Quote:
Originally Posted by FredSnerd
Peter, you really do need to learn something about the scientific method. People who try to accurately quantify risk by using words like "likely", "more likely","possibly", "expected", "inferred", "may" are behaving precisely as scientists should. And really thats the issue here; "risk". Since a clear majority of respected scientests are saying we got a problem then sheer basics tell us that we ought not to take the risk of ignoring them. But no it seems that unless you can have absolute unassailabe proof you're not budging. Thats fine but I'm pleased to say you're in the minority. Even assuming we are all being hoodwinked you might want to consider the price we pay if you are wrong (human existence wiped out) and the price we pay if you are right (we lose a few bucks to another scam). I sincerely hope you feel the weight of that responsibility when you try and convince us all that we need do nothing about global warming.
Also Ron made the point earlier. If the $$$ is anywhere its on the side of the argument that wants us to disbelieve global warming. Take a look at the negotiations in Denmark at the moment. Could anything be clearer then that its industry and mining that does not want us to take any precautions against global warming. A crash copurse in logic would assit you greatly I think.
|
Claude,
Firstly I disagree with your comment "majority of respected scientists" perhaps you can enlighten me with names, or at the very least majority really needs to be qualified, that would seem logical to me.
You are pleased I am "in the minority" but again don't qualify, if you mean by the replies to this thread, yeah that might be correct, or do you mean globally - now just how do you arrive at that assumption?
You use the words "human existence wiped out" these should not be taken lightly - they are typically one of the very powerful, emotional, very unscientific dramatisations often used to promote the extreme exaggerations made by the GW alarmists in this whole debate. You use emotion (don't worry you are not alone, that and insult are about the only means available to many GW alarmists when they can't produce the evidence) and then in the same paragraph you say I need to learn something about the scientific method......er, ok.
The words "likely" "more likely" "possibly" "expected" inferred" "may" are clearly shown to be a guess (no science here) used as qualifiers for massive uncertainties. They will most likely be used as a convenient escape hatch for those who try to cover there backsides as the whole GW nonsense unravels.
Of course if you can point me to the solid evidence (peer reviewed of course) for sea level change, how temperature continually rises with increasing CO2, evidence that glaciers are melting, then please do. It amazes me that many "people in the know" don't realise they actually breathe CO2 out and that it is crucial for life on Earth. Perhaps they don't believe we went to the Moon and stocked up during Y2K (just in case). It is also interesting that the GWers have now changed their tune from their "Global Warming" alarmism to "Man made Climate Change" . Climate Change I can handle, it is ongoing and has happened for billions of years, but man made, point me to the evidence please. I guess the name change was necessary because since 1998 it appears the Earth has actually been cooling so it makes the original argument somewhat lame.
I wonder also how reliable are the computer models used when as it seems they don't include major drivers of climate like the Sun, Cloud formation, Submarine volcanism and the CO2 chemistry of rocks, soil, oceans and biology.
Plimers book Heaven and Earth is not written emotionally it is written scientifically and very much to the facts, it is well worth reading. Have you read it? if not please do, you will be far more scientifically informed for it - use it as a crash course if you like on the what the scientific method is and how it shows this nonsense for what it really is.
It appears that soon Australians will have to dig very, very deep into their own pockets (yet another tax). When this happens I will bet (very unscientific) there will be an almost overnight change of opinion. Unless of course the GWers can fudge the figures and bring the looming disaster forward so it looks like it will affect Mr & Mrs averages life(style) in their lifetime, Y2K worked with a date. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, as they say money changes everything, even the "I want a better world for my granchildren type", yeah right, heard that before, they leave out the bit about so long as I don't have to pay for it . Anyway it appears most adults are going to plough through any kids inheritance so most don't really give a toss.
Anyways this subject is exactly like religion, politics etc nobody here will sway anyone else in their beliefs. But I do and will continue to take exception when people start calling people who have valid opposing views as jokers, and others who use more emotional names etc as have appeared in other threads on this subject.
I think they only know how to play the man and not the ball.
I like Plimers thoughts in this book comparing the mind to a parachute, it only works when open.
PeterM.