Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[Pixie]

It's not that difficult to understand is it? Now, of whom would you ask the question: How much does all of this cost? and why would you want to know?

Climate not difficult to understand.
And the award for understatement of the millennium goes to Mr Mashman

[Pixie]

You don't have to take it even that far. Something as "simple" as quantum mechanics makes it quite obvious that physics is not an "exact" science. However, solving Schrodinger's equation for pretty much any interesting system is difficult. (for the record, difficult, in this case, means beyond our current ability)

Meh,you put a cat in a box and shoot it -how hard can it be.

[Ocean1]

The solution to the most common failure of domestic felicity, Toilet seat up? Or down?

Schrodinger's Toilet Seat...

You will need:
1 cardboard box, large enough to cover the raised toilet seat
1 piece of toast
Blu-Tack (or similar reusable adhesive)

First calibrate your toaster so that you can produce a piece of toast which, as it cools, dries and becomes more brittle, will after time T spent supporting a raised toilet seat have a 50% probability of having broken. Then (after using the toilet) prop the raised toilet seat into an almost vertical position with your toast such that when the toast fails it will fall down to the horizontal position. If the toast has difficulty propping the toilet seat because of the smooth porcelain surface, use the Blu-Tack. Cover the propped seat with the cardboard box and leave.

Then after time T, the position of the seat is indeterminate - there is coherent superposition of quantum states - the toilet seat is both up and down until the box is removed.

[Badjelly]

BTW quantum physics is, at it's basic level, well understood and well predictable.

Is there a consensus amongst the physicists that this is so?

Doubtless if the truth or otherwise of quantum physics were a matter of social importance a debate on the subject could be arranged.

[Badjelly]

Well its basically proven that the scientists leading the charge and providing date to the IPCC are fraudsters.

Scientists did conspire a conspiracy theory for their own gains

Scientists can be trusted..........insert Tui comment here.

Those involved have said the emails are theirs...........case closed

The entire data used for the Emissions trading scheme has been twisted and adjusted to suit the pro argument for nothing but financial gain.

SCEPTICS WIN..........case closed on that arguement, now watch the spin doctors go into motion to keep the B.S going.

Oh...........and I told you so !!

That's a nasty case of confirmation bias you have there Quasi. You should see a doctor about it. On second thoughts, don't bother, you'd just believe what you want to believe anyway.

[Mikkel]

Well its basically proven that the scientists leading the charge and providing date to the IPCC are fraudsters.

Scientists did conspire a conspiracy theory for their own gains

Scientists can be trusted..........insert Tui comment here.

Those involved have said the emails are theirs...........case closed

The entire data used for the Emissions trading scheme has been twisted and adjusted to suit the pro argument for nothing but financial gain.

SCEPTICS WIN..........case closed on that arguement, now watch the spin doctors go into motion to keep the B.S going.

Oh...........and I told you so !!

Ian Wishart just came in his pants... another disciple just stepped up.

We had this debate before, I'll restate my point: skeptical thinking is not about reading something and then believing that it is true - that's religion. Nor is it adequate to extend skepticism to just one side of the argument. What you are proposing is closer to septisism.

If you are truly interested in widening your horizons I'll point you to these two very good books:
The Demonhaunted World by Carl Sagan.
A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.

Hey, you make a good point. I agree. The problem and the original subject of this thread is the skewing of that "best available" method for political ends/expediency.

Yes, and my argument is that the skewing can take place on many levels - consciously or unconsciously. Whatever political spin is being put on any research is regrettable. I can't believe that the scientists involved are exactly thrilled about it either - you don't spend the better part of 10 years at university because you would like to become a political instrument. However, if you have a family to take care off and it's either fall into line with the company policy or loose your job and get a crappy reference - things might be a bit tricky.

Personally there is no better way of making me engage my "baloney detection kit" than for authorities (commercial or political) to proclaim "there is nothing to see here, move along". Too often economic interests are quite willing to mislead society so it won't notice the shit that going on right underneath our noses:

Tetra-ethyl lead?
CFC gasses?
Thalidamide?
Minamata disease?
Radium girls?

...to name but a few. Makes for interesting reading won't you agree?

