Global warming - what global warming

[Willlow]

Is this conjecture on your part?

This is due to no actual proof.

Environmentalists suggest climate change exists and that we are responsible for it, but can produce nothing that categorically proves it.

 

[Dour]

This is due to no actual proof.

Environmentalists suggest climate change exists and that we are responsible for it, but can produce nothing that categorically proves it.

That's rather a silly argument. Science doesn't work by categorically proving things.

 

[The Major]

Why does it matter if humans are causing it or not?
It's still a threat!

Would you say we shouldn't worry about a meteor that's about to hit the earth, because we didn't cause it?


If global warming is a threat we should do what we can to stop it, whatever the cause. Unless you're happy for your kids and their kids to suffer as a result of our inaction.

If it's not man made then what can we do/stop doing to change it.

If Co2 is not causing global warming (assuming there is such a thing) then what will reducing Co2 emissions acheive?

 

[Jeff]

If it's not man made then what can we do/stop doing to change it.

That's for the scientists to say.
But because something isn't man made doesn't mean man can't fix it.

That's assuming it isn't man made, the majority of scientists who are experts in the area think it is man made.

 

[The Major]

That's assuming it isn't man made, the majority of scientists who are experts in the area think it is man made.

There are some that do and some that don't. The blatant lies and exaggerations that the pro-global warming lobby come out with makes me a little sceptical.

 

[Matt_B]

That's for the scientists to say.
But because something isn't man made doesn't mean man can't fix it.

That's assuming it isn't man made, the majority of scientists who are experts in the area think it is man made.

But one of the arguments for stopping man made effects is that we are negatively affecting the planet. If we aren't to blame and go about stopping the effects then we are surely guilty of the same thing? We would be changing the natural course of the planet for our own benefit.

 

[Jeff]

We would be changing the natural course of the planet for our own benefit.

We've been doing that for thousands of years!

 

[Willlow]

That's rather a silly argument. Science doesn't work by categorically proving things.

Yes it does :icon_bigg

 

[Macky]

Yes it does :icon_bigg

Not really. It's more about testing a hypothesis.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Shit, did I just say 'paradigm'? My apologies, I'm going to go sit in the corner for a while and think about what I've done

my housemate says he was in a crappy conference once and he heard someone say "parra-dig-um shift"

bellendishness of the highest order

 

[Steven]

 

[Jeff]

I'm always suspicious of 'facts' when no source is quoted.


This comes from NASA.gov:

 

[Real Sharapova]

This is due to no actual proof.

Have you proof of that?

 

[Willlow]

Have you proof of that?

Do you have proof I dont? :icon_roll

 

[Lako42]

Pathetic

 

[highland fox]

You can prove anything you want on the internet and never ever win an argument. It's heaven for anyone who has a hobby horse they like to ride in public.

It was heaven when I used to ride mine naked around the streets of Kinlochleven..great days:icon_cry:

 

[Steven]

It was heaven when I used to ride mine naked around the streets of Kinlochleven..great days:icon_cry:

Are we talking about MK again? :icon_conf

 

[highland fox]

This is really a problem, to be honest on here. Most of the stuff Steven posts is clearly bollocks

You'd noticed too ?

 

[Real Sharapova]

Do you have proof I dont? :icon_roll

No, but it was you posting your view as a fact, I wasn't. An honestly held view doesn't become a fact no matter how much it is repeated.

 

[Steven]

You'd noticed too ?

As opposed to you posting about bollocks?