Government and Nuclear Power...

talksalot81

Well irrelevant of how legislation etc works, if my data had the errors that the climate data does, I would not be claiming the resolution you are suggesting. Maybe these scientists are less thorough than my physics background has taught me.

As for the change and its effect. Yes we can see an effect, but where is your evidence to confirm that this has never happened due to natural climate change?

Volcano

if my data had the errors that the climate data does, I would not be claiming the resolution you are suggesting. Maybe these scientists are less thorough than my physics background has taught me.

Perhaps therein lies the problem; Climate scientists use a wide variety of science disciplines and are used to working with large error margins hence why statistical analysis is so critical. Viewing climate change from any one discipline will never give an accurate, overall view.

but where is your evidence to confirm that this has never happened due to natural climate change?

Again, it is the shocking speed of the effects in Moggles' post that is important, not whether they've happened before.

talksalot81

Whilst viewing from one discipline may not give the whole picture, the data is the data. By the very nature of the analysis, there is room for doubt, irrelevant of what discipline you are from. So whilst certain things can be inferred from the data, it should not be used as the basis for quoting the sort of facts often seen.

On the second point, if the same effects have actually happened before (which you cannot rule out), then it casts further doubt upon the matter.

In any case this is taking the thread off topic.

gromituk

talksalot81 wrote:

but where is your evidence to confirm that this has never happened due to natural climate change?

What's the point in asking for that evidence? We weren't around then. We know the current changes are caused by man, and we know that they are causing great damage.

talksalot81

gromituk wrote:

What's the point in asking for that evidence? We weren't around then. We know the current changes are caused by man, and we know that they are causing great damage.

The point is that if the same changes occurred at a time when man was not around, it becomes unreasonable to state that current changes are entirely born from man.

Think of it like:

(planet)+(nature)=1
(planet)+(nature)+(man)=1

therefore (man)=0

Enormously simplified, but expresses what I mean.

And just out of interest, alot of this depends on your definition of damage. For the most part, people interpret damage as something which impacts man. So if the icecaps did happen to melt, you cannot be sure that nature will not adapt and for all you know, the world might be a better place... not least because man may have been 'cleansed'.

PabloNeruda

talksalot81 wrote:

The point is that if the same changes occurred at a time when man was not around, it becomes unreasonable to state that current changes are entirely born from man.

Think of it like:

(planet)+(nature)=1
(planet)+(nature)+(man)=1

therefore (man)=0

Enormously simplified, but expresses what I mean.

What oversimplistic nonsense.

No such drastic changes have ever occurred over such a short period. It has been scientifically linked to the industrial revolution.
I would suggest you read James Lovelock - The Revenge of Gaia and see if you change your mind.
Alternatively, you could just keep your head buried in the sand.

gromituk

talksalot81 wrote:

The point is that if the same changes occurred at a time when man was not around, it becomes unreasonable to state that current changes are entirely born from man.

Obviously, but again, completely irrelevant.

Volcano

if the same effects have actually happened before (which you cannot rule out), then it casts further doubt upon the matter.

I can't really spell out clearly enough how irrelevant it is: "if the same effects have happened before".

"last week my car went from 0-60 mph in 10 seconds" is a mundane fact compared to: "today my car went from 0-60 mph in 1 second". It does give a yardstick to how you expect my car to perform however, so when it does 0-60 mph in a second you sit up and take notice. (this isn't meant to sound condescending btw, just an easy way to explain it.)

This rate of change is what spawned everything to do with climate change, billions of £ is spent on this around the globe, political manifestos hinge on it, our lifestyles have changed because of it, countries may even go to war in the future because of it.

So whilst certain things can be inferred from the data, it should not be used as the basis for quoting the sort of facts often seen.

Yet world governments/scientists/policy advisers et al orchestrate all the above precisely because of these "facts often seen". None of this is done lightly and certainly would not happen if there was any belief that a scientist somewhere has dodgy maths.

In any case this is taking the thread off topic.

You are quite right.

Volcano

not least because man may have been 'cleansed'

Extermination of the human race? Now you may have a valid point there that flies against everything I've been saying.....hmmm......

talksalot81

It seems to me that all the discussions against me are making the basic assumption that the only thing that could possibly cause the changes we see is man. I am challenging that because I do not believe we have enough data to make that claim. Even the scientific community debates this point, so I guess it is not unexpected that we too will disagree!