Absolutely agree, but after 20 years we're only just finding out that we're nowhere near answering that question. They need more study time, more money for study!

Indeed, and you could fund a scientific study for less than the cost of one state-of-the-art smart-bomb dropped at some supposedly strategic target in the middle east. ...not to mention feed an entire village for years.

Meh,you put a cat in a box and shoot it -how hard can it be.

Put the cat down!

[Skyryder]

If you gather enough material be it on any subject you can use that material in a manner that will 'prove' any result that you want. It's simply useing selective text as proof, to portray 'your' views as the only view that is correct.

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

if you gather enough material be it on any subject you can use that material in a manner that will 'prove' any result that you want. It's simply useing selective text as proof, to portray 'your' views as the only view that is correct.

Skyryder

Bullshit!!

If you had said "prove" I'd be inclined to agree...

[Jantar]

If you gather enough material be it on any subject you can use that material in a manner that will 'prove' any result that you want. It's simply useing selective text as proof, to portray 'your' views as the only view that is correct.

Skyryder

Not so. For something to be true scientifically it must be demonstrable and repeatable. In the case of AGW the raw data used to make a prediction must be made available to other scientists so that they may follow the methodology and come up with the same result.

What the climate skeptics have been saying for years is that the raw data is not being made available, only carefully massaged data, and even then the methodology of massaging that data has never been open to scrutiny. The hacked emails show that the skeptics have indeed been correct all along.

[Skyryder]

Bullshit!!

If you had said "prove" I'd be inclined to agree...

I don't understand your post.


Skyryder

[Quasievil]

That's a nasty case of confirmation bias you have there Quasi. You should see a doctor about it. On second thoughts, don't bother, you'd just believe what you want to believe anyway.

yes I believe the Scientists when they personally owned up to the fraudulent scamming and figure adjustments to push this shit through...............after all you believed that they where right didn't you.

Only difference is I dont have any egg on my face, you do, as does the entire scientific community, for now we know for a FACT that their science is not science, its science for sale.

Even after absolute confirmation of the scamming you still believe ??????

surely not.

Skeptics win

[Badjelly]

What the climate skeptics have been saying for years is that the raw data is not being made available, only carefully massaged data, and even then the methodology of massaging that data has never been open to scrutiny. The hacked emails show that the skeptics have indeed been correct all along.

That's one of the things they've been saying. They've also been saying that it's the sun, it's the PDO, it's El Nino, it's undersea volcanoes, the satellites show no warming, there's no global warming on Mars and much else besides. Throw enough shit and some of it will stick for a while.

[Badjelly]

Only difference is I dont have any egg on my face, you do, as does the entire scientific community, for now we know for a FACT that their science is not science, its science for sale.

No egg on my face mate.

The point is, when you say "Sceptics win", the Earth absolutely doesn't care. It doesn't care what you think and it doesn't care what I think. This isn't some sports or political contest where the winner is decided by a referee or voters. It isn't bloody NZ Idol!

The changes humans are making to the Earth will be there long after you and I are gone. I can tell you my reasons for believing that, and to some extent I have. They have nothing to do with any emails.

[James Deuce]

Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock who will make points at the expense of the "truth" (established fact is probably a better term). Bear in mind that this is gleaned from following a book tour around the UK and watching him change his presentation to demean the next closest set of inbreds to each county he visited, as well as challenging his assertions about NZ which, despite never haveing visited at athe time, he insisted was a miniature Britain. He was not happy when I pointed out that we beat rather less Sikh's to death per capita than Britain so the characterisation needed a bit of work.

I loved his work before that. I became a rabid Bryson loathing stalker after his vapid shallowness was revealed.

He's closer to Ian Wishart than Sagan in character.

[Quasievil]

No egg on my face mate.

Yes of course, I meant the scientific community, particularly those involved with this scam (who should be locked up)

the amazing thing is that this breaking 4 odd days ago, our stupid government are now rushing to put this through ........why????

The government conceeds Maori can plant trees on our (DOC) land so Maori can get carbon credits ........Why?

this isnt about science, it never was, its about money and greed........funded by us...... why ? well it has to be as the pro science is flawed...... FACT.