Which camp are you in?

[ladylola]

From your link -

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

They don't KNOW.

By the same standards it must follow that any who say that humans aren't responsible can't KNOW either.
To be honest any scientist ( or anyone for that matter) who says they are 100% certain either way would concern me. As I said earlier any complete scientific testing would require a second planet as a control.
Personally I find it hard to believe that we could pump a trillion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and expect there to be no effect. It would be arrogant to think otherwise.
However, having said that I also find it hard to believe that natural cycles don't play a part. That would be equally arrogant to think we had completely dominated nature.
The truth , I tend to believe, lies somewhere between the two camps. Natural warming and cooling occurs but our efforts aren't helping and may very well be making it worse.
Either way be it natural or man made climate change will affect us. How many of our cities are built next to the sea and will be prone to flooding? Most of our civilisation and agriculture is based around " normal " weather patterns. The human species will most likely ( 97% certainly ) survive but wether seven billion of us could survive may very well be less likely.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I'm asking you what YOU think and WHY you think it. You don't know why you think what you think other than you think it sounds clever. It doesn't.

I am basing my reasoning on the number of times in the past that the 'expert' opinion was proved wrong by later discoveries of the truth.

Cholera was stated by 'experts' to be airborne until someone piped a new water supply and Bazelgette removed the sewerage from the streets.
Is margarine still good for us or is it banned.
Was thalidomide safe?
Was smoking good for us in the fifties? etc.

Tell us why you think that the overwhelming probability is wrong. You can't can you ?

The fact that 'very likely' is NOT an overwhelming probability.

You are a silly dope that follows the crowd. Bah bah.

Having to resort to stupid insults is promising.

Is this crowd the majority or a minority?


As you are convinced that global warming is a fact do you think that we have averted the ice age that was predicted by experts when I was at school and therefore a good thing?

 

[joe-90]

Oh so you live in the stone age then? You believe what suits you to believe for no reason whatsoever. Worra dope.

 

[jockscott]

Oh so you live in the stone age then? You believe what suits you to believe for no reason whatsoever. Worra dope.

From your replies Joe, you seem to be in the camp that believes these scientific chaps. Therefore it follows (logically) that you've actually joined their bandwagon. Therefore you must be some sort of sheep like person, following blindly the mainstream view. The flocking instinct , must be strong in you.

 

[JBR]

Yes, he's a dope, but sometimes an entertaining dope!

 

[wobs]

Scientists investigate to find out how everything works.
At first there are theories which fit in with what appears to be happening.
Then there are hypotheses about how it got to where it is.

No.
Science starts with a hypothesis. Then they find evidence for the hypothesis. This then becomes a theory, as it has evidence.

A theory can be tested, and if it stands up to scrutiny, it is up held. If it doesn't it is considered wrong.

To quote Feynman:
"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it. "Ch. 7, “Seeking New Laws”

Re-testing or refining a theory may bring the theory to be accepted, but not until it stands up to scrutiny.

As for the beginning and life of the universe there are several theories which have been changed or updated to explain, after later discoveries, how it got to be as it is now. Inflation, however implausible, being the most convenient to explain the temperature and how the farthest observable objects have had time to get to where they are.
Still, though, no one knows.

Much of the changes in cosmology, and how the universe began has changed, but since the development of the scientific method, it has simply refined. The media may trumpet a revolution of a new idea turning science on its head, but the truth is that most science in this area gets new ideas that refine the existing ideas. While radical ideas may still come out, they have thus far failed to stand up to scrutiny in most cases.

So, until it is definitively explained with absolute certainty then scientists are not much different than creationists except for the fact that scientists will keep looking until the truth is found instead of blindly believing that 'someone' made it one week about six thousand years ago - only thirteen and a half billion out.

This shows your ignorance.

Scientists test and re-test, and varifiy a theory.

Creationists read the bible and find things to back up their beliefs, and often lie.

I hope you see the diference.

I believe the the new Pope has just arranged forgiveness for Galileo after his 'heresy' in discovering, though being afraid to say for fear of 'the Church', that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

I presume everyone now believes Galileo.

Ah, a nod towards the Galileo Fallacy. I see you're not afraid of cliches.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

 

[Norcon]

EFL Impudence wrote

The fact that 'very likely' is NOT an overwhelming probability.

Strawman argument.

The fact is science at the moment cannot prove or disprove categorically whether man is the culprit.

Just as it cannot prove or disprove Gods involvement in the creation of the universe.

