TV “The Great Green Smoke Screen”.

magyar

TGM wrote: »

Rubbish, you've popped 'majority' in to argue a point about Man Made Global Warming which cannot be proved.

The theory is vague, misleading and inaccurate and is laughable

consensus means is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. ie the one's who agree with man made global warming.

You happen to believe that. I don't, as does plenty of scientists.

I've looked at both sides, I've heard scientists from both sides speak.

Man Made Global Warming IMO is just a con.

Natural Climate Change IMO is the truth.

Regarding the use of the word 'majority', it simply means that more scientists than not believe in man-made climate change.

Regarding scientific concensus, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of science at a particular time.

We're arguing about semantics now.

Are you a climate change scientist? Unless the answer is yes, then I suspect the best answer is to go with the majority.

moonrakerz

magyar wrote: »

Regarding the use of the word 'majority', it simply means that more scientists than not believe in man-made climate change.

Regarding scientific concensus, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus



We're arguing about semantics now.

Are you a climate change scientist? Unless the answer is yes, then I suspect the best answer is to go with the majority.

The trouble is the "majority" of scientists see an endless stream of (usually Government supplied) funding if they agree with man-made global warming.
There isn't much money forthcoming for those who say "this is just part of earth's natural cycles"

Al Gore is doing quite well out of it too !

The problem with quoting "wikipedia" is that you could have put the definition there yourself five minutes previously.

magyar

moonrakerz wrote: »

The problem with quoting "wikipedia" is that you could have put the definition there yourself five minutes previously.

I think if we're going to go down the route of discrediting Wikipedia then we have some pretty fundamental trust problems here!

Plus, I'm sure most scientists would love to know that they're the recipients of 'an endless stream of funding', since most people I know who work in research (and I do know a couple of climate-change related people) say that not nearly enough research is going into the subject.

TGM

magyar wrote: »

I think if we're going to go down the route of discrediting Wikipedia then we have some pretty fundamental trust problems here!

Plus, I'm sure most scientists would love to know that they're the recipients of 'an endless stream of funding', since most people I know who work in research (and I do know a couple of climate-change related people) say that not nearly enough research is going into the subject.

I'm sure you'll correct me, but didn't you just discredit every scientist who doesn't agree with man made global warming?

By the very nature of using the word 'majority' of an example of your argument.

"No, that's not what it means: concensus means that there is general agreement amongst the majority of scientists across the board."

You yourself are discrediting people like Prof Stott who says Man Made Global Warming is false. Because he doesn't fall into your majority of scientists who agree.

You must see know that regardless of wiki pedia or any other encyclopedia. majority has to be dropped, because 'consensus' applies to the agreeing group, NOT the over all group.

magyar

TGM wrote: »

You must see know that regardless of wiki pedia or any other encyclopedia. majority has to be dropped, because 'consensus' applies to the agreeing group, NOT the over all group.

No, that's exactly what I disagree with and if you think I'm 'discrediting' any particular scientist, then you misunderstand my point.

Most science is not about 'right' and 'wrong'; the argument about whether man or nature is causing climate change is a bit like arguing about which of the oars is rowing the boat.

TGM

magyar wrote: »

No, that's exactly what I disagree with and if you think I'm 'discrediting' any particular scientist, then you misunderstand my point.

Most science is not about 'right' and 'wrong'; the argument about whether man or nature is causing climate change is a bit like arguing about which of the oars is rowing the boat.

After I posted, and then read it, I realised I'd followed the thread a bit skew wiff.

Man made or natural, I suppose we'll never agree.


But I guess we could agree that, that preparing for the future, IF the Climate is going to change, if far better than debating on how we got in this situation in the first place.

magyar

TGM wrote: »

But I guess we could agree that, that preparing for the future, IF the Climate is going to change, if far better than debating on how we got in this situation in the first place.

:beer:

Of course I agree with that. And fundamentally, I'm sure we're in agreement that 'the answer' is not planting a few trees.

mascherano

moonrakerz wrote: »

I have just re-googled "carbon offsetting" - 1,910,000 hits !!!!!!!

i just re-re-googled it...2,480,000 and rising fast!

moonrakerz

magyar wrote: »

I think if we're going to go down the route of discrediting Wikipedia then we have some pretty fundamental trust problems here!

I would never imply that I didn't trust you - my point was that wikipedia is riddled with mis-information and errors, you don't have to look very hard to find these.
On this very site I have mentioned that wikipedia gives totally wrong information about passport validity to visit the USA - even though there is a link on the wikipedia page which refers you to an International treaty which gives the correct info !

magyar

moonrakerz wrote: »

I would never imply that I didn't trust you - my point was that wikipedia is riddled with mis-information and errors, you don't have to look very hard to find these.
On this very site I have mentioned that wikipedia gives totally wrong information about passport validity to visit the USA - even though there is a link on the wikipedia page which refers you to an International treaty which gives the correct info !

Fair point. :beer: