Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

I accept that it's not a massive issue alone but doesn't it cast some doubt on the whole thing? It displays an attitude that is very revealing. IMO that of "If it goes along with what we believe it's going in regardless of provenance"

 

No I don't think that at all. They wouldn't be making the change if that is what they thought.

[Digsy]

It means I don't think it is a big issue in its context. A context where it is just 2 lines in a non-scientific part of a report that in total exceeds a thousand pages, and that is corrected when it is shown to be inaccurate.

 

If only there was the same integrity amongst critics of climate change.

 

Can I ask 1 question, without it appearing to have entered either the pro or con camp.

 

But why do you keep referring to a report that exceeds a thousand pages, as if the rest of the report other than the 2 lines proven inaccurate is in some way biblical.

I say biblical because it is going to take an awful amount of faith and trust from anyone to believe anything that anyone prints without actually checking these facts for themselves.

[retep]

They being a person that has written a book called "The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so)."

 

Which doesn't actually include any deniers.

 

The only fraud he exposes is himself....

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/lawrence-solomons-deniers-carefully-calculated-lie-still-lie

 

They meaning the BBC, are you on some kind of medication.

[barny_100]

No I don't think that at all. They wouldn't be making the change if that is what they thought.

 

Come off it, they've been rumbled so absolutely on such a specific thing that they have to change it.

 

The bigger issue is when similar things among the thousands of pages are so mired in complexity it's more more difficult to conclusively say "That is wrong and should be struck out and I can prove that with this fact that I can verify".

 

Bad science being hidden through obscurity.

[Wildcat]

Can I ask 1 question, without it appearing to have entered either the pro or con camp.

 

But why do you keep referring to a report that exceeds a thousand pages, as if the rest of the report other than the 2 lines proven inaccurate is in some way biblical.

I say biblical because it is going to take an awful amount of faith and trust from anyone to believe anything that anyone prints without actually checking these facts for themselves.

 

To put in context the mistake. Various commentators have described the mistake as central, when in context clearly it is not.

 

I don't accept your biblical analogy. Do you need to understand brain surgey or rocket science to trust the experts?

[Wildcat]

Come off it, they've been rumbled so absolutely on such a specific thing that they have to change it.

 

The bigger issue is when similar things among the thousands of pages are so mired in complexity it's more more difficult to conclusively say "That is wrong and should be struck out and I can prove that with this fact that I can verify".

 

Bad science being hidden through obscurity.

 

The "bad science" is openly discussed on the internet. You can if you read this thread read numerous links from sites come to your own conclusions should you wish. If you do as I have done you will come to the same conclusion as me, that in each and every case on the main fundamental points there is no disputing the consensus opinion. The deniers camp, despite its popularity is composed of a no more than a handful of qualified people with viewpoints that are thoroughly and transparently refuted by the research and the evidence.

[Wildcat]

They meaning the BBC, are you on some kind of medication.

 

The BBC aren't the ones using a quote from Paul Hudson about the Met having a warming bias, when subsequent evidence has shown their dataset has a cooling bias.

 

If the BBC was your intention with they, then it made no sense.

 

My apologies for trying to extract any sense from your words.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Wildcat

[Digsy]

I don't accept your biblical analogy. Do you need to understand brain surgey or rocket science to trust the experts?

 

If I had a condition that required brain surgery, then yes I'd be researching the cause and effect of any surgery to be done and weighed up against the alternative, I'd also be looking for people that have and haven't had the surgery and making comparisons upon which I'd make my decisions.

Would I want to learn enough rocket science to know the shuttle/craft I'd be trusting my life in to be safe, yes, although you would never catch me in a space shuttle, period so I have no need to trust a rocket scientist, leave that to the astronauts.

 

Do I trust the scientists, gwa's, cca's enough to ensure that my children, grandchildren, and future generations pay for their enthusiasm.

 

No, until, if ever I decide to hunt down all the data and work it out for myself.

Does that mean that the rest of the planet should be like me.

No, do as you please.

[retep]

The BBC aren't the ones using a quote from Paul Hudson about the Met having a warming bias, when subsequent evidence has shown their dataset has a cooling bias.

 

If the BBC was your intention with they, then it made no sense.

 

My apologies for trying to extract any sense from your words.

 

Would you go to a bad sandwich shop twice.

[Wildcat]

If I had a condition that required brain surgery, then yes I'd be researching the cause and effect of any surgery to be done and weighed up against the alternative, I'd also be looking for people that have and haven't had the surgery and making comparisons upon which I'd make my decisions.

Would I want to learn enough rocket science to know the shuttle/craft I'd be trusting my life in to be safe, yes, although you would never catch me in a space shuttle, period so I have no need to trust a rocket scientist, leave that to the astronauts.

 

Do I trust the scientists, gwa's, cca's enough to ensure that my children, grandchildren, and future generations pay for their enthusiasm.

 

No, until, if ever I decide to hunt down all the data and work it out for myself.

Does that mean that the rest of the planet should be like me.

No, do as you please.

 

That is all fair enough, but ultimately you are still having to make judgments based upon informed trust.

 

Which makes your stance on global warming different from the other two scenarios.

 

You can research and should look in to the various arguments and debates, check the validity of the sources. You don't however need a PhD to have an informed opinion. When you do do your research, you will find that there is no substance to the deniers case and there is a consensus of opinion for good reason. CO2 emissions are the only explanation for recent temperature rises. In particular the only explanation for the rise in temperature of the troposphere whilst there is a cooling of the stratosphere, the hallmark of the greenhouse effect.