Yet somehow you feel you have the intelligence to dismiss the majority of scientists with regard to the former and welcome the views of the majority of scientists with regard to the latter as it fits perfectly with your own small minded agenda.

That's just real dumb friendo.

Its no wonder J90 is kicking you're arze. This thread is genious.

 

[joe-90]

Oh so you live in the stone age then? You believe what suits you to believe for no reason whatsoever. Worra dope.

From your replies Joe, you seem to be in the camp that believes these scientific chaps. Therefore it follows (logically) that you've actually joined their bandwagon. Therefore you must be some sort of sheep like person, following blindly the mainstream view. The flocking instinct , must be strong in you.

It is beyond dispute that the climate is changing. Not even a someone like you who knows fook all about anything can dispute that. What I want to know is: Do you believe scientists? Yes or no? You can't cherry pick because of some silly fad like atheism. Do you believe in science? Yes or no?

 

[jockscott]

It is beyond dispute that the climate is changing. Not even a someone like you who knows fook all about anything can dispute that. What I want to know is: Do you believe scientists? Yes or no? You can't cherry pick because of some silly fad like atheism. Do you believe in science? Yes or no?

Ahh I see, when the argument's lost the insults start ehh. Poor attempt Joe. Why on earth you've not been permanently banned from this forum, I just don't know. Your nothing but a keyboard warrior. A troll of the highest order.
Well I'm not going to play your stupid little game any more Joe. What I, or any other poster on here believes is of little consequence to you, just as long as you can get the insults in. That's the real truth Joe. Your just a pathetic sad lonely bully, who boosts his own ego by insulting others.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Something

Read more carefully and try to understand what the words actually say.

 

[joe-90]

It is beyond dispute that the climate is changing. Not even a someone like you who knows fook all about anything can dispute that. What I want to know is: Do you believe scientists? Yes or no? You can't cherry pick because of some silly fad like atheism. Do you believe in science? Yes or no?

Ahh I see, when the argument's lost the insults start ehh. Poor attempt Joe. Why on earth you've not been permanently banned from this forum, I just don't know. Your nothing but a keyboard warrior. A troll of the highest order.
Well I'm not going to play your stupid little game any more Joe. What I, or any other poster on here believes is of little consequence to you, just as long as you can get the insults in. That's the real truth Joe. Your just a pathetic sad lonely bully, who boosts his own ego by insulting others.

Yeah run away you sad loser.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So, until it is definitively explained with absolute certainty then scientists are not much different than creationists except for the fact that scientists will keep looking until the truth is found instead of blindly believing that 'someone' made it one week about six thousand years ago - only thirteen and a half billion out.

This shows your ignorance.
Scientists test and re-test, and varifiy a theory.
Creationists read the bible and find things to back up their beliefs, and often lie.
I hope you see the diference.

Is that not what I wrote?

 

[jockscott]

Oh Joe, you don't get rid of me that easily. I won't run and I really don't think I'm the sad ,,,,, loser. You'd have to look in the mirror to see the really sad loser on this forum.
Now we've traded insults, I'll let you run along instead.

 

[joe-90]

Oh Joe, you don't get rid of me that easily. I won't run and I really don't think I'm the sad ,,,,, loser. You'd have to look in the mirror to see the really sad loser on this forum.
Now we've traded insults, I'll let you run along instead.

At least be witty and original.

 

[wobs]

So, until it is definitively explained with absolute certainty then scientists are not much different than creationists except for the fact that scientists will keep looking until the truth is found instead of blindly believing that 'someone' made it one week about six thousand years ago - only thirteen and a half billion out.

This shows your ignorance.
Scientists test and re-test, and varifiy a theory.
Creationists read the bible and find things to back up their beliefs, and often lie.
I hope you see the diference.

Is that not what I wrote?

To compare the two shows your ignorance. Science is naturally cautious. Creationists are not, and use dishonesty.

Do you dispute the age of the universe as stated by science?
Similarly, the work of climate scientists has undergone significent refinement, and development over the years. No one is suggesting it is perfect, but it is the most accurate model we have. Work continues, as it is a big subject, but to shrug and say its just a natural cycle, or that we can never know is flawed thinking.

Deniers of AGW are akin to conspiracy theorists (and creationists funnily enough), in that they use a combination of lies, twisted facts, and leaving out key issues. In other words: pseduo-science

Here is a collection of essays of all these subjects you may find interesting:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pscindx.htm