Originally Posted by perseus

You know very well that we will never get ALL scientists to belive in anything because a few will be corrupt and take money from the fossil fuel industry to lie, such as the likes of Plimer, Singer etc. Wait of 100% and you wait forever, 97% of climate scientists is good enough for me.

Man is creating the latest surge not planetary configurations which take tens of thousands of years. Just look at the timescales

Where did you hear that temperatures have never been higher? Such a claim should be rubbished.

Just for the record, are you claiming 97% of the 'scientists' you quoted then?

'Man is creating...' . This is precisely the big question mark, it is not yet the gospel you claim; a great mass, scientists among them, are still to be convinced.

QUOTE:
'Where did you hear that temperatures have never been higher? Such a claim should be rubbished' -(unquote.)

Response - WHERE DID YOU HEAR IT????


HAPPY XMAS EVERYONE.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.
Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.

http://desmogblog.com/

Ok stupid question.........The earth warms up, the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, now won't we have more water evaporating and making more clouds, in turn making more rain?

What if we can't reverse the damage already done? What if the ones that say its a cycle the earth goes through are right? What if teh Mayans are right and we all die in 2012? what if, what if, what if.

All we can do as residents of this planet is do our best to eliminate pollution while NOT destroying out civilization. Then if we find out that we oopsed and its a planetary cycle, then we have a few different choices, my suggestion is hang on tight and get ready for the ride of century.

Ok stupid question.........The earth warms up, the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, now won't we have more water evaporating and making more clouds, in turn making more rain?

You do make a good point, it is the one genuine uncertainy in global warming and probably the only one scientists take seriously. More heat > more white clouds > more solar reflection which leads to cooler planet or at least a self regulating one.

If you look at the forcings you will see clouds are the greatest uncertainty. Look at the range on the cloud albedo bar. The few genuine climate scientists who are sceptics milk this for all its worth.




Unfortunately warmer air holds more moisture before it condenses into clouds so it is far from clear. The latest research suggests that low-level cloud cover decreases when the sea surface gets warmer. Fewer clouds mean that more sunlight reaches Earth’s surface, leading to further warming. If true that demolishes the great last hope of the Deniers, and for the rest of us for that matter since we don't want global warming to happen!

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39908

Here is a full account of the fanatic spouting of those who respond to any questioning by aligning the questioner as a holocaust denier.

This article exposes precisely what we are seeing on here from Perseus - and the reasons why it has a reverse effect as far as their cause is concerned.



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...tic-cannot-win

Perseus read and digest.

Happy Xmas everyone.

I only got this far, but the quality of the article can be judged hence (just check my last figure!).

They tell us there is one and only one cause: carbon dioxide. But suppose there are several contributory causes acting together. And they say man is the sole culprit. But could there be other reasons? Ultraviolet solar activity, which there has been for years recently?

It's so easy to win on the science against deniers, so difficult to convince those so stubborn beyond all reason.

As Monty says it is pointless to argue, but something needs to be done. Court action against the editors, or would that be self defeating?

I will leave the forum in the wicked grasp of the Denierist propaganda machine for the next 3 days!

Originally Posted by perseus

It's so easy to win on the science against deniers, so difficult to convince those so stubborn beyond all reason.

If that's the best reasoning the supporters of "science' can come up with, I think that you would have been better off not getting out of bed,... ever. Or are you just doing your best to lower people's opinions of science to new depths

That's nothing to do with science, it's just a great demonstration of your your lack of ability to accept the obvious.

Like the climate change debate, you haven't WON anything yet, except maybe to demonstrate your blind faith in other's fudged figures.

New Year 2010 alert! Del Boy needs extra blankets, first time since 1960's.

We are breaking freezing and snow records since at least 30 years. Brrr. We may touch 20 degrees below, unheard of here, I understand.

Northern Europe is doing even better, temperatures lower than any previous records in some cases.

Global warming? Don't hold your breath. Taking vitamin D to rectify lack of sun this year. Spray tan sales are booming.

Regarding the use of the word Denier read

Johann Hari: I wish that the climate change deniers were right

This is probably the best summary on climate change for the layperson I have ever seen, please read it, this is just a extract:

That's why I won't use the word "sceptic" to describe the people who deny the link between releasing warming gases and the planet getting warmer. I am a sceptic. I have looked at the evidence highly critically, desperate for flaws. The overwhelming majority of scientists are sceptics: the whole nature of scientific endeavour is to check and check and check again for a flaw in your theory or your evidence. Any properly sceptical analysis leads to the conclusion that man-made global warming is real. Denial is something different: it is when no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, could convince you. It is a faith-based position.

So let's – for the sake of argument – make an extraordinary and unjustified concession to the deniers. Let's imagine there was only a 50 per cent chance that virtually all the world's climate scientists are wrong. Would that be a risk worth taking? Are you prepared to take a 50-50 gamble on the habitability of the planet? Is the prospect of getting our energy from the wind and the waves and the sun so terrible that's not worth it on even these wildly optimistic odds?

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html#ixzz0bxUUiNPr

Originally Posted by perseus

Regarding the use of the word Denier read

Johann Hari: I wish that the climate change deniers were right

This is probably the best summary on climate change for the layperson I have ever seen, please read it.

Glad you like it. Now please allow me to direct you to the most important and relevant sentence in it :-

Denial is something different: it is when no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, could convince you. It is a faith-based position.


Nicely put - and precisely why there are NO so-called "deniers" of this issue- only sceptics and questioners.