Global warming my arse

the-smiling-buddha Calling someone ignorant, just because they disagree with you is in fact rather patronizing don't you think..? a person is entitled to have an opinion and to express that opinion, that is called free speech. The only point I made in my first post was to call the 'inconvenient truth' a load of bollox, provocative yes, but I did it because I wanted to provoke not because I am ignorant of climate change. I was curious to see what the reaction would be, so far I have been called ignorant and a 'git' which seems to rather bear out what they were saying on this radio show I was listening to doesn't it..?

Secondly I am studying from my masters degree so I know all about being a student, I know all the big fancy words, I know all the academic procedures, this is a bicycle forum, I ain't getting marks, so wiki is adequate enough.

I didn't intend to cause offense, the-smiling-buddha, by calling you ignorant. From my perspective I feel that, through what you were saying, you weren't aware of what I (and many others) believe to be the facts. Obviously you have the 'right' (I hate using that word) to think otherwise.

Calling you a git was meant in jest, not seriously. Again, sorry if it offended you!

Samsonite I don't want to tread on anybody's toes here, but can we just talk about bikes rather than bickering?

Unxetas is right. Too many forums are ruined by people fighting over stuff that really doesn't matter - I'm talking about seeing who's cleverest, not global warming - and I'd hate to see this one go the same way

No offence is intended to anyone, by the way...

I'm going to agree to disagree - arguing on the internet is so stupid. Leave it to C+...

:)

yay! buddha wins again \m/

Samsonite, I'm much older than I look on those pics. As you probably know, this is just my physical body.. bla bla bla.

Who said buddha won? ;)

what's all this 'i didn't mean to cause offence' bullshit.

just express yourself.

the-smiling-buddha

It creates the impression that wealthy people can just buy themselves a green conscious

Sorry, man, that's life.

The poor and unlucky will suffer the worst effects of global climate change. They will suffer drought, floods, famine and pestilence.

The rich which always be able to use their wealth to insulate themselves from the turbulence.

And if there's a forum heading called 'miscellaneous and meaningless' then what the f*** else are we supposed to post here? Oh yeah, I forgot about how this forum and its members exist in a political vacuum. How f***ing ignorant of me.

Dicki put some posts up here that are plain wrong - sorry, Dicki, you are wrong. Go away and educate yourself on global climate change, and while you're at it, have a look at a phenomenum phenomenon called 'peak oil'. Another scientific fact that is being ignored, but which has even more serious consequences for humanity.

Shit, did I spell that right?

Nope.

600 years ago it was a scientific fact that the sun went around the earth.

Yeah, and it's a scientific fact that Princess Diana was murdered.

Buffalo Bill [quote]the-smiling-buddha

It creates the impression that wealthy people can just buy themselves a green conscious

Sorry, man, that's life.

The poor and unlucky will suffer the worst effects of global climate change. They will suffer drought, floods, famine and pestilence.

The rich which always be able to use their wealth to insulate themselves from the turbulence.

[/quote]

Bill for King/Prime Minister/Chief of Police/Landlord!

Yeah, I wanna be King of the Anarchists.

the-smiling-buddha But climate change, caused by humanity's tipping the balance of CO2, is a scientifically proven fact

Actually I believe that it is a consensus of opinion and not a scientificaly proven fact. Unless of course you can tell me how it was proven, by whom and when.

What's the IPCC, if not peer reviewers of scientific propositions?

Just a bunch of circus entertainers? Star Trek fans?

You might be confusing the use of consensus to take decisions with a lack of rigour. Consensus is much more rigourous, and demanding, than simply voting. It's actually a very good way of establishing scienctific facts. Another thing you ought to educate yourself about.

Another thing you ought to educate yourself about.

Why?

Bill I liked what you had to say about rich people insulating themselves, Al Gore I suppose cannot really be blamed for being rich, but $30,000 on the old lecky ain't really playing the game, least not in my opinion.

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. This however might be a hang over from the old days of deterministic science. Cosmologist will be a bit pressed to find an experiment to prove big bang theory just as climatogists cannot really prove or disprove the extent of mans contribution to global warming. The consensus is that man has made a significant contribution but a consensus isn't fact it is just an educated opinion, and opinions, even educated ones, can be wrong.

true.. But should we risk it? Do we really have anything to lose with playing it safe and taking care of our planet? Do we really need all these fucking gadgets and plastic furniture?

Does anyone really need to earn MILLIONS every year, killing people in the process and fucking it up for everyone else?

who the hell cares if the sea will never rise 20ft but "only" 2ft.. Do we need it to rise at all? Do we want it to? Are we entitled to everything we "own", everything we produce? What if india and china start producing and consuming just as we are currently? It is certainly fair for them to do so if we can't be arsed to control ourselves.. Where will we buy our offsets then?

