No more global warming?

[InsaneApache]

It pains me that I have to actually point this out.

So, you agree, the writer was wrong then?

(It's called a start. You befriend them, put a arm around their shoulder, then hold a mirror up to the face)

[Beskar]

So, you agree, the writer was wrong then?

No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.

[InsaneApache]

No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.

Hang on a minute. According to the 'climologists' the science is settled. So which is it?

[LittleGrizzly]

I don't know if you read the article but it seemed to be a theory of one of the effects climate change could have and the potential acceleration it could cause, an unvalidated thoery which is an addition to exsisting thought on the matter is of no consequence to the original matter...

For example if i had a theory on a side effect of gravity which was not yet validated that would not make a difference to the validity of gravity, gravity is fully validated it is my new theory which is yet to be approved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know if you read the article but it seemed to be a theory of one of the effects climate change could have and the potential acceleration it could cause, an unvalidated thoery which is an addition to exsisting thought on the matter is of no consequence to the original matter...

For example if i had a theory on a side effect of gravity which was not yet validated that would not make a difference to the validity of gravity, gravity is fully validated it is my new theory which is yet to be approved.

I did read the article, and I recognise the theory as something that has been mooted for several years. The problem is that although it makes a reasonable amount of sense the theory is, like the rest of the climate change hypothesis, incomplete; it lacks experimental data. What we see with the whole thing, again and again, is a constant modifiction of the theory as new conceptsd are bolted on, or the planet's failure to perform as expected has to be taken into account. There's nothing to say that, for example, a rapid warming will not trigger another process that causes rapid cooling.

Honestly, if the science really was closed then the developed world would be working a lot harder at this, and they would be enforcing change on the developing world. Right now the inaction of countries due to an insufficient feeling of urgency is the greatest argument against the whole edifice.

I mean, look at what the author is saying; in the next 2 years the breadbaskets (most of which are in the developed world) will litterally burn up to dust. That won't happen, because if it did get that hot then the relevent governments would intervene and irrugate the land to prevent complete destruction.

[Furunculus]

i don't know that paper is descibing the theory as brand new, i have a distinct memory of talking with my boss about the feedback loop from methane release of warming permafrost all the way back in 2005!

we did run an envirmental company tho.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, he said it wasn't validated yet, which means it is in that terrority of "we don't know" the merits of that theory yet.

4.5 million dead would be a good thing for the planet though, wouldn't it? If you're a Gaiaist surely this is just mother nature bitch-slapping hummanity back down to a reasonable population size.

2 years is absurd, even assuming systemic collapse of global society and economy people will persit in larger numbers longer than that.

Interestingly, the Climate Change lobby has been very seriously hurt by A: the attack of science on religion and philosophy and B: the recent scandals of scientists "sexing" up their data because they feel they need to scare the general populace into complience. "climate Change" is now being lumped in with "moral reletivism" as well as "militant atheism" and "multiculturalism".

Bluntly, the physical scientists would probably be getting more traction if men like Dawkins had confined themselves to useful research instead of populist rubbish, and we might all suffer as a result.

The fact is, it's quite clear that the scientists aren't really sure what's going on, but instead of trying to present the ecological and economic case for renewable energy and sustainabl development, not to mention the moral case on which they are silent, they resort to absurd scare tactics that cause them to be generally ignored.

[Subotan]

Hang on a minute. According to the 'climologists' the science is settled. So which is it?

There is a consensus that human activity is warming the planet, and we have some pretty good ideas by how much, but that doesn't mean that climatologists shut themselves off from all new theories which may add to that.

4.5 million dead would be a good thing for the planet though, wouldn't it? If you're a Gaiaist surely this is just mother nature bitch-slapping hummanity back down to a reasonable population size.

I couldn't care less about the natural world. The sodding polar bears can drown for all I care. I care about people.

[Fragony]

People in the artic regions do care about polar bears, there are too many of them they are a serious problem. These wooly buggers are thriving, almost trippled in population since the fifties. Good news no? Waving not drowning.

[Subotan]

Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?

[Fragony]

Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?

That the symbol that is drowning fluffies is just useless as the rest of the settled science. Polar bears are bouncing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Dinosaurs probably more than tripled in population from 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. What's your point?

What's yours? An asteroid wiped out the Dinosaurs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I couldn't care less about the natural world. The sodding polar bears can drown for all I care. I care about people.

That is exactly the attitude that has caused the problem to begin with!

If people cared about the planet then we would already be doing everything needful to stop global warming, even if we didn't believe in it. The failure of the ideaology of human stewardship has caused every major ecological disaster. Consider, for example, the recent oil spill and the decidedly lacklustre response.

[Subotan]

"Pack of lies" seems disproportionate.

[Furunculus]

i think it is quite appropriate for the following statements:

1. The science is settled
2. It was agreed by the 'consensus' of scientific opinion
3. It was achieved using the highest standards of peer reviewed science

[Fragony]

"Pack of lies" seems disproportionate.

Don't you know it huh.

@Beskar, not forgetting anything, they used to melt and now they don't. Polar bears aren't any less perfectly fine. As a symbol it's useless.