Global warming my arse

Where is that buddha? Tibet? Looks peaceful.

watford..

Is that watford gap?

yep. its a whole other country.

Is it a country that is suffering from chinese dominance, and whose spirtual leader lives in exile?

yep. in exile due to chinese carbon emissions melting all the snow.

can't make a snowman anymore, poor guy.

climate change affects us all.

poor watford...

global wetting

I can't resist posting this, really I can't

I said this movie was a load of bollox

and know all these learned gentleman agree with me ..;)

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

It's all in the context baby! :-)

"He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change"

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

When Blair took us to war he did it because he said there WMD there

this turned out not to be true

So was this an 'error' or was this a 'lie'

When al Gore makes a film

and our learned friends decide that he has made 'significant errors'

are these then 'errors' or these then 'lies' ...?

You are damn right my friend 'the context' is everything

anyway Al Gore just got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7041082.stm

like just about a minute or two ago

so whether he made errors or told lies is all rather academic

and he has now undoubtedly become the poster boy of the climate change movement

Well that's that I spose - global warming can't possibly be happening because a famous bloke somewhere told some porkies about it. Thank god for that.

the-smiling-buddha Technically for a theory to be 'proven' someone has to come up with an experiment to test and prove the theory. For example particle accelerators are built to test quantum theory, observation alone is not sufficient to prove a theory.

Experiments are just observations too. This is the old inductive versus deductive debate. A single observation that contradicts a theory is sufficient to negate it. Any number of observations that supports a theory do not prove it.

I think it is probably more correct to say that AGW is a scientific theory that is backed by a large corpus of data and observation, giving it a very low (discountable?) probability of being wrong.

Science is really about theories, not facts. But that certainly dioes not mean that we should ignore everything that science tells us. If we did that, we wouldn't have bikes to ride around on. We should act as if theories ARE facts; when we are sufficiently convinced of them. The IPCC style of review and consensus building is an extremely effective way of deciding which theories are worth regarding as facts.

Many thing can not be proved they can only be disproved.

"Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be true".

Some fanmouse quote.

The earth is warming, it would be warming without human intervention, however it is warming a greater amount / at a greater rate than is possible without including human intervention. No one has come close to disproving the fact that humans are adding to the global warming problem.

The physics of how this works are well understood.

Counter theroies have been dissproved and many of the theries quoted by the press are actually mis quoted.

The scientific community are and have been the ones telling us about this problem for years. The global scientfic community is in it's nature free thinking and of free spirit, it needs to be to do science. Trying new ideas and using locial deduction to come to conclusions. Hence the idea that it is a puppet of politicians who are contolling it is farscicle.

The earth is a very complex [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system]dynamical system[/ame]. A result of this means that small deavations from the normal reagions can results in vastly diffrent behavoiur. The added climet change which we are impossing could take us into regions which result in very diffrent results than that which happen whith in the worlds natural oscillations. The world is most definatly non linear.

To state that there have been flutuations in the climate in the past is true, but none have been like this, because as previously stated the changes in the climate not be explained unless man made contributions are included. The results of this extra contribution as stated above can mean greatly diffrent resulsult to previous episodes of climet change with in the earths history.

Bye bye.

At least smiling-buddha is in the minority, which means that, if this forum is anything to go by, the majority of people accept that global warming is not only happening, but it is a man-made phenomenon. Which means the majority of people will make an effort (hopefully) to change their lifestyles accordingly. If you look at the "possible" consequences of global warming, then whether you believe it or not isnt it prudent to try and avoid it?

If you ignore the whole environmental thing, that doesnt change the fact that trying to eliminate unnecessary waste, recycling, avoiding pumping harmful chemicals into the air are good things, and things that we should aim to do, does it? In which case what's the problem?

The problem is, what you're asking people to do will lower their living standards.

"Living standards" are a fairly bogus concept. You could argue that if you are wasteful - wash at high temperatures, boil 2 litres of water for 1 cup of tea, abjectly refuse to recycle, drive to the toilet, etc. then your living standards are lower than someone who is considerate about what they use.

I think the problem is that people think they will have to sacrifice their 'living standards' to be 'greener'. When you actually look at it, a lot of the things that are wasteful such as driving, excessive use of automated appliances, cycling with gears [ ;) ], that are tantamount to having high living standards, are just time saving devices pandering to our own excessive laziness as 21st century human beings.

In my opinion, aside from obvious things like sanitation, clean food, being dry, being entertained in some form, having a 'high living standard' equates to 'being exceptionally lazy'.

As it happens, I recycle, do my wash on cold, ride a bike or two, take public transport in lieu of driving a car, and I have them funny lightbulbs and all, I do my bit

doesn't mean can't ask questions

I watched that inconvenient truth and I thought

some of this is bull-shite

the thing is if you start bullshitting people

some of the people stop listening after a while

True, but you kinda picked the wrong target considering this film has drawn such massive attention to the issue.

Yeah, the beauty of inconvenient truth is not what it says about the problems with our environment in and of itself, its that it stirs people into doing their bit to put it right.

ok

the-smiling-buddha, if you want to be involved in the (wider) argument learn the issues rather than pander to simplistic angles and demagoguery, we are all hoping people like you can come through, you are important, views from people like you are important.

talking about simplistic angles and demagoguery try listening to rush limburgh or the savage nation both avaliable on line more Americans listen to Micheal Savage on their daily commute home than watch CNN as these gentlemen would have it said global warming is little more than a myth invented by American liberals and euroweenies to temper Americas capitalist edge the debate in America is still wide open and it being fought between Good Morning America on one hand and the Sean Hannity show on the other and Al Gores thirty thousand dollar electricity bills, heavy use of private jets & some inconvenient errors in his 'inconvienient truth' leave him wide open to attack where it matters the most , in the heartland of America, ought not the poster boy of climate change be above the partisan debate...?

the-smiling-buddha talking about simplistic angles and demagoguery try listening to rush limburgh or the savage nation both avaliable on line more Americans listen to Micheal Savage on their daily commute home than watch CNN as these gentlemen would have it said global warming is little more than a myth invented by American liberals and euroweenies to temper Americas capitalist edge the debate in America is still wide open and it being fought between Good Morning America on one hand and the Sean Hannity show on the other and Al Gores thirty thousand dollar electricity bills, heavy use of private jets & some inconvenient errors in his 'inconvienient truth' leave him wide open to attack where it matters the most , in the heartland of America, ought not the poster boy of climate change be above the partisan debate...?

Points taken.

I like you, you are like the '.' of infinite wisdom, and very mysterious too

Oh I am curious ..?