[QUOTE]AGW theory QUOTE]Let us try to make a start on getting terminology right. This is not a theory, it is a hypothesis i.e. after observing a few things you make a guess. A hypothesis to pass many tests before it becomes a theory. Is the Global Warming case a theory? No. Is it a hypothesis? Perhaps. But it looks more like a belief to me. Blind support held together by peer groups, and after some time has passed, held in place by "I can't change my mind, that would mean I've been wrong for ages". Let's both sides have their say equally.

What are the tests before a hypothesis becomes a theory?

I have to say I am little sceptical of someone calling themselves "Both Sides" but then claiming one-side, ie the pro-AGW side, is "blind support held together by peer groups".

There is nothing suggesting 1000s of scientist can't change their mind, much to suggest they strongly accept their own findings indicating man-made CO2 is accelerating temperature rises.

Robbie writer who are the thousands of scientists you keep going on about...bearing in mind that their conclusions are based on a computer model you should check out bertyf on a thread by Robert 1234 it may put some doubt in your mind or are you so rigid in your view

I cannot believe that it has come to my scientist is better than yours its like the old child argument my dads better than yours I keep banging on about this WHERES THE DEBATE.

quote:

Originally posted by Robbie Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Well you can't argue that politicians ARE extracting more taxes on the basis of the AGW theory.

I'm not. But many anti-AGW people are. I suspect this is behind the anger of many of the "sceptics" on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Now the government may have convinced you that higher taxes are better for you, they are are yet to convince me of the same

Nobody wants higher taxes. But I accept:
1) taxes pay for public services and this is usually cheaper than private services for most people.

2) are a method to influence behavour. For instance tax on cigarettes. I am less in favour of influential taxation, I believe education and debate is a far better method. Although we would then have to tackle the problem of privately funded propaganda.

Let's not get personal.
Stick to the facts.
What is going to effect the climate; the earth's huge primary heat source, wavering, or a gas that makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere?
When the sun gets active we get hot (global warming), when the sun goes quiet we get cold (ice ages). I'm not denying global warming, it's definitely happening but we are at the mercy of a tempremental heat source; the sun is going through an active phase at present.
let's not get distracted by the CO2 but focus on the real problem & what, if anything we can do about it.
If CO2 is the cause, how would you explain the 4 decades of global cooling between 1940 & 1970, The medieval warm spell, the mini ice age, etc?

quote:

Originally posted by Robbie Writer:
There is nothing suggesting 1000s of scientist can't change their mind, much to suggest they strongly accept their own findings indicating man-made CO2 is accelerating temperature rises.

Yes rickyjk - it's strange how Robbie demands absolute precision when discussing his chosen Titbits of science, and then tosses off crass statements like "1000s of scientist[s]..." to sell his case - slogans which sound more like they belong in KiteKat commercials than on a science forum.

A pity because I'm sure I'm like MANY ORDINARY PEOPLE who come to this board looking to be convinced of the AGW hypothesis - only to be put off by the dishonesty.

BTW Robey - You haven't told me if your politics are Marxist yet??

They have an explanation alright for the cooling between 1940 and 1980- They say it is due to sulphate aerosols. They always have an answer this pro AGW theory lobby even if they have to invent it. Now tell them to predict the weather 5 days from now and there will be all kinds of reasons why they cannot do it

Just to clarify my earlier remarks on the global cooling that happened between 1940 and 1980, the AGW theory lobby holds that is also due to humans. So we humans are responsible for cooling the global climate between 1940 and 1980 and now we are responsible for warming it. Did you ever guess we had so much power between us?

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
They have an explanation alright for the cooling between 1940 and 1980- They say it is due to sulphate aerosols. They always have an answer this pro AGW theory lobby even if they have to invent it. Now tell them to predict the weather 5 days from now and there will be all kinds of reasons why they cannot do it

OK, what if they're wrong & controlling CO2 won't look at it?
The sun will eventually get bigger & stronger; why wouldn't it do so in sporadic bursts?
One sporadic burst and we're toast unless we focus our best brains on measures to limit radiation effects.

