Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[top4718]

There was never a consensus on cooling:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

 

How very convenient, the wonders of hindsight.

 

It was widely believed enough to be debated in schools at the time.

 

I am not disputing that global warming MAY be happening but I think the fact that it is man made is nonsense.

 

If carbon didnt exist would the temperature and climate of the earth stay constant forever, of course it wouldnt.

 

How is raising taxes going to stop this.

[Wildcat]

How very convenient, the wonders of hindsight.

 

It was widely believed enough to be debated in schools at the time.

 

I am not disputing that global warming MAY be happening but I think the fact that it is man made is nonsense.

 

If carbon didnt exist would the temperature and climate of the earth stay constant forever, of course it wouldnt.

 

How is raising taxes going to stop this.

 

Only the Greenhouse effect explains why the Stratosphere is cooling whilst the Troposphere is warming:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/22/_Sf_UIQYc20

 

it makes perfect sense to use taxation to disincentivise behaviour that is bad for society, and it also makes sense to use that money to mitigate against the damage the activity causes.

[cgksheff]

Yes, I do know that. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim including a consensus amongst the experts in the subject.

 

Do you believe that it is important to persuade 'sceptics' to think otherwise?

 

I guess that the answer to that is 'yes'.

 

In order to show how much you believe in the evidence, would you be prepared to put £5,000 along with a cynic into an investment account that was controlled by conditions to allow it to be accessed in 20 years time?

Those conditions would involve comparative (to today) levels of human generated CO2 and comparative atmospheric temperatures.

 

If temperature failed to rise significantly despite significant reductions in man-made CO2, the cynics get the pot and vice-versa.

 

Can our majority of climate experts in the world be persuaded to do likewise along with 'partner cynics'?

 

In a flash, you could persuade millions to strengthen their acceptance of the theory and put more effort into CO2 reduction.

 

... or is that expecting too much?

[Wildcat]

Do you believe that it is important to persuade 'sceptics' to think otherwise?

 

I guess that the answer to that is 'yes'.

 

In order to show how much you believe in the evidence, would you be prepared to put £5,000 along with a cynic into an investment account that was controlled by conditions to allow it to be accessed in 20 years time?

Those conditions would involve comparative (to today) levels of human generated CO2 and comparative atmospheric temperatures.

 

If temperature failed to rise significantly despite significant reductions in man-made CO2, the cynics get the pot and vice-versa.

 

Can our majority of climate experts in the world be persuaded to do likewise along with 'partner cynics'?

 

In a flash, you could persuade millions to strengthen their acceptance of the theory and put more effort into CO2 reduction.

 

... or is that expecting too much?

 

Alternatively you could just ask which sceptics are prepared to invest their money in real estate along the coastline of bangladesh.... I doubt you would find many foolish enough to put their money where their mouth is.

[Cyclone]

Sea rises can only come from AGW then, not from natural climate changes that an AGW sceptic might accept are happening?

Or were you just trying to blur the issue?

[Wildcat]

Sea rises can only come from AGW then, not from natural climate changes that an AGW sceptic might accept are happening?

Or were you just trying to blur the issue?

 

cgksheff seemed to be proposing testing AGW with temperature increases, for which sea level rise is a fairly straight forward proxy.

 

cgksheff's proposal is ridiculous and a blurring of the issue anyway. The bet proposed however would be a safe one to make.

Edited December 30, 2009 by Wildcat

[Cyclone]

Sea level changes are a proxy for temperature changes, but temperature changes aren't a proxy for AGW, just for GW. A sceptic could be entirely correct (that CO2 is having little effect on the temperature), but GW could still take place.

[Wildcat]

Sea level changes are a proxy for temperature changes, but temperature changes aren't a proxy for AGW, just for GW. A sceptic could be entirely correct (that CO2 is having little effect on the temperature), but GW could still take place.

 

Which makes cgksheff's proposal pointless.

[Cyclone]

Indeed, if the climate does change it's going to be quite difficult to figure out whether we had anything to do with it or not.

If the AGW supporters get there way, and we cut CO2, and it still changes, I suppose that will prove them wrong though, after we've wasted trillions of pounds.

[cgksheff]

cgksheff seemed to be proposing testing AGW with temperature increases, for which sea level rise is a fairly straight forward proxy.

 

cgksheff's proposal is ridiculous and a blurring of the issue anyway. The bet proposed however would be a safe one to make.

 

Talk about blurring. Eh?

 

You made the statement:

 

..........

Cutting carbon emissions will reduce the rate of temperature increase, ...........

 

Not proxies etc. ... temperature.

 

.. and went on to confirm that you knew this for a fact.

Edited December 30, 2009 by cgksheff