On 9 Dec, 00:31, "dennis@home" wrote:
The greenhouse effect relies on the CO2 concentrations in the upper
atmosphere and we don't have any measurements dating back more than a decade
or three.

OK that's interesting. Can you provide a reference for this please?


It is well known that there are benefits from climate change as well as bad
things.
You cannot state that it will be bad for the majority as nobody knows at
this time.

It's 'well known' is it?

It is true that the term 'global warming' is misleading as it might be
taken to imply that everywhere just gets a bit hotter. And those of us
in the UK might be forgiven for thinking "that's all right. Wouldn't
mind it being a bit sunnier". The problem is that what we are talking
about is an increase of energy into weather systems. That means more
extremes and less predictability. It means more floods and more
hurricanes. It means the encroachment of desert areas and the loss of
agricultural land.

One thing that is predictable is that higher average temperatures mean
higher sea levels. That would be catastrophic for many people - there
won't be many winners there. For example, even if you're not directly
affected, think about how much of the global economy depends on
shipping. How quickly do you think new infrastructure such as ports
could be established?

Another example. Based on latitude, the UK is much warmer than it
ought to be because of the Gulf Stream. I don't how the stability of
the Gulf Stream is related to global climate. I don't know if anyone
does but do we really want to do the experiment to find out.

I don't understand why people feel that when it comes to certain
topics, science is a matter of opinion. *Why don't we get threads
about general relativity or something? *A lot of the climate change
sceptic stuff that I see on the internet reminds me of the
creationist, anti-evolution opinions that I come across and seems to
employ similar tactics:

Well generally believers in relativity don't come here and start telling
everyone that they have to fix the world.


So you are saying that because you don't like the consequences of the
science, the science is wrong?


Except the good science doesn't show that GW is actually happening or that
it will be bad if it were.
You have just committed the vary offence you accuse others of.. bad science.

Please elaborate. You are implying that the good science shows that
climate change isn't happening and that it might be OK even if it is.
Where is this body of work?