On Mar 29, 2:55*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 29/03/2013 09:26, harry wrote:









On Mar 28, 12:37 pm, (Andrew Gabriel)
wrote:
In article ,
* * * * *Tim Watts writes:

With everyone talking ******** and running with an agenda (both ways) how do
*I* know who to believe?

We don't have a good enough understanding of how climate works,
and we don't have anywhere near enough data to check the various
theoretical climate models against, and won't for many decades,
possibly 100+ years.

My position is to carry on as normal until the nonsense can be sorted out.

I am very skeptical of climate change - the science seems to be
mostly based on correlation implying causation (a common science
mistake), combined with next to no data for the correlation in
the first place. This is not the basis of good science, actually
it's really common in bogus science claims.

However, I do support some of the initiatives it's driving, but
for different reasons. Energy saving seems to me to be plain
common sense for lots of reasons, although you need to sensible
about how far you go in any particular direction.
The concentration on carbon reduction may well turn out to be
a disasterous error, and play a significant part in the downfall
of the european economy for the next couple of hundred years
(even without the current Euro problems).

You say a majority of meteorologists agree that greenhouse gasses are
driving climate change. Do you have a link or a book/paper that says so? I'm
am prepared at this stage to read something thick if I have to.

I hear equally convincing 3rd parties claiming both arguments...

One of my biggest fears is that this whole global warming drive
will result in widescale discrediting of science. Some of it
probably should be discreditied, but there's loads of really
good and essential science in unrelated areas which will
suffer in any backlash.

The consequences of man made climate change theory being correct are
very serious.

To be a theory, it would have to be able to predict what is going to
happen in the future, which it has failed to do. It didn't even fit the
past that well without the figures being fudged. All you have is the
opinion of a carefully selected group of self-proclaimed experts, who
can produce no scientific evidence to support their ideas.

And there's no going back.

Thus ignoring it all is not an option.

However, as we have no idea what is driving climate change, it would be
far better to be spending money on dealing with the consequences, which
will be far worse if the planet cools than if it warms, than on one
particular unproven and increasingly unlikely hypothesis.

Colin Bignell

There are a lot of economic theories/laws/rules/hypothesises gone
awry just of late.

But our whole economy is driven by them.

Some of the postulates of global warming/climate change, there's no
cure for.

But any change will be bad in that it will cost money.
Only the most don't believe it is happening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

Virtually every government in the world and political party accepts it
is happening.
Only old farts likeTurNiP can't get their heads round it.