Is the climate change debate realy over?

[rod@plasterbrok]

Yes Grunt I am certain.

But at least I will keep reading both sides and if something meaningfull comes in that can be proven and observed that supports AGW theory I will stand corrected and change my opinion. Will you?

The biggest problem associated with the theory of AGW that I see is:

The science surrounding AGW has been hyjacked by activists and pollitics.
Many claims being made are often fanciful, ludicrous or downright lies.
There are too many with vested interest in carbon trading schemes.
Many pro AGW people are too quick to shut down and ridicule anyone with an opposing view.
Gore will not debate anyone regarding false claims in his film.
Models can not be fully trusted to be acurate particularly 100 years on.
Co2 cannot be reduced by the amounts required without the world grinding to a halt.
Some claims made are too scare people into action without justification.
The extreme push for action when temperature have at worst stabalized is very fishy.
Scientists with opposing views have been threatend with the sack and are not given space in the MSM.
The proccess of the IPCC is more politically based than based on scientific facts.
Anyone who claims the debate is over and that there is no argument has no credibility, they should welcome opposing views so they can dispute them and strenghten their own case. Is it they want to hide the truth?

I could go on but that is enough to cast doubt in my mind, given the other evidence to support a case for natural warming, as opposed to AGW, irrespective of your reluctance to acknowlege that any of those peer reviewed papers have any credibility. Many people do believe they have credibility and like it or not many more will.

These are my own views, not like those quoted direct from something like "how to attack a denier 101"

[Mickj]

When I was in High School('80s), we learned about the "Atomic Theory"....yes thats right Atomic THEORY. In science everthing is THEORY until it can be proven without doubt. Even today, we study the Theory of "Light". Yes we know light exists, we just can't explain it.

AGW is in the same category. We all accept it as Theory, but the evidence is building up to support it. The problem is that its become a political issue, which why there is so much mis-information being floated by all parties. We all know that CO2 is not the only green-house causing gas, yet it seems to get all the attention. Why??

Scientists use computer models because thats all they have. The quality of the models is only as the good as the data that is fed into them. And yes, there a times when a crystal ball is more accurate. When you know all your variables, and you know the relationship between those variables, then modelling can be quite accurate. I used to do financial modelling. For short term forecasts, we were very accurate. But when you are trying to do long range forecasts, then the level of confidence drops off significantly. Environmental modelling is a million times more complicated than financial modelling(many more variables and not a complete understanding of the relationshops involved). So, much of the predictions about AGW are "guess work", But the more we study and analyse, the more accurate we can get with our predictions.

The real decision is whether we sit and wait or do we do something now??

[Grunt]

But at least I will keep reading both sides and if something meaningfull comes in that can be proven and observed that supports AGW theory I will stand corrected and change my opinion. Will you?

Yes, my opinion has wavered on this issue over the years.

The science surrounding AGW has been hyjacked by activists and pollitics.

Yes, absolutely. This is why the only sites I get my information are from science sites. I don't pay attention to the blogs of green groups or business focused groups. Both have an agenda.

The science surrounding AGW has been hyjacked by activists and pollitics.
Many claims being made are often fanciful, ludicrous or downright lies.
There are too many with vested interest in carbon trading schemes.
Many pro AGW people are too quick to shut down and ridicule anyone with an opposing view.
Gore will not debate anyone regarding false claims in his film.

Yes. From both sides and it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Models can not be fully trusted to be acurate particularly 100 years on.

This sort of science cannot 100% accurate. We will never have absolute truth in this. Melding of all models gives us a fairly scary picture.

These are my own views, not like those quoted direct from something like "how to attack a denier 101"

At least from the article and posts that you seem to get your views from sources that are dubious.
Are there any science sites that doubt global warming? If so please post, I would like to read.



There is a chance that GW is not caused by man. If AGW crowd is wrong we would have spent some money and probably cleaned up our environmental act a bit. If they are right however and we do nothing then we owe an explanation to our children as why we have left their world in such a mess. That is if the world is still habitable.

[echnidna]

This will debate will go on as long as the earth is flat

[Gingermick]

No, the debate will go on as long as allows

[rod@plasterbrok]

I'm done agree or disagree I have made my point.

That is the debate goes on.

[jow104]

Conspiracy Theory.


But we all know that the earth will get a warm period as has happened in earlier epochs. (without human intervention)

So perhaps vested interests are trying to cut down oil consumption so that their reserves last longer for themselves?

[Big Shed]

I'm done agree or disagree I have made my point.

That is the debate goes on.

It sure does, found this article interesting.

[dazzler]

The last debate on this seamed to die after another forum member posted this link
YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4
Before you go any further why not look at this , unless you are afraid of the facts discussed by a real reputed scientist.


TL
You are wrong pure and simple there is debate among reputed scientists ,
It would apear from your post that any reputed scientists, who disagree with your point of view are wrong and not actually " reputed " at all,
Why you would make the arguement that the only reputed scientists are those who agree with your point of view . Lady you have either a limited knowledge of the facts , a lack of understanding of the facts , or have decided to interperate the information you do have in your own way but your statement that there is no debate among reputed scientists is wrong.

I watched all four episodes twice and was quite interested. He makes some very valid points.

two things struck me though;

1. Cool the arrogance and dont bag out the Australian of the Year (just lessons the impact and lowers his standing)

2. Needs to address what HE believes or at least suspects the PPM increase in carbon will have on the climate. And it will rise, manifestly when china and india really come on line, simply because if you take it from the ground, and burn it, it goes into the atmosphere.

So its fine for him to talk about torpedo's and so on, but there is just too much historical talk (though both sides suffer from this) and not enough about the expected outcomes of putting it in the atmosphere. Perhaps it will do nothing, perhaps not, but to be taken credibly he needs to address this, unless of course I missed it as it was very long .

But IMO it is really a mute point, reduce as much as we want, but its gonna get used up eventually, and that is the where the problem lies, not with global warming but with the monumental influence that will have on the world. Food production (lack of fertilizer and ability to process) may suffer and that is where it will bite.

Over population and the way we sustain and influence the environment is the elephant in the room.

So even if both sides have good arguements, there is no arguement that oil and coal WILL run out, and when that happens the apocolypse (the non biblical one) will come for a visit, and that is gunna hurt.