I don't think the climate change debate really needs anymore bush lawyers.

My ego is bigger than most, should I get two votes ? or only 1.5 ?

You shouldn't be allowed to vote, you are a moderator.

Qualified climatologists in the 1970s claimed that we were heading for an Ice Age.

I have a PhD in the biological sciences and I can tell you that we are going to need as much CO2 as we can get into the atmosphere. CO2 is what plants are made of, and for that you can read food. AS the population increases we need to grow more food per km2 of agricultural land. The more CO2 we have, the more food we can grow. The warmer the world is the more food we can grow. The world getting colder would be a far greater calamity than the world getting warmer.

As for global warming, as a trained scientist I can tell you that the presentation of the human induced global warming theory as a fact is not scientific. It hasn't even been produced by experts. It's been produced by a computer model which only predicts a 5% chance of catastrophic global warming, and it has an equal 5% chance of nothing happening at all. The IPCC say that unless we achieve x by time then there is a 50% chance of catastrophic global warming. This is not scientific. This is covering your arse. Scientists deal with statistical probabilities of greater than 95%. We know that any less than 95% certainty is flawed science.

No one, NO ONE AT ALL, has produced a scientific finding that gives us a greater than 95% probability that human induced global warming is a genuine phenomenon. Therefore, by scientific LAW it is not.

1. There is no evidence of a causation between CO2 increase and global temperature increase.

2. The climate model which "predicts" future global temperatures is incapable of predicting the behaviour of the sun, which is the primary source of the Earth's heat.

3. There is no evidence of any kind, anywhere, that a reduction of "greenhouse gas" emissions will have any effect on climate change.

4. Paper is 85% atmospheric carbon dioxide. Why are we still recycling it? If we were serious about reducing CO2 in the atmosphere we'd be making paper from rapidly growing renewable forests, using it once and burying it in old coal mines. We use so much of the damned stuff that it would have a genuine effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

[QUOTE=Burbage;8313122]Qualified climatologists in the 1970s claimed that we were heading for an Ice Age.

[QUOTE]

1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.

As a qualified scientist I thought you would have known that.

That is a brilliant idea, someone tell Abbott quick!

[QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313143][QUOTE=Burbage;8313122]Qualified climatologists in the 1970s claimed that we were heading for an Ice Age.

Show me. Give me a reference.

[QUOTE=Burbage;8313151][QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313143] Why don't you show me a reference given that it was your proposition.

[QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313155][QUOTE=Burbage;8313151] I didn't say they put it in the peer reviewed press. In case you hadn't noticed the tenet of my post: They were talking bollocks then and they are talking bollocks now.

Nor is there a peer reviewed article, even now, that proves human induced global warming to a 95% probability.

You see the point of the scientific method is to disprove theories. Not to prove them. So where are the grants for scientists to disprove HIGW? Where are the papers which test the theory? Where are the groups that have replicated the findings of the IPCC and shown them to be correct? This entire issue has been unscientific from the start.

[QUOTE=Burbage;8313166][QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313155] No. You said "Qualified climatologists in the 1970s claimed that we were heading for an Ice Age". This is a myth perpetuated by the media not by scientist.

[QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313178][QUOTE=Burbage;8313166] And I said it was bollocks, so we agree. What's your point?

[QUOTE=Burbage;8313297][QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313178] You implied it was the scientists 'talking bollocks' not the press.

[QUOTE=Burbage;8313166][QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313155] Surely in this case the hypothesis would be that AGW does exist.

[QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313305][QUOTE=Burbage;8313297] Some scientists were. But whether they were or not, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The existence or non existence of catastrophic human induced global warming does not hinge on this irrelevant detail. So perhaps we should stick to the topic of the thread.

[QUOTE=Lord_Farquar;8313332][QUOTE=Burbage;8313166] What's AGW?

Scientific method is based on null hypotheses.