Grendel wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:30am:

What I'm saying is that the CSIRO should not employ confusionalists.
Global warming is a proven fact there would be no need for the CSIRO to employ people who cannot grasp that reality.

Quote:

On the contrary, my belief,as you put it, is a proven fact among the great majority of science experts  THE WORLD OVER, you just choose to ignore that proof instead preferring the opinion of the loony fringe.
While I admire people questioning things they are not sure about to ignore the evidence of man made global warming is just plain stupid.

Well in science, we don't actually talk about proven facts, and although everybody says it, the term "exact science" is an oxymoron in itself.  Hardly anything is exact in the natural world.

You can speak in terms of precision and accuracy, and you can say that there is strong evidence that greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere by human activities are the main cause of contemporary global warming, and you can say that with at least a 99% certainty.

Of course, the phenomenon is not uniform, and climate  change is really only determined at 30 year intervals, so when you get a colder than average year - or even month, some people will pounce on that data.  It doesn't even have to be a scientifically valid point, just as long as they can fool a few more people.

Is that 99% a scientific figure or just a figure of speech? Or plucked out of thin atmospgeric CO2?

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 9:51am:


LOL

That questionable methods have been used to collect data in support of a particular conclusion, says nothing as to the validity of the conclusion.

There has been much debate over a small number of questionable methodologies used by the IPCC, among others (as there should be), but virtually no serious debate as to the validity of the conclusions.

Now why would that be?

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

For ****'s sake soren lorenson, must I spell everything out?

Suppose I selected a random sample of people who have borne children to test my hypothesis that only women can have babies. I subsequently formulate a conclusion that my hypothesis is correct: only women can have babies. Subsequently it is shown that my selection methodolgy was biased in favour of the selection of people with telephones.

Does it therefore follow that my conclusion is incorrect?

Think real hard.

I love it how the confusionalists always state that global warming is losing credibility, where is the proof of this? is that what Monkton said? or maybe it was Barnaby.I have seen no evidence of people changing their mind on global warming, I think the confusionalist is getting confused(lol) with people being scared by the confusionalist campaign re increasing costs of power bills, yes people are concerned that their power bills will rise as a result of global warming but the smart ones are taking action by installing solar power and the like. As a matter of fact people who live in NSW can actually earn money and wipe out their power bills if they install solar power they get a minimum return of 1370 dollars a year, so instead of being afraid of rising costs the smart ones are capitalising on it.