Electric Car Drivel

[JohnW2]

There is quite clear evidence of a massive spike in global CO2 levels following the industrial revolution. This can be shown to be not the result of volcanic activity or any other natural phenomenon, thereby attributable to man (and woman)

As I keep agreeing, all these bits of evidence are very credible but, being essentially circumstantial, cannot and should not be regarded as proven truths - particularly given the complexity of the situations we are talking about.

In terms of my comments to which you were responding, there would be bound to be 'spikes' of atmospheric CO2 levels after a sudden increase in CO2 injection into the atmosphere, since some of the natural 'regulatory processes' (particularly the geological one) can take quite a time to catch up. There have, of course, been plenty of 'spikes' (and cyclical changes) in atmospheric CO2 long before industrialisation was a factor, and in many cases we can be far from certain that we fully understand the 'natural phenomenon/phenomena' (quite possibly a mix of them) which brought about these changes.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

I look forward to you saying complimentary things about people who say the world is flat and people who say that the Nazis did not murder 6M Jews.

I've responded to a similar comment from you before. In those cases, the 'evidence' goes beyond 'overwhelming' to the point of effectively being a certainty.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I look forward to you saying complimentary things about people who say the world is flat and people who say that the Nazis did not murder 6M Jews.

Anyone can see the world is not flat; there are some who dispute the holocaust.

Whilst the experts say it is extremely likely that Global Warming is man made (Climate Change is natural) there is inherent in that wording room for the extremely unlikely possibility that it is not. That is why they use that wording.
No one knows with absolute certainty.


A logical conclusion from your arguments is that all conspiracy theories have no basis.

Either that is true or it is not. If not, then we do not know which is which, or,
as someone said, that's what they want you to think.

 

[Doggit]

And you're about the most intolerant single minded, and obsessed idiot that I've come across in a long time BAS. I may well be wrong, but I have the right to be wrong, and to to be proved wrong in my own time.

It was idiots like you that tried to burn Galileo at the stake. You were the sort that burned books because they didn't go along with the current thinking. Your sort of person has always tried to silence the dissenters, and being so intollerant, you will always condemn those that don't agree with you, and most times, you'll get proved wrong, simply because you've closed you're mind to any other possibilites.

I have no respect for you whatsoever, and you may well be right, but you have nor right to push your views down my throat, nor to insult me because I don't agree with you, or the 13,926 scientist that all want to go along with each other, especially how so many of them preface their comment with the sort of word like "in all probability", yet you can't see the irony in it.

 

[mikeey84]

It was idiots like you that tried to burn Galileo at the stake

I find it quite ironic that you use this as an example.

If there was a modern day Galileo, who used actual scienctific principles to refute ACC, I am sure he (or she) would gain traction quickly.

The issue is that most of those who refute the acknowledged facts have little to no science behind their thoughts.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I've responded to a similar comment from you before. In those cases, the 'evidence' goes beyond 'overwhelming' to the point of effectively being a certainty.

And so it is with ACC.

For the vast majority of people who actually know what they are talking about, the evidence of ACC has gone beyond 'overwhelming' to the point of effectively being a certainty.

Scratch the surface of "climate change scepticism" and it isn't long before you find people like Doggit, who, for no evidence-based reason, decides that when faced with 13,926 expert views which say one thing, that he should reject them. It isn't long before you find people who think it is all some vast conspiracy. It isn't long before you find people saying that it is being done by those who want to use a fear of drastic climate change to gain control over our lives, and isn't it odd that the cure turns out to be communism.

I am not a climate scientist, and I have no ability to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion to the thousands of experts who have looked at it.

I can see no sane reason to continue to say that all those people must be wrong, that it cannot be happening, and that all those thousands of experts, and all those scientific bodies, and all those governments are making it all up in order to control us.

 

[Doggit]

The issue is that most of those who refute the acknowledged facts have little to no science behind their thoughts.

But that's the trouble here Mikeey, BAS is saying that the debate is proved and should be shut down, and I'm just saying that acting like that is bad science - a good scientist will say we cannot prove this, but we are as certain as can be. My contention is, that if we shut down the debate, then we lose the possibility of finding other reasons.

Galilao went against conventional thinking and was shouted down, and if he hadn't recanted, they'd have burned him as a heretic, and BAS seems to want to do the same to me because I won't go along with his assertions. And with BAS's attitude, a modern day Galilao with all the creditable science behind him, wouldn't be listened to.

And this isn't about me having the science to prove others wrong, it's about my right to continue the debate. The rain forests help absorb CO2, but because BAS and the global warming lobby are convinced we've got to reduce CO2 emmisssions (which I actually agree with) they won't look at the other things that need doing as well.

 

[JohnD]

What makes you think that research has stopped?

 

[mikeey84]

Both John and Doggit are missing the point about the on going debate.

Is there a debate about ACC. Yes. It's a debate about the exact details of ACC, not whether it exists or not.

This is similar to the "debate" about evolution. People with an axe to grind jump on the fact that there are a number of theories on the exact details of the theory of evolution as proof that there is a debate about it's veracity (as well as wildly misunderstanding the definition of a scientific theory, as opposed to a theory)

ACC exists, there is broad scientific consensus that human activity is changing the climate. There is debate on the exact mechanisms, as well as future directions for the climate, but it's disingenuous to say there exists a SCIENTIFIC debate on the wider issue.

