On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:30:01 PM UTC+1, Lawrence13 wrote:
On Sunday, 21 April 2013 14:54:39 UTC+1, aka sutart-thingy yttiw wrote:

On 2013-04-21 13:25:54 +0000, Ian Bingham said:







"Dawlish" wrote in message



...







On Sunday, April 21, 2013 12:14:58 PM UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:



"Alastair McDonald" wrote in message ...















There is a video here where a climate scientist gives his views of the







state we are in with regards to global warming.







http://vimeo.com/43012713







Of course, those who should watch it won't :-(















Cheers, Alastair.















On the other hand, read "Climate: The Counter Consensus" by Prof. Robert







M.Carter, an erudite work which comes to some rather different conclusions.







I believe it is reviewed by readers on Amazon. With the experts so much at







variance I think one has to keep a strictly open mind on this vexed topic.







It doesn't even seem to be decided whether increased CO2 causes global







warming or whether it is the other way round.















Ian Bingham,







Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.







"Experts are certainly not "at variance" and that's a book written from



a particular perspective and certainly not a peer-reviewed study. Your



comments are a *very* poor reflection on the consensus.







This paper, Doran and Zimmermann 2009 will help you to see that. It



also mentions Oreskes 2004 and the scientific consensus appears to have



hardened markedly since then:







http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09EO030002/pdf







In addition, a recent, huge, review of scientific literature, by Powell



(Dec 2012) showed almost 14,000 papers agreeing with the consensus and



only 24 that didn't. Powell concluded this (not peer reviewed, AFAIK,



but an enormous sample):







What can we conclude from this study?







1. In the scientific literature, there is virtually no disagreement



that humans are causing global warming.







Please counter those studies, if you want to advocate that scientists



don't agree on this. You'll struggle. They do. A tiny minority,



including Prof Bob Carter, don't.











Dawlish, how can you deny that scientists are at variance on global



warming? If the science was so clear and unequivocal and the findings



of scientists so unanimous, there wouldn’t be all the controversy that



there is; no-one would dare to be a denier under those circumstances.



Although, speaking for myself, and I suspect many others, when I see



any sort of bandwagon, I am instinctively suspicious because I’ve



noticed that there is a certain type of person who loves to have a



self-righteous stick to beat the rest of us with, the modern equivalent



of the old hell-fire preacher. I’ll continue to read as widely as I



have time for and keep an open mind.







Ian Bingham,



Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.







I think that is a very wise approach.







Especially as there are lots of people who stand to make billions from



us continuing to burn vast amounts of fossil fuels.



Yes the *******s force it on you don't they. You know I bet every time you take one of your cars to a petrol station some bugger fills it up despite you kicking and screaming "No, no please don't do that because we are all going to die." and you cry all the way back home to your house the one without solar panels.

Oh dear. That just reflects the climate denier position perfectly. A combination of almost total ignorance combined with outright indignation that people could possibly understand more than they do.

It's funny that anyone could react in this way and I'm so pleased that no-one with an ounce of influence listens to people like this when they spout this stuff, but I'm even more pleased that my grandchildren's children's future is not in the hands of people like this.