Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

On my end, although I don't believe the ship is sinking, the measures that I think we should take would prevent it from sinking anyway:

1) Implement a cleaner fuel and energy source.
2) Dispose of garbage in an organized manner.
3) Reduce, reuse and recycle.
4) Encourage rooftop gardens on buildings.

So I don't see what the problem is anyway.

It certainly might be worth considering coming to a truce with the sceptics who are in favour of pollution control/ resource management for other reasons and agree on a common course of action. The only problem with this is that there is still a lot of cheap coal out there and (non CO2 emissions can be cheaply managed).

Originally Posted by senojekips

Monty I don't believe that you that "thick".

The point I made was the fact that not even two persons supposedly "on the same side" can agree. Why would anyone with an inquiring mind believe the remainder of the evidence that they so willingly quote.

I thought part of the sceptic argument was that scientists are always banding together getting carried away blinded by a paradigm of thinking. This isn't the way good science works, it should be critical examining all points of view, it can be viscous. Climate change has gone through that process more than any theory in history. Eventually however we must come to an agreement based on the evidence and that has been established for some time and was largely closed bar the details. That is what makes it so annoying that it was reopened by selfish interests. Let me quote in case you haven't read it.

When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action, engaging in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists.

The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue. Delay and doubt were crucial products of its PR campaign.

In May, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon Mobil acknowledged it had been doing something similar. It said it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.

BTW. However, once again a sentence has been taken out of context, after submitting the revised figures we only disagreed on perhaps one point in a hundred in the entire report.

Originally Posted by perseus

I made a few criticisms of various details, mainly on the wind issue but also questioning whether his view that there is limited scope for reducing fuel in aviation. Unfortunately this aviation issue got a bit heated. I eventually cut off the dialogue but told him I enjoyed reading the report and complemented him on the overall strategy ideas in the report etc. (I think he has excepted the issues on wind and is a bit embarrassed about the 'butter' issue).

This last sentence would not be an aknowledgment that perhaps he was in error would it?

It sounds like more than one point in a hundred to me. It sounds more like two people who can't agree on a number of issues, and this in itself is quite OK,... good in fact, at least it shows that someone has a little imagination and intelligence of their own. But it does once again highlight that there is nowhere near the one sided "shoulder to shoulder" concensus certain people seem to allude to. These ever present disagreements seem to cover everything from the most fundamental questions right through to the end suppositions that have been reached, and yet, you seem amazed that a large part of the population are sceptical.

Senejekips This is just an unfinished draft report, in all these there are a multitude of mistakes including the ones I write. The scientific process is that it needs to be peer reviewed to iron out the inadvertent cock ups. Everything that is wrong is not a disagreement. The figures are there and are quite clear. For example, you can check what the heat of combustion of petrol or Diesel is yourself. Sceptics argue through rhetoric whilst scientists argue with hard data. We just don't have exactly the data we need to settle the aviation issue.

Why does everything have to be a 'debate' for sceptics, answer, because it adds uncertainty and confusion and this is a good excuse for inaction. Job done Exxon style.

Scientists in action? Perseus, beware the Albert Cushing Crehore scenario. AC Crehore PhD was an atomic scientist; at the turn of the 20th century he was acclaimed as the greatest electrical engineer of America, a blazing star. In 1920 his work The Atom was published, to add to a great record of great work. When Einstein's big moment came along, Crehore PhD happened to have certain qualifications. Bang, AC Crehore's career gone!
America's forgotten genius never made the great heights again. 40 years later his qualifications were found to be correct.
Scientists in action!

Now you see that Albert Cushing Crehore PhD is no longer forgotten, because of our good ol' debate here! 8)

Originally Posted by perseus

Senejekips This is just an unfinished draft report, in all these there are a multitude of mistakes including the ones I write. The scientific process is that it needs to be peer reviewed to iron out the inadvertent cock ups. Everything that is wrong is not a disagreement. The figures are there and are quite clear. For example, you can check what the heat of combustion of petrol or Diesel is yourself. Sceptics argue through rhetoric whilst scientists argue with hard data. We just don't have exactly the data we need to settle the aviation issue.

Why does everything have to be a 'debate' for sceptics, answer, because it adds uncertainty and confusion and this is a good excuse for inaction. Job done Exxon style.

It seems that you are no different to those whom you so willingly attempt to belittle, your argument again just falls back on the premise that "sceptics" are only guessing and you alone are privy to the "Real" truth. Did you ever stop for a minute to think that sceptics became that way because they read "scientific" reports also. Why is it that every one who disagrees with your personal opinion is acting on supposition, whereas only you and those who support your side of the debate have "hard data".

Hard data, soft data, supposition, deceit, or just plain lies, who knows until it is proven?

Why do sceptics debate matters? I'll tell you why, if there were no sceptics, the point would just be accepted by all as true (proven), and there's no such thing as a "one sided debate". I certainly hope that your powers of deduction are better than your logic, although this well may explain your unwillingness to look at both sides of the debate.

Well what else can I say. How would you feel about the arguments used by these people? (yes they do have some see)

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

Not pretend what they believed wasn't harmless but actually quite damaging, would you encourage debate on the issue?

Then how far do we take this, man going to the moon, Elvis alive, Alien Abductions? I cannot be sure of any of these, but like GW we can be more than 99% sure. Not scientific no, but very few sceptical arguments meet up to scientific scrutiny as we have seen. Not remotely credible? Well the moon landing conspiracy looks tenable at first sight. A fellow scientist (who rips my reports to bits due to the errors) said to me a few years ago "Even I believe Man didn't go to the moon after reading all the anomalies". I just posted this to him and he said. "Oh all right then", rather than dogmatically upholding an untenable position.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Yes note it's Fox TV again, now what other conspiracy is their favourite topic for their brain dead viewers?

Perhaps you fall into these traps because you go in with a closed mind and only one open eye, not prepared to use the common sense you were blessed with at birth.

Just because a person does not have a tertiary education and a string of alphabet soup after his name, does not imply that he is incapable of logical and lucid thought.

I arrive at my conclusions in exactly the same manner that you do, and believe it or not, even though you may think I'm a worthless uneducated clod, I do have the wherewithall to winnow the wheat from the chaff and form my own conclusions, from BOTH sides of the debate, the majority of which, have served me very well over the course of my life.

"What can you say" you ask?

If I were you I would say "This is my opinion, but that does not necessarily mean that those who oppose my point of view are all necessarily idiots" It is far from an open and shut case.

Now,... just to ease your mind, I too have a sneaking suspicion that mans activities are probably affecting many of the natural phenomena on this planet, BUT, by how much, and as to whether we can we reverse it,... I have absolutely no idea (and I don't think anyone else does either for a number of reasons). Personally I think they are whistling in the dark.

Every now and then someone has to play the devil's advocate, and believe me it is very easy to do in a case such as this.

Also I think we ignored a very important factor: what the sun is doing.

Not to mention Big Foot and Big Bird.