Bill - it is obviously not a political vacuum, but what good does it do? I've been trying to change the world for a bit of time myself, and I've kinda reached the conclusion that noone changes opinions unless they actively research the topic themselves or someone hits them hard with enough evidence.. Something that I don't think will happen here, but it doesn't really bother me, as long as everyone keeps a friendly tone and all that.. bla bla bla :)

the-smiling-buddha Seems to me that predicting a 20ft rise in sea levels is a pretty effective scare tactic

It may be, but more importantly it is a reflection of the science - against a predicted sea level rise of 1.4 ft, the collapse of one of the major ice sheets would result in a sea level rise of 20 ft.

Now regardless of whether you feel this is 'scary' or regardless of your dislike for Gore or his hypocrisy, this still remains scientifically sound.

the-smiling-buddha
But how credible is this claim if it is not supported by the IPCC

and if it were credible why doesn't the IPCC have ice sheet collapse as it's 'high' scenario

The IPCC make a single unambiguous prediction with regard to their research on sea level rises - an increase of between 28cm and 43cm.

This is likely to happen regardless of any other consequences of a rise in the worlds temperature.

The ice sheet collapse is a possible consequence of a rise in the worlds temperature and is not included in the IPCC remit.

the-smiling-buddha
The word you seek is not Ad hominem but hypocrisy

No it is correctly an ad hominem, you call Gore a hypocrite (he may be for all I know) - that is an ad hominem argument and has no bearing on the science.

the-smiling-buddha
"See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement any more, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level." Patrick Moore founding member and former President of Greenpeace.

And long may it remain a political activist movement.

The IPCC make a single unambiguous prediction with regard to their research on sea level rises - an increase of between 28cm and 43cm.

This is the 'high' scenario the 'low' scenario predicts 18 to 38 cm

**The IPCC make a single unambiguous prediction with regard to their research on sea level rises - an increase of between 28cm and 43cm.

This is likely to happen regardless of any other consequences of a rise in the worlds temperature.
**

How likely is likely ? the IPCC's best prediction is somewhere between the high and low scenarios

and as I started earlier the IPCC do not know the accuracy/inaccuracy of their models

The ice sheet collapse is a possible consequence of a rise in the worlds temperature and is not included in the IPCC remit.

The IPCC scenarios are based on surface air warming so why if ice sheet collapse is a credible risk is it not included in the IPCC remit

No it is correctly an ad hominem, you call Gore a hypocrite (he may be for all I know) - that is an ad hominem argument and has no bearing on the science

What science ? Al Gore is a politician and the scientists at the IPCC don't include this in their scenarios

and you have yet to enlighten me on the science of ice sheet collapse

And long may it remain a political activist movement.

Now this is where I beg to differ

In the United States climate change has now become a 'liberal' issue

what this means is that people of a conservative persuasion are not listening

now you can accuse them of being ignorant all you like

but the fact remains that these are the people who most need to change

not helped I might add by the fact that Al Gore with his obscenely large electricity bills

allowed himself to be portrayed as a hypocrite

[cite]Leeww:[/cite]No it is correctly an ad hominem, you call Gore a hypocrite (he may be for all I know) - that is an ad hominem argument and has no bearing on the science[/b]

the-smiling-buddha What science ? Al Gore is a politician and the scientists at the IPCC don't include this in their scenarios.

I think you are attempting deliberate obfuscation through your muddled conflation of Al Gore as a person and the findings of the IPCC.

Poor technique if you wish to discuss something honestly and openly. :(

Your own view of Al Gore is simply that, your own view, it may be correct, Al Gore is a serial rapist and has a 10 speed derailleur for all I know - but importantly his hypocrisy, electricity bill or his sex life have no bearing on the science - by definition your argument is ad hominem.

Once again for clarity, your personal dislike of Gore (and his hypocrisy) has no bearing on the science of global warming.

[cite]Leeww:[/cite]
and you have yet to enlighten me on the science of ice sheet collapse.

And with that pointless comment I shall bow out of this thread and hand over the reigns to you, best of luck.

here are the answers

How likely is likely..?

greater than 66% for the IPCC high scenario

Why is Al Gore ice sheet collapse hypothesis not included in the IPCC reports

because the IPCC reports are for the next 100 years

and Al Gore hypothesis is speculative he was talking about this happening beyond 2100

Should the IPCC report be revised, well maybe

There is evidence to suggest that antarctica maybe melting already

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know why I got involved in this stupid argument

actually I do

I was 'thinking' out loud

just musing about something

then someone called me a 'git'

and I ain't really used to being spoken to like that

I can't let that kind of thing go

and I am too polite to say what I really think

So I need to bow out until such a time

as I am only thinking 'bikes'

Buddha

'Buddha', my arse ! ;)

Oh god! I stopped reading halfway down the first page, as soon as the posts started to get multiple quotations, only to find that they kept on going on the second page!

Can't we all just get along?

.....and ban the mention of the climate past saying "the weather was shit today"? :)

asm Oh god! I stopped reading halfway down the first page, as soon as the posts started to get multiple quotations, only to find that they kept on going on the second page!

Can't we all just get along?

.....and ban the mention of the climate past saying "the weather was shit today"? :)

hahaha :)

Debate and argument is healthy!

Debate and argument is healthy!

oh no it's not...

leeww 'Buddha', my arse ! ;)

gone here

What does 'gone here' mean ?