jimenato

Yes - all good sport! Trying to emulate me huh? I'm quite flattered actually.

The reason you failed, of course, is that you made a factual error in your post, something I never do.

Anyway enough of this frivolity - shall we get back to climate change? I know quite a lot about that...

Garbatellamike

jojojojojo

....... If only! I wish you could just pretend for a moment that you understand and know about climate change - cos then you wouldnt throw around your "facts"

Jo xxx

jimenato

But they are not "my" facts are they? Facts don't belong to anybody, they are just facts.

jojojojojo

There are no facts, just theories and hypothesis. NONE that show that man is responsible for global warming!

Jo xx

rugbymatt

Who is talking about global warming?

Dick Dasterdly

Only you apparently.
Everybody else is talking about the bloody weather.

rugbymatt

Yeah, pretty sure I've gone to great pains to separate the two subjects on almost every single post.... Tell me Dick, got any more completely impartial videos to post?

Lion in Winter

You should let Exxon Mobil know, they will be relieved to hear it and that they will be able to cut out all this carbon emissions reduction nonsense.

http://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-Englis...y_climate.aspx

jimenato

This 'no facts' thing is bugging me. Is it not the case that the measured amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing? I seem to recall it has just hit a new high of 0.04% or something like that. Is that not classified as a fact? And I'm sure there are many more similar.

jimenato

I think there might be some confusion between facts, proof and evidence going on.

In some fields we will probably never get to a state of cast iron proof. Such issues include the origin of the universe (big bang theory), evolution theory and of course climate change theory (AGW).

In the absence of proof all we can do is accumulate evidence until the theory is as near proved as dammit, always accepting that a better theory might come along to replace it.

The 'get out' of there not being cast iron proof is a means for people not to believe it if they so choose. In the case of big bang and evolution, the motivation for not believing it is often, but not solely, religious - they conflict with other beliefs such as creationism.

It is not so clear to me why people should be so vehemently opposed to AGW although it might be that the possible consequences of it or the consequences if doing something about it are too horrendous to contemplate - so it doesn't exist.

So there are facts which constitute evidence that AGW might be real but they do not constitute proof.

The expectation of proof is unreasonable.

jackytoo

Copying from google again

This thread sort of mirrors the real life debate where experts who dispute the findings are vilified, slandered etc. remember Climategate

jimenato

Ooh Jacky! - you shouldn't copy from google.

amideislas

Well, whatever you may wish to believe about it, I think it's important to collectively realise that our atmosphere is indeed finite.

This little fact in itself leads me to reckon that dumping millions of tons of toxic gases into it for a couple centuries would likely have a measurable impact, and the results of that impact aren't likely to be positive.

Now, whether we can prove that humans are causing climate change is academic. But it occurs to to me that awareness of the potential for severely damaging our finite atmosphere, and limiting our abuses of it is only logical, and an important step to take - whether there's an imminent threat or not. It doesn't really matter who's right or wrong. It's just sensible.

Unfortunately, both sides of the argument have exhibited opportunism, which isn't what it's about, with the exception of employing incentives that render ecological responsibility profitable, and that has a lot to do with public awareness and opinion.

Nothing wrong with being more responsible, me thinks.

jimenato

All very true and I would add that hydrocarbon fuels (well fossil fuels anyway) albeit still extensive are also finite and we would be advised to conserve them whether of not AGW is real.