Put this in your Hacienda and smoke it!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The claim that there's no data.
I didn't claim no data, I claimed not enough data
Christian Graus wrote:
Data of what ? We can get data regarding past temperatures from all sorts of sources. We won't have human stored data for the whole world, it is true, but we don't need it.
The arguements used are based on data recorded using human technology that didn't exist before industrialisation. In true science, the metrics must be comparable. Using Tree Rings and Peat Levels is ok for a general -ish measuremnt of long term, broad measurements, but is not relaiable in terms of the 0.x C per Decade that the AGWers are talking about.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there's no denying that. So what ? How does the fact that the climate has changed in the past, prove that humans can't possibly be causing a change today ?
I agree it doesn't, it neither backs it nor confirms it, and even if it confirms it, it cannot give a value to it. Therefore it has no scientific value. I would say that Human Activity has altered the climate, but the draining of the Aral Sea has done more damage in 30 years to a much larger area than can be comfortably imagined. It is the level of that change, and whether it is to increase or decrease global temperatures that remains unknown. I agree that lack of proof does not mean something is wrong, nor that because something is DEFINITELY 1% wrong, it does not mean that the rest of it is wrong either. I just argue that until there is more study, and more understanding, we as a world should not throw ourselves wholeheartedly behind something with possible disasterous consequences. Nor should we just accept what governments say without any kind of reasoning, they say things not for our benefit, but for theirs, they need fear in order to rule.
------------------------------------ In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen J Gould
Dalek Dave wrote:
I didn't claim no data, I claimed not enough data
But given how much we can tell from ice cores and tree rings, how is that possible ?
Dalek Dave wrote:
In true science, the metrics must be comparable.
Or you need to correct for your error, for example, the claim that hurricanes have increased exists only because we can detect them better. Correcting for this ( showing only hurricans we could find with our older technology ) shows this to be false. There are ways to proceed that have integrity. Having better tech does not doom us from being able to do some research.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Using Tree Rings and Peat Levels is ok for a general -ish measuremnt of long term, broad measurements, but is not relaiable in terms of the 0.x C per Decade that the AGWers are talking about.
Funny enough, I've let myself get sucked into this despite the fact that I've not read anything that talks about the pre industrial era, or in any way claims that we need to go back that far to find evidence of warming.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I would say that Human Activity has altered the climate
Well, what's the argument then ? We started to alter the climate when we started to cut all the trees down.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I just argue that until there is more study, and more understanding, we as a world should not throw ourselves wholeheartedly behind something with possible disasterous consequences.
Well, I would suggest you read 'the skeptical environmentalists guide to global warming'. It's an interesting read, and it probably will appeal to you ( I enjoyed it immensely ). His point is mostly to count the cost of any moves we make, and to understand the real figures, not the ones in the newspapers.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Nor should we just accept what governments say without any kind of reasoning, they say things not for our benefit, but for theirs, they need fear in order to rule.
I don't think they need fear at all. I don't know anyone who is scared of my government, we're more amused by it. But, I agree 100% that fear of the end of the world is being used to manipulate people. My core point is, that doesn't prove that there is no such thing as global