Climate change,Fact or fiction ?

[Fareham Grecian]

About 2 totally different things, that include facts.. Does it really matter who put hand to the keyboard if they're righting facts?

Do you mean 'writing'? It's hard to debate with you when you are functionally illiterate.

 

[newburygrecian]

Depends where he's getting his "facts" from. Have a look in the comments on the second article.

 

[Mass_Debator]

One other thing about the majority being right - the majority thought the earth flat once, they also thought the earth to be the centre of the universe. Just because the majority says it's so don't necessarily make it so, especially if you look a little more closely at who's funding the research.

The majority of research is funded by research councils, which are funded by central governments. Why would central government's want climate change to be true - dealing with it is going to be a massive pain in the ars* for them and is causing them lots of grief.

The majority of people who thought the earth was flat weren't scientists, and they didn't have access to any real data apart from guesswork. No at valid comparison.

In terms of getting a new anti-hero - we have muslim extremists, we don't need climate change.

'What about the 10000s of years before climate records' - don't you think scientists have taken them into account? Do you think they just forgot about them?

With the 'east anglia e-mail scandal', the investigation later revealed that the meddling with data was just to make a graph more understandable in a presentation, and the basic science was still sound. Of course the climate deniers decided to ignore that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/12/climategate-debunking-get_n_642980.html

In terms of quoting articles from random crackpots on the internet, there are plenty of conspiracy nuts on the internet, there are people who claim the royal family are lizards, there are people who claim 9/11 was a zionist conspiracy, there are people who claim that Argyle are a big club - it doesn't mean you have to accept what they say uncritically.

If there's some sort of scientific conspiracy, why is it only involving climate change? Why aren't scientists making up all sorts of threats to con people out of research funding. The reason is that when a phony threat (whether created maliciously, or by accident) does gets published, in reality it gets tested and rejected by the scientific community reasonably quickly (see the MMR scandal,blown out of proportion by the media and some politicians, but quickly rejected by the majority of scientists).

 

[Anonymous]

CTRL + F "ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION" NOT FOUND!

Oil industry stooge here. Speaking with my professional geoscience hat on, there is more than enough evidence now to definitively say that anthropogenic effects have a noticeable impact on our ecosystems and climate. End of discussion. No offence but I don't think many of you, if any, are qualified or knowledgeable enough about the topic to have any meaningful debate of the subject. It would be akin to me starting a debate on the higgs-boson. i.e. not worth the e-paper it's written on.

That is all.

 

[ECFC traveller]

CTRL + F "ISOTOPE FRACTIONATION" NOT FOUND!

Oil industry stooge here. Speaking with my professional geoscience hat on, there is more than enough evidence now to definitively say that anthropogenic effects have a noticeable impact on our ecosystems and climate. End of discussion. No offence but I don't think many of you, if any, are qualified or knowledgeable enough about the topic to have any meaningful debate of the subject. It would be akin to me starting a debate on the higgs-boson. i.e. not worth the e-paper it's written on.

That is all.

Just because we're not in the industry doesn't mean we don't know anything about it, I.E you and football, you've never played for a team but I bet you know Tisdale is crap and should be sacked.

 

[Mouth of the Exe]

especially if you look a little more closely at who's funding the research.

Erm...the research demonstrating climate change is independently funded. All the research is subject to peer review. This is the same process of science that makes all the gizmos we rely on every day more or less reliable.

By contrast, the climate change deniers are funded by the same right wing groups that funded the deniers of the link between smoking and cancer. The deniers are not scientists. No reputable scientist in the world either denies climate change or that it is caused by humanity. Why would you doubt science on this, but on nothing rs?

The nonsense that is peddled in the right wing press in the UK is just that - nonsense.

 

[Anonymous]

Well 4/10 for the wind-up but trust me, you know absolutely nothing about geoscience. I know basically nothing about it and I work in the god damn field.

There is a MASSIVE difference between knowing something about a subject and having an opinion on it. Hopefully you will begin to understand this over time.

 

[ECFC traveller]

The majority of research is funded by research councils, which are funded by central governments. Why would central government's want climate change to be true - dealing with it is going to be a massive pain in the ars* for them and is causing them lots of grief.

The majority of people who thought the earth was flat weren't scientists, and they didn't have access to any real data apart from guesswork. No at valid comparison.

In terms of getting a new anti-hero - we have muslim extremists, we don't need climate change.

'What about the 10000s of years before climate records' - don't you think scientists have taken them into account? Do you think they just forgot about them?
).

You're right, they weren't scientists, they were geologists, which is pretty much the same in comparison.

as for the equipment. Have we really got good equipment? I bet in a few 100's years people will laugh on the equipment we are using.. Just like what you're doing to them saying they have no real data..

Scientists can take it into account, but they never will know truly what it was if records weren't taken before hand...

It's just guess work from them, just like the geologists thinking the word was flat..

 

[ECFC traveller]

Well 4/10 for the wind-up but trust me, you know absolutely nothing about geoscience. I know basically nothing about it and I work in the god damn field.

There is a MASSIVE difference between knowing something about a subject and having an opinion on it. Hopefully you will begin to understand this over time.

Maybe you're right, but I will have an opinion on it no matter, I can't stop that cam I? and I can only read into it what I can and with the sources I know..

 

[Swanaldo]

climate change deniers

Am I the only one who looks at this and thinks of tights?