Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Well not much we can do about that, eh? So should we even bother?
Of course we should. Best to look to what we can do rather than what we could have done. The latter is totally pointless.
---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------
Well, it doesn’t. Scientists tend to prat out any old nonsense these days without the scrutiny that these things once had. The number of times they have come out with stuff they’ve later had to retract, such as ‘we’re going into an ice age’ and ‘don’t eat butter, it’s bad for you’, etc, etc, it’s no wonder people are studying these pronouncements more carefully.
Imagine if, after spending trillions of pounds on reducing carbon they find that the temperature keeps on increasing because warming is down to other factors. I suppose we’d never get to find out because the truth will be hidden due to the fact that it is a major embarrassment for politicians everywhere.
---------- Post added at 14:15 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------
That’s not a fair comment. Many people, including myself, became sceptical due to a number of instances where the scientists deliberately set out to mislead (eg the hockey stick graph, the temperature reading manipulations, etc).
We do not know for sure whether we are still experiencing a natural warming phenomenon due to variations in the distance of the Earth from the sun, recovery from the mini-ice age which may have been put back by industrial pollution, etc. It still seems pretty remarkable that only 0.04% of the atmosphere has absorbed carbon despite the incredible volume of emissions for which we are responsible, and it is not lost on sceptics that scientists prefer to record any increase as ppm - parts per million - to big up the figures.
I am happy to go along with all this now because I am anti-pollution, but I still remain to be convinced about carbon being the cause of the warming problem.
I am happy to be convinced otherwise, but I have not heard any convincing arguments to persuade me otherwise. My scepticism has nothing at all to do with the politics - it is all about the science.
|
You do talk round things - science papers are peer-reviewed and challenged all the time.
The science changes because things are challenged, and more things are discovered/learnt about the matter in hand - it's how scientific progress occurs, and why we still don't have valve radios; people didn't accept the status quo.
---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
We were at 1min to mid-night 40yrs ago, I suspect in another 40yrs we’ll still be at 1min to mid-night, and Greta will still be knocking about on her soapbox
|
And if not, it will be our childrens and grandchildrens' problem, so why should we care*?
The one minute to midnight 40 years ago was about nuclear war (and actually, it was 7 minutes to midnight), but don't let facts spoil your diatribe...
(*for the avoidance of any doubt, the <
sarcasm> mode was on...)