------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Does man play into this? Certainly. Is it clear cut? As much as anything is ever going to be.

That's simply not true.

Man is singled out because these other processes have not been ignored, it is because they have been analysed as culprits and discarded.

Like the models, the science has been tweaked to support the theory. It hangs by a thread. Sorry. The forcings I mentioned have been underestimated and 'discarded' (if you will) prematurely. They are being reinserted into the deck as we speak and they are going to reshape the dynamic of this debate.

The scientific community is self regulating, it is formed from people with wide ranging views. However if it was allowed to degrade into farce the profession would lose its value, it is in the interests of the science community to ensure the highest possible standards in research and publishing and it does this through peer review and other such processes. Individual scientists may be willing to go to great lengths but no true science is independant of the scientific community and the scientific community as a whole has a great reason and desire to maintain integrity and for this reason it does.

This is a debate for another forum. Science is heavily influenced by politics and at the moment it is UGLY. This to will change and the bad apples will be thrown to the wolves. Discovery will prevail in the end. It always does.

~Paradox

[Patred_Cow]

Lol, my comments were far less rude and far more justified than your own. I have made the same points time and again in response to your posts and you continually ignore evidence and intelligently written prose so I have come to the conclusion that it isn't really worth trying to talk sensibly to you because you refuse to apply logic to anything which may challenge your current beliefs and it is quite exasperating. I have tried explaining the science and you will not accept it yet you continue to ask for more of it. What's the point?

[Patred_Cow]

One continent warms while the other cools?

Poor show there. That's regional not global warming, pretty obvious.

[Patred_Cow]

This is a debate for another forum. Science is heavily influenced by politics and at the moment it is UGLY. This to will change and the bad apples will be thrown to the wolves. Discovery will prevail in the end. It always does.

Why do you debate a scientific topic when you don't feel you can trust science. it'd just be relying on peoples idle musings. The dinosaur flatulance camp should be here, adrianem will be around with his naval war theory again soon I don't doubt.

[Patred_Cow]

Unlike you, I am not convinced by the GW evidence and the mantra doesn't do it for me either.

I believe the evidence is compelling and that it would be incredibly stupid to risk disregarding it. I am open to well researched and supported evidence which dispels anthropogenic GHG's as a cause. It doesn't exist at the moment. It may never.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Simple

Therefore for your theory to hold you have to explain the rate of whats happening now, why we warming when we should be cooling and why it hasn't occured before despite all the natural forcings always having been present as they must have been, even if we haven't discovered them they were there.

Come on Simple.... We don't know if we're warming or cooling...or both. regionally we are experiencing extremes but chaos does not support your view.

I see a good correlation between past events and natural forcings as you do, its jsut this current event goes beyond anything seen, it is unprecedented as the rise in GHG gases and that is why it seems to make sense.

Simple, past civilizations were destroyed by sea-level rise and climate chaos. While you are one of the best advocates for anthropogenic GW I have encountered you still operate on a level of faith that (quite frankly) isn't acceptable to me. I'll take a 90% probability and run with it but this is 20-30% at that. It's a sham. Sorry, but that is what I think. We must forge ahead on other fronts, this is waste of time and resource.

So can you make sense of the current observations, i.e. the rate of rise of temperature globally from natural forcing when then haven't combined to cause such an event before cos this is where i get stuck, and were CO2 gives a simple cause and effect.

Our interpretations of past events are not precise. This is important. What we are experiencing probably has happened before. My friend, we are dealing with nature...this may just be a rare event.

Hopefully I am wrong and there is a silver bullet solution. I just don't see it.

~Paradox

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

I have tried explaining the science and you will not accept it yet you continue to ask for more of it. What's the point?

P.C.,

Sorry, I don't recall having any exchange with you worth noting until today. To answer you question: based on your inability to drop your defenses and address my points I don't see one.

[Patred_Cow]

The media propagates your rather boring canned rhetoric Patred Cow...complete with aligning opposing viewpoints to George Bush (original BTW - Bravo!). Nobody expects a 100% unifying theory but the current GW theory has too many holes and is losing ground every day. It is not the answer...and it may take a couple years for this to be accepted as fact but you mark my words...it will.

This smacks of desperation. You find the facts about global warming boring. Is this why you attempt to turn it into science fiction? Every theory has holes, it's only a theory but the basics are undeniable they were observed far before the theory was formulated. It's gaining ground every day as we further force the trend and as new research expands upon its general principles. It is an evolving theory but it is far superior to any other that has been suggested. Most of all this theory actually makes sense. My rather boring canned rhetoric is my own interpretation of the scientific literature. I have very little exposure to mass media thesedays, I don't have the time and I can't afford it. I have a lot of exposure to science and scientific innovation. If my rhetoric is too boring for you I could perhaps try illustrating it with pictures of large balls of gas to keep your attention, you seem to like those. Would that help?

[Patred_Cow]

P.C.,

Sorry, I don't recall having any exchange with you worth noting until today. To answer you question: based on your inability to drop your defenses and address my points I don't see one.

It would seem a lot has been fitted into a single day then wouldn't it? I have had some interaction with you on other threads I believe. The trend was very much along these lines. I keep adressing your points and you keep making the same ones, the only action on my behalf which you would believe to be dropping my defences would be to reject my views and accept your own. Mine are supported by hard science. You do not need to agree with me but I would appreciate it if your arguments against my views were reasonable and based on something truly tangible.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Why do you debate a scientific topic when you don't feel you can trust science. it'd just be relying on peoples idle musings. The dinosaur flatulance camp should be here, adrianem will be around with his naval war theory again soon I don't doubt.

The decision to question the integrity of the scientific establishment was a difficult one. This has nothing to do with trusting science.