December 2010 was ‘almost certain’ to become the coldest since records began in 1910

andykn

CLAPTON wrote: »

in proper science, attempts are routinely made to disprove established theories

so although ALL major scientific institutions and nearly all scientists 'believe' Eistein Theory of Relativity is true, there are nevertheless serious attmpets to disprove the theory... that's normal; no-one this this is odd behaviour

however, with climate change any attempt to disprove it is considered mad or bad.
this is bad science

But not true. The science behind climate is progressing all the time with new theories being tested and added or discarded.

The sceptics are not attempting to disprove anything, just to obfuscate. So they say that CO2 isn't a warming gas (without saying what does keep the earth warmer), that temps aren't rising (even though many other indicators like Arctic sea ice show they are), that man's contribution isn't significant (even though CO2 in the atmosphere has only started to rise since we started adding it), and so on.

No attempt to "disprove" only lies and confusion to avoid a bit of tax or, quelle terreur, the occasional trip on public transport.

CLAPTON

andykn wrote: »

But not true. The science behind climate is progressing all the time with new theories being tested and added or discarded.

The sceptics are not attempting to disprove anything, just to obfuscate. So they say that CO2 isn't a warming gas (without saying what does keep the earth warmer), that temps aren't rising (even though many other indicators like Arctic sea ice show they are), that man's contribution isn't significant (even though CO2 in the atmosphere has only started to rise since we started adding it), and so on.

No attempt to "disprove" only lies and confusion to avoid a bit of tax or, quelle terreur, the occasional trip on public transport.

obfsucate?
'only lies and confusion'?
'avoid a bit of tax'?
'occasional trip on public trnasport'?

-CO2 has varied greatly over the eons and long before man evolved
-no really scientist seriously question that CO2 is a green house gas

sadly you have just illustrated why it's so difficult to have reasoned debate not just about the evidence but also about the science of directing and managing climate change

LittleMissAspie

Climate change is irrelevant. We still shouldn't be trampling over the planet. Every other animal just fits in nicely and it all ticks over, then humans come along and suddenly loads of species are going extinct, habitats destroyed, fish running out, rivers polluted, the birds don't know if it's day or night any more because we light everything up and we may even be giving ourselves cancer. We're the only animal stupid enough to destroy the eco-systems that sustain us.

CLAPTON

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

Climate change is irrelevant. We still shouldn't be trampling over the planet. Every other animal just fits in nicely and it all ticks over, then humans come along and suddenly loads of species are going extinct, habitats destroyed, fish running out, rivers polluted, the birds don't know if it's day or night any more because we light everything up and we may even be giving ourselves cancer. We're the only animal stupid enough to destroy the eco-systems that sustain us.

remember what caused the first great pollution and the consequence thereafter

LittleMissAspie

Do you mean an asteroid and dinosaurs? We can't control if an asteriod hits us.

CLAPTON

LittleMissAspie wrote: »

Do you mean an asteroid and dinosaurs? We can't control if an asteriod hits us.

it is generally believed that
when the earth was young, the first life forms were very simple organisms
the earths atmosphere was largely co2
the early life forms 'breathed' in CO2 and breathed out O2

after a long time the atmoshere became largely O2 and allowed otheer life forms to multiply and the poor old originals died down
they wiped themselves out

thus the first great pollution

also worth noting that at least 99.9999 % of all life forms are now extinct

andykn

CLAPTON wrote: »

obfsucate?
'only lies and confusion'?
'avoid a bit of tax'?
'occasional trip on public trnasport'?

-CO2 has varied greatly over the eons and long before man evolved
-no really scientist seriously question that CO2 is a green house gas

sadly you have just illustrated why it's so difficult to have reasoned debate not just about the evidence but also about the science of directing and managing climate change

But you didn't post anything about the science to debate.

Lots of things have varied in the past, for reasons that are well known. Doesn't mean that man isn't responsible this time, especially as we know that the previous causes aren't responsible this time.

No really serious scientists disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that man is solely responsible for the rise or that man's Co2 is responsible for the Earth warming up. And very very few serious scientists dispute the IPCC's conservative projections.

CLAPTON

andykn wrote: »

But you didn't post anything about the science to debate.

Lots of things have varied in the past, for reasons that are well known. Doesn't mean that man isn't responsible this time, especially as we know that the previous causes aren't responsible this time.

No really serious scientists disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that man is solely responsible for the rise or that man's Co2 is responsible for the Earth warming up. And very very few serious scientists dispute the IPCC's conservative projections.

how well known are previous variation understood:
- personally I do not know one scientist that would support such a claim.. maybe you could provide a reference for such an amazing claim

-it doesn't indeed prove that man isn't responsible this time but equally it doesn't prove than man is SOLELY responsible.

- presumably you define 'serious' scientists as those that agree with the IPCC and any scientists that don't as 'non-serious'

andykn

CLAPTON wrote: »

how well known are previous variation understood:
- personally I do not know one scientist that would support such a claim.. maybe you could provide a reference for such an amazing claim

I don't know any scientists personally, but look up Milankovitch cycles.

-it doesn't indeed prove that man isn't responsible this time but equally it doesn't prove than man is SOLELY responsible.

Proof is almost never available in empirical science. No one so far has come up with any alternative explanation for the warming seen in the last few decades of the 20th century not involving man.

- presumably you define 'serious' scientists as those that agree with the IPCC and any scientists that don't as 'non-serious'

I was inferring "serious" from your post. By serious I mean those who can back up their theories with evidence. Like those whose peer reviewed papers are referenced in the IPCC reports.

CLAPTON

the milanovitch cycles only included various wobbles in the earth passage around the sun;
it included NOTHING about CO2 or methane levels
it included nothing about icecaps
it included nothing about the atlantic pump
or about jet streams
it was an excellent but very basic work

the earth has existed for about 5,000,000,000 years
Milankovitch tried to explain about 100,000 years only i.e. 0.00005% of the earth's history

the broad thrust of a modest 100,000 is understood in terms of solar radiation falling on the earth but not in any detail
and do remember that his theory predicted an ICEAGE as the next major climate change
Presumably you must believe that the iceage has been diverted by man's production of CO2.

the earth has been warmer in the past the so I'm a little unclear why you say that no-one has any alternative theories about why the earth is in relatively warm patch
carbonifous times were warmer
10-11th century was warmer with greenaland growing wheat
vineyards on hadrian wall