Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[mashman]

Yes, overpopulation is the greatest immediate risk to humanity. Famine war disease. We won't all die. Humans are remarkably adaptable and survive in extraordinary conditions. Technology won't disappear. There will be less of us and they will be far better off than we are today.

Still...its poignant and compelling to visualise unrest in times to come. From about 2029 onwards.

Potential flip side. Technology could disappear depending on who's left. After all when something breaks, someone needs to understand how to fix it, or may need to know how to extract/combine "minerals" to build the component.

I reckon before 2020, perhaps even as early as 2015 as that unrest you're talking about, is very much in evidence in just about every country in the world.

[Woodman]

I reckon before 2020, perhaps even as early as 2015 as that unrest you're talking about, is very much in evidence in just about every country in the world.

Lucky then that we live in a country that is underpopulated and the population that is here basically don't give a shit enough to cause any civil unrest.

[mashman]

Lucky then that we live in a country that is underpopulated and the population that is here basically don't give a shit enough to cause any civil unrest.

So we've got good safe seats then

[Spearfish]

Ah, the "AGW is religion" spin. Have you ever wondered why so many fundamentalist christian groups are so vehemently opposed to AGW? Or how the least religious and most rational people (scientists) agree? I love how deniers think science is religion. And how is a commercial transaction theft?

I wish it were that easy, really I do. I love people with no understanding of science.

A lot of scienticians are religious. E=mc2 was written by a dude with heavily bruised knees.
Some say people with strong left views will support AGW those right don't but then that's like saying the left wing live in the world they imagine it to be, where as the right wing live in the world how it really is.

You don't have to know every detail to know there is a problem with consensus amongst proponents of either side so I'm keeping an open mind but some of the antics of the proponents are not helping the debate.

Its all ok though, the UN has passed a resolution, the temp of this planet wont go up so "No worries aye" so no more volcanic activity or altering wiki pages to hide historic warm periods either.
In support of global warming I'm using FD rated 2smoker oil instead of FC we all should do our part....

[Indiana_Jones]

-Indy

[shrub]

After i set your plastic jebus on fire, it will have melted from a solid into a liquid and then will turn back to a solid again. I can prove that without the use of mathematics

No, you will have proven nothing. You will have observed something, namely that my blessed Plastic Jesus of The Doorframe will have melted and then returned to solid. You will no doubt hypothesise that this happened because you set Him alight, but you may be wrong. Ken Ring may have cast a spell to melt Our Lord at the exact time he predicted an earthquake, which coincidentally was when you set Him on fire. So you will need to repeat the experiment isolating an independent variable (ken Ring).

Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven, however the role of a scientist is to identify the most likely explanation for a phenomenon. In the case of the current changes to global climate patterns and the consistent rise in mean temperatures scientists have looked at every possible cause and identified that the most likely cause is human activity, specifically the dumping of huge amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They may be wrong, but I am unaware of any credible studies by any scientists working in relevant fields that challenge that hypothesis. Sure there are thousands of people with all kinds of letters after their names that throw up all kinds of arguments, but none that I have seen stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and from what I have observed almost none of these "experts" have expertise in the relevant field.

However they convince the gullible and poorly informed, and provide endless meaningless debate on a thousand internet discussion boards.

[Scuba_Steve]

but I am unaware of any credible studies by any scientists working in relevant fields that challenge that hypothesis. Sure there are thousands of people with all kinds of letters after their names that throw up all kinds of arguments, but none that I have seen stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and from what I have observed almost none of these "experts" have expertise in the relevant field.

However they convince the gullible and poorly informed, and provide endless meaningless debate on a thousand internet discussion boards.

Dude here I was thinking your were supporting climategate, must have got it wrong cause here you are pointing out exactly why its nicknamed climategate

[oneofsix]

No, you will have proven nothing. You will have observed
Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven, however the role of a scientist is to identify the most likely explanation for a phenomenon. In the case of the current changes to global climate patterns and the consistent rise in mean temperatures scientists have looked at every possible cause and identified that the most likely cause is human activity, specifically the dumping of huge amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They may be wrong, but I am unaware of any credible studies by any scientists working in relevant fields that challenge that hypothesis. Sure there are thousands of people with all kinds of letters after their names that throw up all kinds of arguments, but none that I have seen stand up to even the slightest scrutiny and from what I have observed almost none of these "experts" have expertise in the relevant field.

