|
Post by nickrr on May 27, 2011 14:03:24 GMT 1
And no doubt we will. But that adapting may prove far more expensive in the long run than making some attempt to deal with the problem now so as to mitigate the amount of adapting we have to do in the future. A stitch in time .....
That's how science works! Unlike some AGW deniers it doesn't deal in certainties. However if we had to put a probability on AGW being true it would probably be over 95% certain.
Don't worry, most if not all the contributors to this board will probably be dead before any really serious consequences kick in. You can safely leave future generations to cope with our mess.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 27, 2011 14:13:25 GMT 1
Right, the Marshall Institute. Described by one of it's former executive directors: "...the trappings of scholarship were used to put a scientific cover on positions arrived at otherwise. These positions served various interests, ideological or material. For example, part of my job consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2011 15:48:32 GMT 1
Take this level of "debate" somewhere else, nickrr.
We are not impressed with slagging off the messenger without disussing the arguments first.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 27, 2011 16:03:36 GMT 1
Discussing the arguments? YOU didn't present ANY arguments as to why you disputed the one-hundreth figure. Lets look at what the volcanologists have the say, who have been quietly watching their volcanos for ages before AGW got going: hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.htmlOr do you think the volcanologists are part of the conspiracy as well? WHY don't you think the 1% figure is correct? What do you think is wrong, the measurements of actual CO2 emission from real volcanos, the estimates of the amount of fossil fuels burnt, or the count of volcanos? Because we'd have had to have got it a lot wrong to even equal human CO2 emissions, and that still wouldn't let us off the hook..............
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 27, 2011 16:38:43 GMT 1
Nick, You seem very vehement in Your defence and attack. The Marshall Institute is a lobby group. It will pick evidence to support its case. The IPCC is without stain, and at no time could it be considered biased in any way. However, You would do well to look past the initial headline on any topic. It is possible to learn from Your enemies. 'Know Your enemy' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War#QuotationsCheers, StuartG
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 27, 2011 16:47:08 GMT 1
Now that is a truely IGNORANT comment! That is how science works. Goodness, we're all used to the weather forecast being wrong, why should anyone be surprised if climate forecasts include a few mays, ifs, likely etc.
It is LIKELY for example, that the sun will set tonight, and rise again tomorrow morning. Not totally certain though, because we know that processes exist which could kill us all before the morning, or destroy earth and so on.
The religious like to make definite predictions, and seem reluctant to admit that they might be wrong, as recent experience shows. Science, on the other hand (unless the reporting is totally mangled by journalists), always has an if or a maybe (or technically speaking, some error bars) in there.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2011 16:48:35 GMT 1
I think vulcanologists have no idea how much CO2 and heat is emitted from undersea volcanoes or what the overall effect on earth's temperature and climate is. I doubt also that they have other than a rough ball park idea of the emissions of CO2 from terrestrial volcanoes either. And what about the amount of CO2 outgassing from warming oceans? How to calculate that?
It is simpler, of course, to arrive at an estimate of Co2 emitted from fossil fuel burning. But then again it is ONLY an estimate.
As for the absorption of CO2 by plants etc that again is only a very rough estimate.
Do you know better, STA?
Touchingly, you seem to believe that a hypothesis that depends upon the accurate measurement of tenths of a degree centigrade over a century and parts per billion of ever changing atmospheric molecules is firmly grounded. I can only say, pull the other one.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2011 16:54:21 GMT 1
Why are YOU so obsessed with "conspiracies", by the way? You have mentioned them before.
Arguments, empirical evidence (including email conversations!), accurate data and and soundly based probablilities are what I ground my opinions on.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on May 27, 2011 17:02:16 GMT 1
So, now M thinks vulcanologists are as STUPID as she seems to think climatolgists are!
Let's face it, M now needs to think that everyone has got their sums wrong by several orders of magnitude. That chaps sat right on top of a volcano who have been monitoring it for years can't do a basic thing like estimate how much CO2 it is producing.....................
That vulcanologists haven't looked at really extreme volcanism in the geological record, and thought about how that effects earths climate.
I think.....
I doubt............
but no actual DATA or reasoning, just -- if standard science says it, and it disagrees with my hypothesis, then I doubt it.
not reasoned discussion is it, just M repeating her catechism over and over, then trying to convert the natives by quoting at them.
M doesn't believe volcanic CO2 figures, YECs don't believe in the measured age of the earth, all much of a muchness as far as I can see, motivated primarily not by actual evidence, but by their own personal belief systems.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2011 17:27:45 GMT 1
OK! I give in, STA.
All your favourite scientists are perfect in their estimates and predictions and no layman can offer a word of sense.
I wonder what a textual analysis of your posts would reveal about the incidence of the word STUPID, STA?
This is why people don't want to talk to you. It was obviously a mistake on my part to "humour" you by responding.
But I wont be doing it again!
P.S. Lay off the creationism red herring, too, you prat, this is a science board discussion of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 27, 2011 18:02:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 27, 2011 20:18:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 28, 2011 8:58:48 GMT 1
This messenger's messages have been shown to be biased and unreliable. It would be irrational to take any notice of them.
You provide evidence from a reputable source and we can have a sensible discussion.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 28, 2011 9:09:18 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 28, 2011 9:51:36 GMT 1
|
|