LOC...

the world is flat Columbus, sail too far and you will fall off the edge.  Scientific Concensus 1492.

I don't think they were trying to "defraud the world's policy-makers" either.  Nor the general population...

But ah...  they were wrong.

I'd be quite happy to cut CO2 levels just on a "pollution" basis.  But don't try to tell me that global warming is driven by man and will be catastrophic and  not have the proof to back it up.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:42pm:


Actually no. again. That was more religious edict than scientific consensus. Columbus was inspired by 'scientists' who dared to think otherwise. If you disagreed with the religious position back then it was more a question of whether you valued your theory better than certain bodily extremities.

The Ancient Greeks knew that the Earth was approximately spherical. So did the Arabs who taught Columbus navigation.  

I will be happy if you just stop repeating discredited misinformation as if it is some new revelation.

You still refuse to even look at how it is discredited, so it really is difficult to see how anyone can show you the money, because scientific evidence is not a currency you deal with.

Did u check out the link to skeptic sciences I posted earlier, which deals with what you are putting forward?

Nope?
Thought not.
Nuff said.

If you want to discredit the denialist debunkers, go to 'realclimate' and go through their list of debunked denialist claims.
They have it in both laymen, and scientific terms, and provide links to research papers that support their position.
So see your denialist claims, see them refuted by scientists, then show them where they are wrong, then come back here and tell me about your victory.

It's not going to happen is it?
I half wonder if you really do recognise the amount of BS in the denial case, but because you are so wedded to it, you must try to just ignore that fact.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

These sites are both easy to understand, and will patiently explain it to you, if you really want to learn, and you may be able to convince them of the scientific merit of a denialist argument, good luck.

OK, provide one of your myths that was debunked on real climate, then show me a link to the skeptics proving the debunking invalid.

Even one false debunking will strengthen your case significantly.

Even one example of scientists agreeing with the original denialist claim, rather than the debunking of the claim, will illustrate your point.

I have never seen one, and I too have looked at denialist sites, and real climate scietist sites as well.

I have plenty of bandwidth, and when you post your new(rehashed) claims, I look them up, see what the spruikers say, then see what the scientists say.

So far I have always found the scientists far more convincing, and they even cite real data from peer reviewed science journals, an extraordinary example not followed by denialists.

You do yourself no favours Grendel, when you refuse to look at these sites, they are balanced, and give credit, and a fair hearing to people who have valid points to make, even skeptics, if they deserve credit, receive it.
Of course there will be errors, and no sensible person denies that, it is not the errors that are contentious, it is the deliberate misinformation campaigns that upset people.

You will see many cogent and relevant replies from people who agree with you that aspects of Global Warming are ridiculously over hyped, but it does not lead them to wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, just to help improve everyones knowledge and understanding.
They will say when a graph is poorly plotted, and the people who overhype the Warming side of the argument are roundly condemned if seen to do so, it works both ways.

The one aspect we can totally agree on is that we have much more work to do, to come to a better understanding of all the influences which effect our climate, so keeping denialist rubbish out of the mix is better for everyone, because it just detracts from the credibility of real scientists who do have real issues to raise, that sometimes support current ideas, and sometimes do not.

I am not saying that all climate scientists always get it right, or that some ongoing revision will not be needed, just that it should be contained to a more objective line of enquiry, rather than just having people trying to disprove the whole theory as a fraud, which is just ridiculous.
Flawed, quite possibly, but honestly flawed, and we need the same honesty from skeptics, and that is not what we are seeing.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:02pm:



There are some variables that work against us and we rather have to look for additional heat to compensate:

All radioactive material dispersed throughout our planet with passing time gives off less and less heat.

Crust of our planet gets thicker and so called "unlimited geothermal energy" in fact is limited and despite crust being good insulator, that heat permeates toward the surface and radiates to disappear into the abyss.

There are some valid points that actually our planet also shrinks because of cooling core (some of the Earth’s tremors could be attributed to that), and marginally but our planed this way receives just a tinier amount less of Solar radiation due to reduced total surface area.

There is also reflection that depending on colour of our planet can change.

There are also tiny pollution and dust particles that prevent solar radiation reaching surface our planet on top of preventing excess heat leaving us.

Obviously computer models take more factors into account, but I just cannot see the accuracy needed for such a certainty displayed by various models authors.

As for me, I don’t know who is right, and I would just in case reduce impact of human race and concentrate on both phenomena rather than just on global warming alone.