On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:30:52 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 16:00:50 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 3:35:50 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 14:06:44 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the end. 😀



You're analogy of gravity I pure tosh. I'll tell you why you idiot, we can see gravity working on the earth every day , very hour, every second but we have no evidence whatsoever of co2 heating the atmosphere, do we?

Please show this evidence to me and your follower.

99.9% of all published material on the subject points to exactly that evidence. 0.1% supports you and yours.

Your little corner of denial becomes smaller by the day. laughing



Absolute rubbish. Everyday the pause remains....

......a pause which has resulted in the warmest year in 136 in 2014 and is highly likely to result in a year even warmer in 2015, laughing Just amazing the things you people can convince yourselves is reality.

rest of rant snipped

Enjoy your tiny corner of reality larry. there aren't many of you in there, are there?

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:38:31 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 21/06/15 15:02, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on
here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be.
The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case,
the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What
does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and
never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be
inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would
be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a
bunch of crap. Right up to the end. ??

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works,

Do we?

we know what the equations are. We can
'slingshot' spaceprobes around planets in order to accelerate them.
And lo and behold the probes end up where we want them.

Yes you can use the equations of Newtonian gravity and calculate these
trajectories with sufficient accuracy in the solar system, but not in a
strong gravitational field where you have to use the more accurate
theory of general relativity, where gravity is modelled not as a force
but as the curvature of spacetime.


How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
Newtonian gravity was proven to be wrong ~100 years ago.


Well said. That's all you can do with proof in science - prove something wrong.

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 5:55:59 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 10:42:30 UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:
Reading it properly suggests good practice to some extent. It appears
that a number of people including scientists have queried the validity
of the data and an independent panel of technical experts have said that
overall it is sound but some aspects of quality control and statistical
analysis could have been done to a higher standard.
"BoM's technical advisory forum said ACORN-SAT was a complex and
well-maintained data set. Public submissions about BoM's work "do not
provide evidence or offer a justification for contesting the overall
need for homogenisation and the scientific integrity of the bureau's
climate records."

It's hard to explain sometimes that Science isn't about right or wrong -
a stance you two have taken here.
You try to end up with the most representative set of data which
involves justifiably eliminating some which appears as outlying. (There
will be all sorts of mathematical ways of deciding this). It would
appear here that this has not been done wellin some areas and
improvements are to be made. That seems to be reasonably transparent
although there should have perhaps been more internal peer reviewing of
the quality control and statistical methods. Unfortunately some
organisations and scientists aren't as good as each other, as in all
walks of life, but it doesn't mean there is a conspiracy I'm afraid.
Dave

Dave

I realise that for now many will think I'm part of a 'nutty' minority'......

......you said it larry.

On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 7:16:54 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message
...

To show up climate deniers, the analogy is just perfect.

That's why you'll never be a persuasive AGW advocate - you have to stick to
rational argument and not rather meaningless, non-scientific rhetoric.

Really? Not where deniers are concerned. They need to be shown up as the idiots that they are. The more they are ridiculed, the less effect they have on people on the fringes of similar far right-wing and fundamentalist outlooks.

Ridicule. Rational argument fails every time with these people.

On Sunday, 21 June 2015 17:38:31 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 21/06/15 15:02, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on
here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be.
The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case,
the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What
does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and
never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be
inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would
be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a
bunch of crap. Right up to the end. ??

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works,

Do we?

we know what the equations are. We can
'slingshot' spaceprobes around planets in order to accelerate them.
And lo and behold the probes end up where we want them.

Yes you can use the equations of Newtonian gravity and calculate these
trajectories with sufficient accuracy in the solar system, but not in a
strong gravitational field where you have to use the more accurate
theory of general relativity, where gravity is modelled not as a force
but as the curvature of spacetime.


How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
Newtonian gravity was proven to be wrong ~100 years ago.


I think "wrong" is the wrong word. Newtonian gravity simply didn't go far enough but it had gone down the right road and, as far as it goes it is correct.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

On 21/06/15 20:43, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 17:38:31 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 21/06/15 15:02, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to
on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there
to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists.
In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest
literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the
major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven
and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling
piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A
denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing
distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the
end. ??

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works,

Do we?

we know what the equations are. We can 'slingshot' spaceprobes
around planets in order to accelerate them. And lo and behold the
probes end up where we want them.

Yes you can use the equations of Newtonian gravity and calculate
these trajectories with sufficient accuracy in the solar system,
but not in a strong gravitational field where you have to use the
more accurate theory of general relativity, where gravity is
modelled not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime.


How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
Newtonian gravity was proven to be wrong ~100 years ago.