In fact the pro AGW theory lobby explains changes in climate (warmer or cooler) through one theoretical lens- bad humans do bad things which leads the earth to go sometimes hotter and sometime cooler

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Just to clarify my earlier remarks on the global cooling that happened between 1940 and 1980, the AGW theory lobby holds that is also due to humans. So we humans are responsible for cooling the global climate between 1940 and 1980 and now we are responsible for warming it. Did you ever guess we had so much power between us?

Hey! it's a piece of piss to solve it then! Just let loose more suphate aerosols & we've saved the planet.

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Just to clarify my earlier remarks on the global cooling that happened between 1940 and 1980, the AGW theory lobby holds that is also due to humans. So we humans are responsible for cooling the global climate between 1940 and 1980 and now we are responsible for warming it. Did you ever guess we had so much power between us?

It seems that with a population of 6 billion we are capable of affecting the atmosphere. If you look into Global Cooling you will see why certain options for dealing with Global Warming involve putting sulphur in the atmosphere. A very bad idea from the point of view of pollution and acid rain. And it does nothing to stop ocean acidification. By the way, WikiPedia is a useful source of information which then links on to more detailed sources.

quote:

Originally posted by ian.m:

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Just to clarify my earlier remarks on the global cooling that happened between 1940 and 1980, the AGW theory lobby holds that is also due to humans. So we humans are responsible for cooling the global climate between 1940 and 1980 and now we are responsible for warming it. Did you ever guess we had so much power between us?

Hey! it's a piece of piss to solve it then! Just let loose more suphate aerosols & we've saved the planet.

Or we could kill all humans; that might be easier.

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
Just to clarify my earlier remarks on the global cooling that happened between 1940 and 1980, the AGW theory lobby holds that is also due to humans. So we humans are responsible for cooling the global climate between 1940 and 1980 and now we are responsible for warming it. Did you ever guess we had so much power between us?

NEWSFLASH: Scientists have just made a new breakthrough in understanding Man-made global warming. Computer models showing human CO2 emissions have showed remarkable increases and decreases caused by the widespread use of slang. Research has proved that during the 'BOP' era - 1940 through to 1980 - the predominant use of the word "cool" recorded a significant drop in global temperatures leading many to fear an oncoming ice age. However, the worldwide emergence of the word "hot" in the following 'HIP' period suddenly shifted computer models with trends now showing we are on the way to an impending catastrophic meltdown (Thursday afternoon next week). Governments have been urged to invest billions to avoid the disaster by introducing a green tax on the use of slang and launching a new word "average" as a means of saving the world.

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
There seems to be three main ways of discrediting any scepticism of Antrhopogenic Theory of Global Warming (AGW theory) by the the pro AGW theory lobby in this forum -

1. Accuse scientists who are sceptics of the AGW theory of being dishonest....
2. Accuse any sceptics of AGW theory being in bed with holocaust deniers and creationists...
3. Point to the fact that majority of scientists subscribe to the AGW theory...

The point I am trying make here is that if the pro AGW theory lobby wants to convince the general public of the veracity of its claims, it has to go beyond taking cheap shots at documentary film makers, scientists and making dishonest association of sceptics of AGW theory with other sceptics who may be truly irrational.

I'll plead guilty to 1. and 3. but not 2. I've not seen any messages in which AGW supporters say this, but in any case, it's silly.

I believe that 1 and 3 have considerable force - but lets not rehash that again. In any case, you're be quite right to say that none of this PROVES that AGW is true, and hence, what AGW supporters need to do is focus on the science, and explain why we think the arguments in "Swindle" are wrong.

Are you suggesting that no one has attempted to do that? Then you seem to have missed dozens of detailed messages in this forum!

For example, the programme made much of the observed correlation between solar cycle length and temperature (as published in the much-cited 1991 Friis-Christensen and Lassen paper). However, the the graph for solar cycle length cuts off around 1975.... just about when the current trend of sustained warming began! Why didn't they include more recent data? Other researchers have -- and what their results show is that after this point, the correlation breaks down. Solar cycle length remains within normal parameters -- where as average global temperature climbs sharply upward. If the solar activity theory were correct, we would expect to see evidence of a corresponding increase -- and that simply isn't happening.

