Originally Posted by senojekips

Which academic circles do you mean, the one that you personally agree with, or those ignorant fringe academics, that have found evidence that does not support your beliefs?

My beliefs are supported by the weight of several stands of mainstream independent evidence, rather than some obscure anomaly or uncertainty here or there that is often thrown up in any sort of analysis and blown out of all proportion.

To see how silly this is compare it with the so called 'Lunar landing conspiracy'. There are about 20 different pieces of 'evidence' supported by ex space employees, audiovisual technology experts and nuclear engineers which look vaguely credible at first sight that turn out to be complete nonsense on further analysis. It proves that it is always possible to drag up 'evidence' supported by a few fringe 'nuts'.

Such sceptics will never accept even something as obvious as this because they are ideologically committed and cannot be disproven. Even if you took one of these guys to the moon and said here is the lunar module, they would just say it has been planted after the claimed event. In the same way GW can just carry on and they will just find a similar excuse, enough to cast sufficient doubt to the uninitiated and drag on the 'if' debate because they don't want to pay any green 'taxes'.

The time has come to kill any 'if' and move on to the 'how much' and 'how do we cope' debate, because there will never be enough evidence to convince everyone, even if they are neck deep in water. It is just being used an excuse for inaction, and there isn't any time to keep on debating nonsense. The lunar landing is harmless, GW isn't.

Ahhh your "beliefs",.. which of course are always correct, and the evidence of those who oppose your beliefs is always wrong,... believe it or not I've heard all this before somewhere.

The lunar landing conspiracies,... Yep, I have my view, but I don't try to use my views on the matter to panic the community into spending, or forfeiting billions of dollars, based on those beliefs. No comparison I'm afraid.

To kill any "if" you will need some proof that GW is man made or at lease influenced on a level that will have an effect. It has been pointed out several times in this debate that man's input into the equation is miniscule beyond belief, so even if we could encourage the other countries of the world to minimise their carbon footprint (I just love them buzzwords) It would have virtually no effect whatsoever.

What are the "experts" going to blame then?

Besides if they belived the nonsense they were spilling, why wouldn't they do what they suggest everyone else do?

Originally Posted by senojekips

Ahhh your "beliefs",.. which of course are always correct, and the evidence of those who oppose your beliefs is always wrong,... believe it or not I've heard all this before somewhere.

The lunar landing conspiracies,... Yep, I have my view, but I don't try to use my views on the matter to panic the community into spending, or forfeiting billions of dollars, based on those beliefs. No comparison I'm afraid.

To kill any "if" you will need some proof that GW is man made or at lease influenced on a level that will have an effect. It has been pointed out several times in this debate that man's input into the equation is miniscule beyond belief, so even if we could encourage the other countries of the world to minimise their carbon footprint (I just love them buzzwords) It would have virtually no effect whatsoever.

What are the "experts" going to blame then?

I think to a large degree Perseus still thinks he is dealing with people who's opinions are capable of change, I happen to agree with him but detected long ago that your response was always going to be "I will change my mind when I see proof however I am not going to accept anything as proof outside what I already believe". So in this case continued discussion is an exercise in futility.

Well Monty, it seems that you too have made up your mind in this regard, to discredit those whose point of view on a subject does not sit neatly in your pigeon hole. The fact that no proof has ever been shown nor even claimed by the "experts" is of no consequence.

I refuse to jump one way or the other until I see something better than theories. I'm sorry if that displeases you, but caution has served me well all my life and I don't see myself changing now.

On a subject such as this, "Experts" are a dime a dozen and from what I see so far, they are enormously over priced.

Originally Posted by senojekips

On a subject such as this, "Experts" are a dime a dozen and from what I see so far, they are enormously over priced.