I think "wrong" is the wrong word. Newtonian gravity simply didn't
go far enough but it had gone down the right road and,

Not sure it's correct to say it had gone down the right road. Newtonian
theory models gravity as a force obeying an inverse square law. This
didn't work - hence Einsteins theory of general relativity which hasn't
failed in any of its predictions.

as far as it
goes it is correct.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


It was 'wrong' in the sense that it made predictions that didn't conform
to observations.

On Sunday, 21 June 2015 19:43:49 UTC+1, Dave Cornwell wrote:
On 21/06/2015 15:35, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 14:06:44 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the end. 😀



You're analogy of gravity I pure tosh. I'll tell you why you idiot, we can see gravity working on the earth every day , very hour, every second but we have no evidence whatsoever of co2 heating the atmosphere, do we?

Please show this evidence to me and your follower.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Just remind me of one thing though Lawrence, you do agree the planet has
warmed to a measurable extent over the last, say 60 years?



I have answered this before. But here goes again. Yes my own subjective experience tells me the UK has warmed in the last 45 years and the Met office or Hubert Lambs temperature record showed a clear warming up until the 1940's and then cooling until the eighties.

In fact I clearly remember on the way to a Socialist Labour League Young Socialist do on a spring Sunday morning and I was about 19-20 reading a full front page article in the Sunday Mirror about the encroaching new ice age, I also had a Sunday Telegraph colour supplement that spoke of exactly the same thing. The real warming in the UK has been since the nineties and of course we all know that the temperatures rose from the little ice age into the 20th century. As for the whole planet its hard to know how the temperatures have moved accurately. A really large and accurately kept data base for the USA has gradually been affected by cities and ashphalt and we all know of the dust bowl period in the thirties which showed up clearly on the USA temperature record as the thirties clearly stood out' See this link at Steve Goddard's blog,

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-to-2015-giss/

If anyone can refute this in a constructive way then please be my guest.


So to conclude yes there has been cooling and warming in the UK in my life time and I know that subjectively as well. For the rest of the planet how can we tell as there has been no reliable way of measuring until satellites. But my guess is the planets temperature has waxed and waned as it always has and human co2 is a very small influence. With all previous swings in temperatures we all know that a cooling planet will eventually cool the ocean thus reducing co2 and vice versa

In article ,
says...

How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?

We know global warming is occurring and 99.9% of all published
material on the subject points to CO2 being the cause. How much more
proof do you want,

Well generally, in science, we test predictions made by a theory.

So far, the theories regarding CC have not fared well by this standard.
We are still unable to make any meaningful planning for a future climate
as none of the theories have proven to be robust enough to provide a
prediction by which to do so.

It will get warmer but some places will get colder and it will get
wetter but some places might get drier and we don't know where...

It is, of course, simply a matter of time before the mechanics and the
various forcing factors are understood well enough to make predictions
fit for purpose, but I don't think that will come in our lifetimes. The
number of contributing forcing factors is simply massive. Until then, we
will have to make do with not-very-convincing probabilities.


--
Alan LeHun
Reply-to is valid. Add "BPSF" to subject: to bypass spam filters.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 3:02:13 PM UTC+1, Col wrote:

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works, we know what the equations are. We can
'slingshot' spaceprobes around planets in order to accelerate them.
And lo and behold the probes end up where we want them.

How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

We know global warming is occurring and 99.9% of all published material on
the subject points to CO2 being the cause. How much more "proof do you
want, Well actually, you can carry on asking for it until you are blue in
the face, but you'll never get it.

Research proof in science. You'll see I'm absolutely correct. There is
none. You just have very well established theories that *so far* have
stood the test of time.

Fair enough, but to intents and practical purposes it is *proof*.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

"RedAcer" wrote in message
...
On 21/06/15 15:02, Col wrote:
Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on
here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be.
The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case,
the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What
does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and
never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be
inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would
be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a
bunch of crap. Right up to the end. ??

In the instance of gravity, how much proof do you want??

We know how it works,

Do we?

Yes.
We can throw spacecraft around planets and they always go where we
want them to, they don't crash into the planet or go flying off into space
in the wrong direction because somebdy got the equations wrong.

we know what the equations are. We can
'slingshot' spaceprobes around planets in order to accelerate them.
And lo and behold the probes end up where we want them.

Yes you can use the equations of Newtonian gravity and calculate these
trajectories with sufficient accuracy in the solar system, but not in a
strong gravitational field where you have to use the more accurate
theory of general relativity, where gravity is modelled not as a force
but as the curvature of spacetime.

I am well aware of the limitations of Newtonian physics.


How could we do that if the theory wasn't 'proven'?
Newtonian gravity was proven to be wrong ~100 years ago.

But only *wrong* where relativistic principles become significant.
Newtonian gravity works for us in most instances, and where it
doesn't we know how to calculate it.

Einstein didn't replace Newton's theories, he merely built upon them.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg