wrote:

Once an for all, we cannot prevent climate change. Never have and
never will. We lack the knowledge for one thing, and our insistence
of overestimating the effect of CO2 is only hindering research and
blinding us to other possibilities.

There's no overestimation of the effect of CO2. No-one is ignoring other
explanations for GW but no other explanation has been proved credible. I
never fail to be surprised by the way that anti-AGW people seem to think
that they've discovered something new when they waffle on about natural
cycles, changes in solar output and variations in the Earth's orbit as
though they have discovered something new and revolutionary.


--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy

On Apr 7, 8:10*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
wrote:
Once an for all, we cannot prevent climate change. *Never have and
never will. *We lack the knowledge for one thing, and our insistence
of overestimating the effect of CO2 is only hindering research and
blinding us to other possibilities.

There's no overestimation of the effect of CO2. No-one is ignoring other
explanations for GW but no other explanation has been proved credible. I
never fail to be surprised by the way that anti-AGW people seem to think
that they've discovered something new when they waffle on about natural
cycles, changes in solar output and variations in the Earth's orbit as
though they have discovered something new and revolutionary.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

They are desperately short of arguments, so like to portray themselves
as latter-day Galileos. The further they have to retreat into a
corner, the shriller they will become.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...
On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
wrote:

A sensible voice of caution. We would all do well to listen to Martin.

And do nothing?

Cheers, Alastair.

Is "doing nothing" worse or better than doing somthing very expensive but
utterly futile?

Paul

In message
Graham P Davis wrote:

wrote:

Once an for all, we cannot prevent climate change. Never have and
never will. We lack the knowledge for one thing, and our insistence
of overestimating the effect of CO2 is only hindering research and
blinding us to other possibilities.

There's no overestimation of the effect of CO2.


OK Prove it. With real world examples, not computer simulations!



--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/
Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

In message
ps.com
RWood wrote:

On Apr 7, 8:10*pm, Graham P Davis wrote:
wrote:
Once an for all, we cannot prevent climate change. *Never have and
never will. *We lack the knowledge for one thing, and our insistence
of overestimating the effect of CO2 is only hindering research and
blinding us to other possibilities.

There's no overestimation of the effect of CO2. No-one is ignoring other
explanations for GW but no other explanation has been proved credible. I
never fail to be surprised by the way that anti-AGW people seem to think
that they've discovered something new when they waffle on about natural
cycles, changes in solar output and variations in the Earth's orbit as
though they have discovered something new and revolutionary.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. *E-mail: newsman not newsboy

They are desperately short of arguments, so like to portray themselves
as latter-day Galileos. The further they have to retreat into a
corner, the shriller they will become.


I think we can now see this happening with the supporters of the CO2
theory, as it becomes more and more apparent that their predications
are wrong. Trying to claim retropectively that although they got it
wrong, that doesn't disprove the theory is getting more and more thin,
I'm afraid.

Back in 1986, they were predicting serious problems by the year 2000.
When it didn't happen, it was pushed further into the future. When
cooling happened instead of the predicted warming, well, it was still
CO2 that was driving it (even though we saw no decrease in CO2
concentrations).

Will someone from the pro-AGW side please tell me what the climate
would need to do to disprove this theory. Because if there isn't a
robust test that would disprove it, the theory cannot be regarded as
proven.

Martin

--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/
Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

In message ,
writes

Will someone from the pro-AGW side please tell me what the climate
would need to do to disprove this theory. Because if there isn't a
robust test that would disprove it, the theory cannot be regarded as
proven.

Martin


Martin

I'll be honest and admit to having very little scientific knowledge and
can't say either way whether AGW is fact or not.

Having said that, I followed the link to your website which seems to
indicate that you are an evangelical Christian. Sorry to say I find it
hard to accept anything uttered by evangelical Christians as worthy of
consideration. It's my bet that you think ex-US President Bush was a
good man.

Bye
--


Jim

On Apr 9, 12:45*pm, Jim Kewley wrote:
In message ,
writes



Will someone from the pro-AGW side please tell me what the climate
would need to do to disprove this theory. *Because if there isn't a
robust test that would disprove it, the theory cannot be regarded as
proven.

Martin

Martin

I'll be honest and admit to having very little scientific knowledge and
can't say either way whether AGW is fact or not.

Having said that, I followed the link to your website which seems to
indicate that you are an evangelical Christian. *Sorry to say I find it
hard to accept anything uttered by evangelical Christians as worthy of
consideration. *It's my bet that you think ex-US President Bush was a
good man.

Bye
--

Jim

That destroys any credibility from the outset. I suggest that "Martin"
join the cranks on Australia's Weatherzone - full of creationists.

Jim Kewley wrote:

In message ,
writes

Will someone from the pro-AGW side please tell me what the climate
would need to do to disprove this theory. Because if there isn't a
robust test that would disprove it, the theory cannot be regarded as
proven.

Martin


Martin

I'll be honest and admit to having very little scientific knowledge and
can't say either way whether AGW is fact or not.

Having said that, I followed the link to your website which seems to
indicate that you are an evangelical Christian. Sorry to say I find it
hard to accept anything uttered by evangelical Christians as worthy of
consideration. It's my bet that you think ex-US President Bush was a
good man.

Bye

Can you tell the difference between;

you're wrong, therefor you're a fool, and
you're a fool, therefor you're wrong?

One is simple name-calling, the other a faulty argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


--
Sleepalot aa #1385

In message
Bob Martin wrote:

in 49484 20090406 224212 Alastair wrote:

Enough of this arguing with deniers. Here's the facts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6047457.ece

Some interesting readers' comments at the end.
Why is it that most "deniers" come from the USA? Their media?

Perhaps they have an education system that teaches them to think, and
not just accept whatever they are told.

BTW it is sloppy thinking to suggest that this proves the CO2 theory.
All of us who posess thermometers know that warming has happened. All
of us know that in Antarctica, snow falls on the continent and spreads
outward, and the resulting ice "calves" during re southern summer.
Nothing new there.

Climate change is not new. It has always happened, with or without
power stations and motor cars. And mankind has always survived it. A
bit of extra warmth might even be a good thing, when you think of all
that tundra that might become fertile.

Trying to stop climate change (even if that is desirable which is
questionable) is like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.
Except that he didn't make the mistake of commiting the entire
contents of his treasury to doing so. Perhaps if he was worried that
the tide would keep coming in forever and swamp his kingdom, he should
have built flood defences rather than telling it to go back!

And nothing is forever.

Martin

--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the world's fastest RISC OS computer.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/m.dixon4/
Believing is the start of everything to come. - Hayley Westenra

In article ,
wrote:

Climate change is not new. It has always happened, with or without
power stations and motor cars. And mankind has always survived it. A
bit of extra warmth might even be a good thing, when you think of all
that tundra that might become fertile.

Thawing the tundra would very probably release a huge amount of methane and
accelerate warming so much that even deniers would notice.

Trying to stop climate change (even if that is desirable which is
questionable) is like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in.
Except that he didn't make the mistake of commiting the entire
contents of his treasury to doing so. Perhaps if he was worried that
the tide would keep coming in forever and swamp his kingdom, he should
have built flood defences rather than telling it to go back!

Remember that Canute KNEW he could not stop the tide but had to prove it to
courtiers who thought he could.

--
Rodney Blackall (retired meteorologist)(BSc, FRMetS, MRI)
Buckingham, ENGLAND
Using Acorn SA-RPC, OS 4.02 with ANT INS and Pluto 3.03j