You can't actually buy the R though can you? The standard H2, although impressive, I've heard stories of it being outdragged by standard litre bikes..
You can't actually buy the R though can you? The standard H2, although impressive, I've heard stories of it being outdragged by standard litre bikes..
Can I summarise your position as "Move along, nothing to see here"? This begs a couple of questions: If that is the case, what are all the world leaders doing in Paris? If it is one gigantic conspiracy, why have all countries chosen to participate in it? If it is one gigantic conspiracy, what does everyone have to gain from participating in it? I am genuinely interested in the answers to those questions.
TBH I'm not that interested in giving credence to anti-science by debating it. What I will say is that the scientific method is designed to do one thing REALLY WELL and that is to reduce the likelihood of bias and self-deception. To quote Feynman: "the first principal is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
I think the man-made climate change deniers would argue that there is no reliable science proving that any aspect of climate change can be laid at the door of Mankind. In order to conclude that humans are affecting the global climate, you need to run experiments. This would usually involve running a control group - in this case, we need an planet which is identical to Earth but which has never had humans living on it. If our Earth has warmed substantially compared to the "control Earth", we can surmise that humans are responsible for the current global warming phase. This is a wonderful situation to be in. With no possibility for observing a control group, the science can never be proved ... in which case - Party on, Wayne! No need for mankind to address global warming because we cannot prove beyond all doubt that we are responsible.
The point I was making is that the predictions of climate change have generally proven to be exaggerated. We have been here before. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with methane and water vapour, burning fossil fuels creates CO2 and contributes to that greenhouse effect, that much is undeniable. The question is how serious a threat does this represent and what do we do about that ?
So which of these facts do you disagree with ? No. I have a Science Degree. Where is your evidence for anti-science ? One thing that science does do is accept that any hypothesis can be challenged. However Global Warming / Climate Change has risen to the status of religion and can no longer be challenged. The IPCC does no science. It collates the scientific research of others and presents that in support of it's core beliefs, which is that climate change is largely man made. Much of this belief is based upon computer modelling which has so far made poor predictions, the current hiatus in the warming trend for example. There are alternative scientific views out there but people like you @redsail shut them down with bollox like Are you a tin foil hat wearing science denier? based upon no evidence. If you wish to accept the new religion without question go ahead, I chose to take a critical look and see the inconsistencies in it.
A masterful Straw Man Loz. No one can deny we exist therefore we interact with our environment therefore we change that environment. But I think we can and should be able to challenge the results of computer modelling, particularly when that computer modelling has been shown to be less than accurate in the past.
(Edited to remove Loz's quote, wasn't supposed to be there) You have a good line in logical fallacies, especially Strawman and middle ground. Perhaps we should 'teach the controversy' with regards to intelligent design too? But I am glad to hear you're not a science denier, perhaps you can use your training to read some of this: CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean? Also I find this graph quite compelling.
Many years ago I used to be skeptical about AGW, and the 'control group' issue was one of the main reasons. However once I understood some of the details and the data I could no longer hold on to my skepticism and I realised I was guilty of bias... I didn't want it to be true. I changed my mind because it was an impossible position to defend. Nothing wrong with being wrong... its the most certain we can be after all.
Um, yes, we should be able to challenge findings from projections. Absolutely. We have insufficient data with which to create reliable computer models. A couple of millions years of contemporaneous data input and analysis would find us still short of a proper dataset, bearing in mind the variability of solar outputs, let along meteor impacts and geological phenomena We have climate data points from the last 100 or 150 years. We have reliable analysis for atmospheric content - greenhouse gases, particulates and such - for nearly as long. We have established beyond reasonable doubt, if not proven rigorously, that the atmosphere has changed since the Industrial Revolution. Global temperatures are rising as a trend. You can either say, "There is no evidence to prove that anthropological climate change (ACC) is under way" or you can say, "There is evidence which is potentially indicative that mankind is effecting change or is accelerating a natural phenomenon". There is no middle ground between these two positions. 1. Choosing the former looks like "head-in-the-sand" behaviour but it is scientifically rigorous. 2. Choosing the latter looks one of two ways - Do nothing (see 1. above) or Do something (which could be called a Leap of Faith) Now, bearing in mind that there is no reliable way to prove ACC correct, any position taken other than a wait-and-see approach will by its very nature be a decision taken on faith. In many scientific matters, we have the option of accepting a theory or rejecting it. No matter. Time will tell whether the a theory stands and falls but in the case of Climate Change, timescales and outcomes are potential ruinous. You need more than mere scientific principles in order to deal with this issue effectively. That said, I know that John is worried that the whole Going Green industry is a scam. Of course it is, it is run by human beings. Nevertheless ...
Again @redsail the patronising smugness of Perhaps we should 'teach the controversy' with regards to intelligent design too? But I am glad to hear you're not a science denier, perhaps you can use your training to read some of this: OK, 0.7 deg over 130 years, what does that prove ? The climate is changing. Yeah ? It always has. So what ? I find this much more interesting, a relationship which I referred to in my original post. From Vostok ice core samples. An explanation is that the oceans act as a sink for CO2 and as temperatures rise CO2 is released. However is is possible to quote ad nauseam snippets of information from both sides of the argument. I don't suggest that one side is right and the other wrong, I am sure the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes; call that a logical fallacy of the middle ground if you wish. However the science, such that it is, has been hijacked for political and economic gain on the world stage, and made a few individuals very rich along the way. It is what people do. No doubt a grandiose statement will come out of Paris promising the earth, literally, billions will be promised and all be forgotten again. China will double it's CO2 emissions, along with India, carbon credits will be fiddled, life will go on and the climate will continue to change.
Unfortunately down the years the green lobby has put forward so many idiotic proposals and faked assertions that even if they were to say something rational now, one would be very hesitant to believe them. Rigorous proof would be required. And it is very hard to prove long-range future predictions.