I agree.
Over here it's like if you don't believe in the whole Mad Cow thing, you've been bought by the corporations, the United States or you're a traitor or etc. etc. none of it any good. I sat it out, looked at the evidence and it is apparently really bullsh*t. Boy am I glad I didn't go outside with those candles and stuff.
Like I said, I used to REALLY believe this stuff. But the more I dig into it, the less certain it is. It's far less certain than what people try to tell you.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Well Monty, it seems that you too have made up your mind in this regard, to discredit those whose point of view on a subject does not sit neatly in your pigeon hole. The fact that no proof has ever been shown nor even claimed by the "experts" is of no consequence.

I refuse to jump one way or the other until I see something better than theories. I'm sorry if that displeases you, but caution has served me well all my life and I don't see myself changing now.

On a subject such as this, "Experts" are a dime a dozen and from what I see so far, they are enormously over priced.

I have always been of the opinion that given mans interaction with his environment it is unlikely that he has no effect on it and I have stated this at least twice on this forum and once in this thread.

What I do not know is how big of an effect man has had ie: it could be 0.01% or 100% that much I do not know nor claim to know.

I however see no point in arguing with a mindset that says I will change my opinion when I see proof however I do not believe the proof that I have received, there is nothing I can give you on this forum that will change your opinion because this argument is deeper and more complex that a one page blog document.

All I can suggest is read things like the works of Luis and Walter Alvarez and see how their models function and what they refer to, look at the work of Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Arvid Högbom and Guy Stewart Callendar and you will then be able to see why this argument is frustrating.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I have always been of the opinion that given mans interaction with his environment it is unlikely that he has no effect on it and I have stated this at least twice on this forum and once in this thread.

What I do not know is how big of an effect man has had ie: it could be 0.01% or 100% that much I do not know nor claim to know.

I however see no point in arguing with a mindset that says I will change my opinion when I see proof

By this, do you mean that you would change your mind without proof?

however I do not believe the proof that I have received,

That is because I have seen no "proof", just a collection of theories.

there is nothing I can give you on this forum that will change your opinion because this argument is deeper and more complex that a one page blog document.

Quite correct, as my opinions are the result of a lifetime of personal experience, hardly something I would change on the evidence that could be given here. I'm just not that fickle I'm afraid.

All I can suggest is read things like the works of Luis and Walter Alvarez and see how their models function and what they refer to, look at the work of Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Arvid Högbom and Guy Stewart Callendar and you will then be able to see why this argument is frustrating.

It seems you are impressed by names, just bear in mind that they are just blokes who pull their pants on one leg at a time. I don't know anything of them, or their possible motives. You must be prepared to look at the whole picture if you are going to go out on a limb with someone else's theories.

Originally Posted by senojekips

It seems you are impressed by names, just bear in mind that they are just blokes who pull their pants on one leg at a time. I don't know anything of them, or their possible motives. You must be prepared to look at the whole picture if you are going to go out on a limb with someone else's theories.

You know the reason I chose those names is that they are scientists from various fields (mathematicians and engineers to paleontologists) who's work is spread out over a period of about 180 years and not one of them was specifically working on Global Warming and yet every one of them has contributed something to the reason I hold the views I have.

So while they may be just "blokes" who pull their pants on one leg at a time their work has be tested, cross checked and proven again by countless other blokes who also pull their pants up one leg at a time and has not been found wanting, so please forgive me if I don't place my confidence in the last guys blog I read.

In the if I am proven wrong then at the very worst we have wasted billions of dollars and ended up with cleaner environment and a few million people without respiratory complaints if you are wrong we have huge problems so I will continue to err on the side of caution in this argument.

It looks to me like my intuition was right again, Names, names and more names,.. none of which by your own admission had anything to do with the question at hand.

Reading and believing the work of someone who in the fullness of time has been judged as successful in their own field, has absolutely no bearing on the hundreds of different theories being peddled by all and sundry at the moment. Not all work is perhaps of the calibre of those you have quoted, (not that I have ever heard of any of them) and we must remember that other than these persons there were hundreds who got it wrong at some stage or another.