Only Seven Years Left for Global Warming Target

[include]

The head of the UN's Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists on Friday said only seven years remained for stabilising emissions of global-warming gases at a level widely considered safe.

Only seven years left for global warming target: UN panel chief

[prashamk]

One more Algore follower!

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by prashamk

One more Algore follower!

If you want to make your forum a denialist hangout, it will soon fail. The Denialists I know like to argue and love to lie. They obviously don't want to hang out buddy, buddy style because it's boring to them, since they have great active imaginations on trying to disprove AGW. You may have to hang around our mates of Wardengineering and Paradox. One believes in the planets influence, the other believes in the maian calender. Welcome to your new home prashank.

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by prashamk

One more Algore follower!

Now it becomes Two more...

[prashamk]

Originally Posted by Windguy

If you want to make your forum a denialist hangout, it will soon fail. The Denialists I know like to argue and love to lie. They obviously don't want to hang out buddy, buddy style because it's boring to them, since they have great active imaginations on trying to disprove AGW.

I don't have any problem if my forum dies or what ever happens to it. I have started it to spread the right knowledge. Loads of scientists have been gaged so that they can't spread their knowledge. They have been pressurised to say what they have been told. My forum is free and I don't care for any pressure. I don't want people to spend their money in unnecessary greening of their lifestyle. Carbon tax and other stunts are going to rip off people unlike anything else in past.

It doesn't mean that I am urging people to follow irresponsible lifestyle. Plastics, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, insectides, GMO and loads of other stuff are killing us or harming us in one way or another. I am against them by all means.

You may note that every truth was initially opposed vehemently and later was accepted.

[Windguy]

I guess you didn't read the links I posted in your forum either. I don't believe we need to suffer either, but it's how you lower CO2 levels not "should we??"

Otherwise we are really paying for our pollution eventually. Who is going to house 200 million people by the end of this century?? If what you believe in is wrong.

YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever...

Just have a look.

[spadlet]

I'm curious about what (I think it was Richard) said in response to that video last time it was posted. What about if we invest loads of resources in recuding CO2 emissions, then find out that wasn't the major cause after all? The video assumes that either AGW is causing climate change or climate change doesn't exist. What if climate change does exist, people need to adapt to survive it, it isn't due to anthropogenic global warming and we use up a load of our resources reducing carbon emissions?

The whole debate seems to be polarising rather than encouraging scientific debate and learning. Can a person not question a scientific theory without being labelled a 'denialist' and insulted? If the evidence is for AGW and there is none against then logically questioning evidence should reach the conclusion that AGW is the cause. The person has learnt something and people have had an oppotuinty to reaffirm their position. If new evidence comes to light, should it not be considered along with the previous evidence?

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by spadlet

I'm curious about what (I think it was Richard) said in response to that video last time it was posted. What about if we invest loads of resources in recuding CO2 emissions, then find out that wasn't the major cause after all? The video assumes that either AGW is causing climate change or climate change doesn't exist. What if climate change does exist, people need to adapt to survive it, it isn't due to anthropogenic global warming and we use up a load of our resources reducing carbon emissions?

The whole debate seems to be polarising rather than encouraging scientific debate and learning. Can a person not question a scientific theory without being labelled a 'denialist' and insulted? If the evidence is for AGW and there is none against then logically questioning evidence should reach the conclusion that AGW is the cause. The person has learnt something and people have had an oppotuinty to reaffirm their position. If new evidence comes to light, should it not be considered along with the previous evidence?

if we find out that CO2 emissions weren't the cause of warming it means that our understanding of the basics of physics and chemistry are wrong. I understand that you think everyones opinion is valid, but thats not true.

An anecdote to illustrate my point; My knee started hurting, I got a lot of advice off of people saying what it could be. A friend even said that doctors don't know what they are doing and advised sleeping with a crystal by my knee! Looking into it myself there were 5 or 6 conditions that could have fitted the symptoms. In the end however it was the orthopedic specialists advice that I took and my knee started to improve. Ive given up running and taken up cycling. Other people had opinions but in the end its usually best to listen to people that know what they are doing.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by spot1234

Other people had opinions but in the end its usually best to listen to people that know what they are doing.

So what do you do when the scientists don't all agree? Especially when people don't defend their work when it is criticised or make the data they are using public?

I'm not neccessarily saying the AGW isn't causing climate change but I think there is begining to be evidence for questioning whether it will make that much of a difference spending all of our itme concentrating on CO2 emissions rather than other issues, such as the effects of urbanisation. If peole supress and questioning then the issue becomes a religion, where you have to 'believe' rather than a science in which people try to increase their knowledge of meteorology, the metrology used to collect data and the computer programming used to model it. Oh and the statistical methodologies used in their analysis.

Personally I would be much happier if the IPCC produced reports detailing the assumptions and calculations used in their modelling along with the input data. Otherwise, how can a person defend their agreement with AGW properly?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by spadlet

Otherwise, how can a person defend their agreement with AGW properly?

You can't. GW is valid or CC if you prefer but putting that A in front was an act of arrogance by a political body ,not a scientific one.Thank the lord that Gore et al do not practice as doctors.