Grendel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 8:34pm:


Big deal. My list (did you even bother to scroll through it?) is bigger than your list by several magnitudes, and with maybe one or two exceptions, none of the people on your list are climatologists.

Apart from that, these individuals obviously don't have much weight within their national academies. Every national academy of every developed country on the planet confirms that human activity has caused recent climate change. Maybe that's because not a single  paper on climate finds otherwise.

Did you read that quote that mentioned the Laws of themodynamics?


By the way, Al Gore is not a climatologist. He's a politician. It's not a political issue, it's a scientific one.

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 9:31am:



I think you got that exactly back to front. Or at least as far as 'deniers' are concerned. They see it as a political issue, the boosters see it as a scientific issue - yet want political action as a matter of 'risk management'. In fact both sides speak politically much more than scientifically.

I think it would be clearer and a lot less. ahem, heated if people could stick to scientific matters. But for most peple that is just too hard, not to mention uncertain and full of 'on the other hands'.

So most people treat this whole issue as a political argument, only using science to disguise their political impulses. Climate change debate is about social organisation and social and economic action and responsibility - that is, politics.

As far as 'risk management' is concerned, climate change is one of many possible priorities for maximising future wellbeing. Only making scientifically unsupported predictions of catasptrophy can climate change be propelled to the position of top priority. ANd that only if human culpability is established to the degree that the desired political directions of the boosters are accepted.
To date, neither the forecasts of catasptrophy nor human culpability are established to a reasonable enough degree for people to hand over political control to the boosters.

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2008 at 10:07am:


Well that makes some sense. Climate Science denial is obviously not science.

MY take on it has been widely mentioned..

Climate change is a natural phenomenon and has many more factors involved than just CO2.  Climate change is largely cyclical.  There will always be warming and cooling.

As for your list being bigger than mine...  honestly...    you honestly think mine was exhaustive?   

Quote:


Crap. You binrg him up about every third post. He is the only climate change 'scientist' you seema ble to refute.

Quote:


Sorry, I assumed we were talking longer term climate change - the sort people are actually concerned about. That is, changes in the average global termperature, not relative or intra-global changes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

Climate encompasses the temperatures, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorogical factors in a given region over long periods of time, as opposed to the term weather, which refers to current activity.

rotflmao...

The only absurdium happening here was fd... but now your inability to prove anything and denial of one of the most obvious truths, is making me think otherwise.

Are you trying to say the seasons aren't changes in climate?  
That we have never had warming and cooling cycles before?  

The Sun has no influence on climate?
The Earth's orbit has no influence on climate?
 Well I never thought you were deluded to the point of absolute denial till now.

All the laughing and bravado and off-hand dismissals in the world won't make you right.

Please if that's the best you can do DON"T WASTE MY TIME.

Oh and Maaaaaaaaate...  if you and fd cant see the relationship between the seasons and longer tern climate change then there's no hope for either of you.

Oh so weather has nothing to do with climate also...  hmmmm...

Seasonal changes are climate changes fd...  didn't anyone ever tell you that,
BTW I only mentioned it because of your nonsensical post anyway.

You are such a goose.

Oh and b4 you mention it I understand about regional and geographic climes which lo and behold are also affected by the Sun and the seasons and various other influences too numerous to mention in your piddly 5000 word limit.