 

[Doggit]

Oh dear BAS, you still won't get off your high horse, will you.

No you're not a climate change scientist, and neither am I, but I've followed the debate closely. It started with Thatcher wanting a stick to beat the miners with, so the idea of global warming due to CO2 produced by coal was developed. After that, you couldn't get a grant for such research, unless it agreed with the then established idea. But some people were smart enough to challenge the thinking, and the scientists had to start fiddling the result, hence the "hockey stick curve" scandal that showed that temperatures were rising, but they had to fiddle the figures to achieve the results they wanted. There was a complete uproar when the lies came to the surface, and suddenly man made global warming went quiet, and climate change started to rear it's head, but that wasn't put down to mankind, it was accepted as a natural phenomanon. But within about 18 months, that had changed to man made climate change, but at least a lot of scientists then started to add the comments that they are faiirly certain that we're causing it, because they acknowledge that they don't have the ability to prove what is only a theory.

ACC exists, there is broad scientific consensus that human activity is changing the climate.

I agree, but I think they are being too focused on the exact causes, and the only way of dealing with it.

There is debate on the exact mechanisms

But that's my contention, I don't think there is enough debate, simply because so many people have decide they know what's happening, so they only need to decide how to reverse it, and even that's been decided.

but it's disingenuous to say there exists a SCIENTIFIC debate on the wider issue.

But that's only because people like BAS refuse to allow a debate, not because there shouldn't be one.

 

[JohnW2]

And so it is with ACC. For the vast majority of people who actually know what they are talking about, the evidence of ACC has gone beyond 'overwhelming' to the point of effectively being a certainty. ... Scratch the surface of "climate change scepticism" and it isn't long before you find people like Doggit, who, for no evidence-based reason, decides that when faced with 13,926 expert views which say one thing, that he should reject them.

You seem to be reading what you think "people like Doggit" (maybe including me?) are saying, rather than what they are actually saying.

There are, indeed, a few "people ... who, for no evidence-based reason, decide that when faced with 13,926 expert views which say one thing, that they should reject them.", and we can and should ignore such people. However, Doggit does not appear to be one of those people, any more than I am. Neither Doggit nor anyone else here is 'rejecting' the views of the 13.962 experts to whom you refer.

I strongly suspect that if you read these 13,962 papers, you would discover that few of them are asserting that it is an absolute certainty that human CO2 production is the sole, or necessarily even the predominant, cause of climate change. As has been said, they probably usually use phrases such as "very likely", but stop short of talking about certainty (or, as above, even "effective certainty") and I imagine that many also give very serious consideration to other factors which may be part of the 'big picture' which results in climate change. As I understand it, that is all that Doggit (and "people like Doggit") are saying.

Another thing to bear in mind is that if you look at your 13,962 (or however many) papers, you will see that expert opinion on the subject has changed and evolved quite a lot over the past two or three decades - evidence that the opinions of experts at any one point in time do not represent unchangeable absolute certainties.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Both John and Doggit are missing the point about the on going debate. .... ACC exists, there is broad scientific consensus that human activity is changing the climate. There is debate on the exact mechanisms, as well as future directions for the climate, but it's disingenuous to say there exists a SCIENTIFIC debate on the wider issue.

I can't speak for Doggit, but what you have just written corresponds very closely with my view, so I'm not sure what I am missing.

As you say, there is a debate about 'exact mechanisms' and 'future directions of the climate' and (which you don't mention) a debate as to the extent to which human activity is a component of the totality of factors affecting climate change. In contrast, BAS seems to see things far more 'black and white' than that.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

It started with Thatcher wanting a stick to beat the miners with, so the idea of global warming due to CO2 produced by coal was developed

What a load of tosh.
The research started in the 1950s.

 

[mikeey84]

debate as to the extent to which human activity is a component of the totality of factors affecting climate change. I

Yes, the debate is

Is it loads or loads and loads.

 

[Doggit]

There are so many climate prediction models that will tell you that we are within an inch of armagedon, but a model is only a possibility, and the result is affected by the data that is input. Just because a climate chance scientists enter data into their model, doesn't mean that they are neutral, and I've yet to see any model give a higher and a lower result; they always give the worst case scenario. Scientists are just people, and some have an axe to grind, some an idea to prove, and some are the just not very unbiased.

I can't speak for Doggit, but what you have just written corresponds very closely with my view,

I think we are fairly close in our ideas John, but maybe I think we are helping cause climate change, rather than the direct and only cause of it. And it's possible that BAS has read my initial comments and railed against them, and then not been open to the other things I've added. I seriously think we need to open up the debate far more widely than it currently is, but the lobby has just decided that renewables are the only answer, and that's short sighted. No one's mentioned changing cows diets to reduce the methane they output. No one discusses the affect that all the fields under cultivation have on heating the air above them. The debate seems to have been shut down, and that's the real issue that I have.

The research started in the 1950s

But it didn't have much credibility. Thatcher used it as a way of saying that CO2 was damaging the planet, so coal power stations should be mothballed, and that meant that the coal mines weren't needed any longer, and that was how she defeated Scargil.