Professor Phil Jones exonerated.

[TheBigYinJames]

AGW is complete bollocks - prove me wrong.

Unfortunately for us, they don't need to, since they have the meeja and govt on their side now, it's just a case of who can shout the loudest (and impose arbitrary taxes to support their opinion) - and as much as I hate to say it - that's them. They've won the shouting contest, AGW scepticism has to go underground.

I'm coming round to the idea of stopping arguing with AGW warmists, since they've already won the argument in their own minds - their attachment to the myth is complete, it's like trying to talk someoe out of a religion.

Instead we need to develop a strategy to cope with the havoc their ilk is wreaking on everyday lives, and offset it against the fairly respectable and welcome changes their ranting is bringing about (e.g. fast track development of electric cars, solar, wave and wind power, reverting to modern clean nuclear energy etc.)

We need to ignore all the Malthusian alarmist stuff about retreating glaciers and poor pet doggies drowning in floods - that's there to scare the proles into paying their green taxes. We'll need to pay them too, that's tough tittie, but we can quietly get on with the rest of our lives without making stupid martyrdom stands against the establishment.

[BlasterBates]

As the ice cap freezes up again, have you noticed how the Ocean Acidification argument is being pushed to the surface.

It's funny their research involves going up to the Arctic regions and spending millions on a base, ships and submarines to dive around, count shellfish etc and so come up with "overwhelming evidence". It isn't clear to me what "scientific method" they're applying here. I don't suppose they've thought about spending £300 on a fish tank and pumping CO2 in it to see how marine life reacts, but then again there's the danger that it might thrive like it does in the many thousands of aquariums around the world.

I think it might have something to do with all these scientists coming out of the faculty of Environmental Studies, rather than microbiology. They're trained in doing field studies. Standing around in wet fields and counting squirrels.

[Cliphead]

We need to ignore all the Malthusian alarmist stuff about retreating glaciers and poor pet doggies drowning in floods - that's there to scare the proles into paying their green taxes. We'll need to pay them too, that's tough tittie, but we can quietly get on with the rest of our lives without making stupid martyrdom stands against the establishment.

[pjclarke]

Might as well say ....

Plenty of so called evidence for Evolution but not a single proof.

Therefore Evolution is bollocks - go on prove me wrong....

Mathematics deals in proof, science deals in evidence, and the huge preponderence of scientific evidence is in favour of the reality of AGW. Every relevant scientific organisation has endorsed this position, and the Joint National Academies of Science state that the evidence justifies action.

[Cliphead]

Might as well say ....

Plenty of so called evidence for Evolution but not a single proof.

Therefore Evolution is bollocks - go on prove me wrong....

Mathematics deals in proof, science deals in evidence, and the huge preponderence of scientific evidence is in favour of the reality of AGW. Every relevant scientific organisation has endorsed this position, and the Joint National Academies of Science state that the evidence justifies action.

Not arguing about evolution, it's pretty much accepted within the scientific community as a whole and has some credibility. AGW on the other hand isn't accepted and is losing credibility within the scientific community and the public.

[BlasterBates]

Darwin did provide proof on the Galapogas Islands (pardon the spelling)
Similar species that had adapted slightly.

Very difficult to refute that.

[TheBigYinJames]

Might as well say ....

Plenty of so called evidence for Evolution but not a single proof.

AGW warmists like to pull this one out (as well as 'round earth') because it's proof by association - science was right about this and this, therefore it must be right about THIS - which is total bollards)

The difference is that Evolution has actually happened - we have something which we can point to and measure models against. AGW is possibly happening, but there's not really any evidence that the A in AGW is happening - you can show some warming, but so what? It's the cause and effect of this warming which is pure fiction - and deeply UNscientific..

Also on the same point - Fruit fly adaptation experiments prove selection works.

Mathematics deals in proof, science deals in evidence.

Crapola. Law deals in evidence, science deals with currently undisputed theorems. Every single scientific fact is a theory for which there are no contra-indicitive empircal disproofs. Evolution is a scientific fact because no other theory adequately predicts the observed outcome. AGW is not a scientific fact because the initial theory is shaky, and there is a lot of evidence against it as well as for it. It is disputed. A bunch of toadys all slapping each other's backs does not prove a scientific fact.

[BlasterBates]

You can pop down to the annual Crufts dog show to look at the proof of evolution.

[gingerjedi]

James Lovelock

'We're not really guilty. We didn't deliberately set out to heat the world'...

...What is more, he predicts, the earth's climate will not conveniently comply with the models of modern climate scientists...

...Scientists, he says, have moved from investigating nature as a vocation, to being caught in a career path where it makes sense to "fudge the data"...

To sum up: It's not our fault and there's nothing we can do about it anyway, just leave it alone and get on with your life.

[BlasterBates]

I used to work in the Electricity Generation industry, and I can tell you that renewables is bollox, always was and still is. That might change, but currently you'll have difficulty finding an Electrical Engineer who has to maintain the grid, and isn't making money from wind turbines, that agrees with that.