However they convince the gullible and poorly informed, and provide endless meaningless debate on a thousand internet discussion boards.

leaving out the idol worship thingy. Long live plastics.
Nothing outside maths can be proven ... spoken like a mathematician. I think therefore I am.
The most likely cause was decided by people who set out to prove an hypothesis, they discovered a money tree and more got on board. Step back and see if their hypothesis is supported by others without the axe to grind and it comes under pressure.
To be accepted as an "expert in the relevant field" the said 'expert' has to support the climate change is caused by man or else the supporters of this theory point out that they have come from another field. If they support the hypothesis they are accepted into the fold and duly anointed an expert in climate change. Sounds just like a religion or society, the new masons perhaps. If an archaeologist happens to uncover natural climate changes that don't align with the human caused model they can be safely ignored cause they aren't experts in the field whereas I would rather look at their evidence cause they don't have an axe to grind. Sometimes it pays to step away from the books and look at the world.

[shrub]

leaving out the idol worship thingy. Long live plastics.
Nothing outside maths can be proven ... spoken like a mathematician. I think therefore I am.
The most likely cause was decided by people who set out to prove an hypothesis, they discovered a money tree and more got on board. Step back and see if their hypothesis is supported by others without the axe to grind and it comes under pressure.
To be accepted as an "expert in the relevant field" the said 'expert' has to support the climate change is caused by man or else the supporters of this theory point out that they have come from another field. If they support the hypothesis they are accepted into the fold and duly anointed an expert in climate change. Sounds just like a religion or society, the new masons perhaps. If an archaeologist happens to uncover natural climate changes that don't align with the human caused model they can be safely ignored cause they aren't experts in the field whereas I would rather look at their evidence cause they don't have an axe to grind. Sometimes it pays to step away from the books and look at the world.

Gotta love conspiracy theorists!

You need to get out more.

[oneofsix]

Gotta love conspiracy theorists!

You need to get out more.

religion is a great thing as it brings out all the best arguments.

[shrub]

religion is a great thing as it brings out all the best arguments.

Really? I thought it brought out the ignorant and naive.

[mashman]

No, you will have proven nothing. You will have observed something

Like you say, i may have hypothesised what the outcome might have been, i may have just been experimenting because i like fire, but there is no doubt that PJ went from a solid state, to a liquid state and back to solid again, ergo Proven start-middle-end. Some scientists won't be happy with the FACT, so they'll theorise as to why this happened and won;t accept the proof that it has happened until they can scientifically prove it. Kinda stupid really.

The world is heating up, let's find out why ... pissing in the wind much Closing my eyes may well have meant that i'd miss the melting phase of PJ and that i'd have to hypothesise as to how PJ is now flat and not lucking so pretty... that sounds awful familiar

Pro-climate folk may well be correct and we are having an influence on the "changes" of the planet, but they can't measure to what degree and if they can't measure that value (which just so happens to be impossible), then it may well be 0.000001% and we'd be better off spending the money by using those keen scientific minds on other things instead of chasing unicorns.

[avgas]

Really? I thought it brought out the ignorant and naive.

Sadly science is a "religion" if you don't listen to others. So I guess your both right.

[shrub]

Sadly science is a "religion" if you don't listen to others. So I guess your both right.

Nope, religion and science are diametrically opposed, which is why the church has long tried to block science and the use of scientific reason - climate change is the latest case, before that we had the sun revolving around the earth, creationism vs evolution, the existence of god etc

[shrub]

The world is heating up, let's find out why.

That's what we've been doing for several decades, and just like the most likely reason Plastic Messiah resulting in Him melted was because you applied heat, the most likely reason for the rise in global mean temperatures with the attendant change in climate is because of the massive amounts of greenhouse gases we have emitted. Sure, it may be because of other reasons, just like my jesus melting may have been caused by Ken Ring, but none of the other reasons have stood up to detailed scrutiny.