This is just one of many seemingly plausible arguments in the programme which break down when you dig a little deeper, and ask for more evidence.

There are similar problems with the AGW theory. For example when it was seen that the period between 1940 and 1980 showed significant degree of cooling of temperature, scientist did an ex-post analysis and came up with what - you guessed it- humans are to be blamed again, this time around for cooling the atmosphere for releasing sulphate aerosols presumbly due to industrialization

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:
About 2,500 scientists have been involved, in about 130 countries. From the actual summary:

quote:

(SPM2feb07.PDF):
Drafting Authors:
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory, Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J. Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt

Draft Contributing Authors:
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen, Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E. Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers

The actual numbers are as I understand 30 lead authors and 270 governmant officials. The rest are people who made some comment or other along the way.

Barely pay for public services...old folks homes closing 30 billion on incapacity benefit and unemployment...an illegal war... I dont mind paying the tax if it was spent in the right places not 25 billion start up cost for new trident..... Ok new tax on flight duty due to rake 1billion pounds for mr Brown is it going into public transport ...no its going into the coffers to be abused that is disgraceful.... I m angry now because little Britain contibrutes only 2% CO2 worlwide...Come on get real 80% tax on petrol/diesel..You mention tax on smoking People still smoke it hasnt stopped them. I want to see change but come on we still live in rip off britain......

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:
About 2,500 scientists have been involved, in about 130 countries. From the actual summary:

quote:

(SPM2feb07.PDF):
Drafting Authors:
Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory, Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann, Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J. Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt

Draft Contributing Authors:
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen, Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E. Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers

The actual numbers are as I understand 30 lead authors and 270 governmant officials. The rest are people who made some comment or other along the way.

The figures for this years AR4 have not yet been released.

But here's the names of the scientists from the 2001 Third Assesment Report.

IPCC Lead Authors.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm

IPCC Reviewers.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/559.htm

All scientists, every last man jack of 'em.

Click on link, make a cuppa as your broadband smokes under the strain. (OK I am streching things here.)

Scroll down.

And weep all over your gilt edged photo of Pat Micheals.

Wordsmithy are you that stating 2500 scientists are down as authors on this IPCC report or a fraction are scientists..Or the most outspoken and least outspoken were edited out to give a balanced report everyone would agree to...or even scientists still cited as authors who disagree in part...... this report is flawed it reminds me of Tonys dodgy dossier.

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
Barely pay for public services...old folks homes closing 30 billion on incapacity benefit and unemployment...an illegal war... I dont mind paying the tax if it was spent in the right places not 25 billion start up cost for new trident..... Ok new tax on flight duty due to rake 1billion pounds for mr Brown is it going into public transport ...no its going into the coffers to be abused that is disgraceful.... I m angry now because little Britain contibrutes only 2% CO2 worlwide...Come on get real 80% tax on petrol/diesel..You mention tax on smoking People still smoke it hasnt stopped them. I want to see change but come on we still live in rip off britain......

Not me ... l'm leaving!

I would but me wife wont leave her family

quote:

Originally posted by rickyjk:
Wordsmithy are you that stating 2500 scientists are down as authors on this IPCC report or a fraction are scientists..Or the most outspoken and least outspoken were edited out to give a balanced report everyone would agree to...or even scientists still cited as authors who disagree in part...... this report is flawed it reminds me of Tonys dodgy dossier.

I didn't say anyone was edited out. There are about 2,500 scientists associated with the IPCC. The authors of the SPM (summary for policy makers) are listed above. There is some kind of hierarchy to the review (funny to think of 2,500 scientists trying to discuss the climate in one sweaty room (ps. I'm off after I hit that button)). It's all there for all to get as familiar with as they like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC Can you imagine a debate like this without the internet? Or 2,500 scientists forming one view without the internet?