible evidence countering your viewpoint. It seems reason is only that which agrees with your narrow and indoctrinated view.
I fully accept the desirability of having the debate on AGW. Unfortunately, when you alarmists have petulantly closed the door on any dissenting science, it is no longer a discussion and polarization occurs. In fact, it disqualifies itself as true science.
This is an extreme negative and the reason you are losing the public on this issue.
In the meantime, real (and junk) science continues with a case being made for a number of scenarios. In other words, there is no consensus, the science is not settled, AGW remains as hypothesis, there is junk science on both sides of the debate, and Climate Change has become heavily politicized.
If you were prepared to concede the above five points, then we may have the possibility of a reasonable discussion. It's up to you.
What are you saying this actually means?In the past the ice remained inert. In more recent times the ice has begun to melt (a change) and is therefore absorbing heat which inturn is cooling the planet down. Of course the more heat the ice absorbs the more it is going to melt till no more ice. When there is no more ice to cool the warming it is going to get very hot. So teach you Grandchilden, (better make that children) to run high into the hills to cool down and avoid the flood.
Talking of your surveys above. Socialogists will tell you that a 10% change of attitude is all that is required to bring about a total change in that direction. With climate change we a well past that and there is plenty of anectotal to show that it is all just quetly but surely happening. It is why you of the traditional power lobby are so desperate with your unqualified pure crappola
rederob said:Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.
While you're at it snake ,snake said:Impossible. The universe is infinite and the boundaries are not known. Mistakes will continue to be made so proving will be harder than disproving.
What are you saying this actually means?
What I'm saying is that:smurf if you're saying that we will not have a problem purely because we can't extract coal etc fast enough, then I would say you're smoking something pretty damned strong.
We need to reduce the rate of extraction of coal etc, not accelerate it to the fastest rate we are physically capable of ( as you imply)
so smurf, are you saying ...What I'm saying is that:
Oil looks to have peaked already
Gas production seems likely to rise for another 20 years or so, but not rapidly enough to offset declining oil production beyond the next few years.
That leaves coal as the only realistic source of sufficient CO2 to meet the emissions growth assumed in virtually all climate change modelling.
In short, we'd need truly massive growth in coal use to lead to the "business as usual" scenarios for CO2 emissions that many accept as given in a scenario of diminishing emissions from oil and gas.
So what I'm saying is that there's very little prospect of emissions rising to the point used in most of the models. Rise maybe, but not as high as is being assumed. Inability to get the stuff out of the ground seems likely to make sure of that whether we care about the CO2 issue or not.
Not quite...so smurf, are you saying ...
"don't worry , be happy"
"we just can't take it out fast enough to be a problem"?
Crap or sh-t for short.
Seems everyone is lost for words regarding the physics of current global cold spell.
Thanks.Crap or sh-t for short.
Seems everyone is lost for words regarding the physics of current global cold spell.
smurf, I concede they (nuclear plants) are more expensive / less efficient without hydro in parallel. - Then again if hydro is not feasible, - land just isn't available for instance - then you just have nuclear / stand alone, and/or in conjunction with other cleaner power. (or reduced amount of dirty power)btw smurf,
I'm not convinced your theory that nuclear plants cannot be adjusted / powered down for off peak periods ... just as nuclear batteships do for instance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?