Yes - but relativity is "just a theory", isn't it. More like a religion really

Actually - that is a mathematical proof you are describing. "Geometry" - try googling it. Newton did not describe orbits by testing hypotheses by experimentation.

Which hypothesis have I said "must be true?" Don't make things up.

What does that mean? Anyone's guess!


Uh, try to keep what's been said in your head, OK? I know it's a challenge for you. And yes, Newton didn't have to "test hypotheses by experimentation" - he built on and explained the work of Brahe and Kepler by proving mathematically a scientific fact, ie that orbits were conic sections.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

"I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle".

This statement by Doran has been embraced by both sides of the argument as unbiased scientific statement.

It seems to me that the statement implies that, while there may be a warming trend, it is not anthropogenic but part of a cycle.

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

Here, I'll provide the list of scientists for you again in this link since you must not have looked at it when I provided it before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ming_consensus

That is where you find a list of scientists under this heading:

Believe global warming will benefit human society
Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures and/or increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

I still can't figure out why you have such a problem with this Andrew Bolt guy.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Maybe we're a bit unclear. Global warming is real, the way in which scientists compound the situation to a level of increased grants from the government is a hoax. These scientists are the people putting forth the 'scare tactics' of global warming. Sure, it exists, but it is out of our control.

My post tried to explain as hydrocarbons increase, the efficiency of plant life (or photosynthetic bacteria, etc), which creates the oxygen in our atmosphere, also increases. When the warming goes beyond the tolerable point for animals in the region (let's say in a million years the equatorial belt becomes too hot for humans to inhabit) plants begin to thrive and the process is reversed.

While it is feasible, one of the greatest components to global warming is the burning of forests (which ironically helps forests across the earth grow with a different gaseous compound in the atmosphere) and not simply emissions from industry. Think about it - plants are mostly carbon/hydrocarbons, factories are also sulfur, methane, nitrogen compounds and CFC's, etc. The global warming effect is caused from hydrocarbons, while the process is catalyzed with breaking apart of ozone with CFCs.

A catastrophic rapid climate change isn't something to worry about. The process is natural, our emissions only alleviate natural proceedings. While it might issue another era of hot/cold spells, there will not be any sudden drop or raise of heat energy. Think of it like this: If you are in a room with a gas leak, you know it's happening for a while. You have time to prepare as you begin to notice changes in the air (changes in climate for organisms on earth). You also do not notice a sudden drop in the effectiveness of your breathing, the process is gradual. The same with the atmosphere, everything which contributes to it is gradual (except a blockage of the sun) - hydrocarbon increase, the breaking of O3, all leading to global warming. (The melting of glaciers also happens gradually)

I don't appreciate scientists who use global warming to receive grants in order to politicize the issue, playing off the fears of the public and liberal arts types in Washington; I think it is very unnecessary if not immoral. This type of research funding could be used for advancing fuel technology, etc. Instead, people wanting to 'make a difference' divert funds from those who actually do research/inventing. I might also note it is much easier to write a synopsis on glaciers melting than it is to make those glaciers power your house, see my point?

__________________
"We've been blowin up, we're the issue, we're ammunition" Switchfoot

Dude, I don't agree with you on many things, but you do have an excellent understanding about this subject far beyond most people myself included. Kudos! Great post!

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Because CO2 has increased about 35% since the industrial age, perhaps you, or the "scientists" you link to, can point out some of the benefits of this increase that have already occurred?

__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Well I can't point to anything that would make a connection between anything man has done and the increase in global temperatures granted. The globe is warming though.

One benefit that comes with a warming globe is that it is warmer. I hate the cold.

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

I agree that "scare tactics" and exaggeration of the problem is not helpful. I haven't actually seen the Al Gore movie, but from what I have heard, it does seem to concentrate on some worse-case scenarios. The sea-level rise graphics I have seen from it seem a bit ridiculous.

Having said that though, I am not really aware any examples of scientists puting out 'scare tactics' to get increased government grants. I assume you are American - maybe it goes on over there. If it does - that is a shame. As is evident by some of our "learned collegues" also posting in this thread - the whole issue still seems to be highly politicised in the USA. Climate change has I believe, long ceased being a political issue in Australia and most other western nations.

I work as an environmental consultant to the construction and mining industries - and as such, endevour to keep up with the latest literature. I really can't say that I have ever noticed much in the way of "scare tactics".


Fair enough, I don't disagree. But I don't think that is really relevant to the short and medium term impacts on human habitation, Your assessment of the impact of climate change based only on the impact of CO2 on vegetation is a bit narrow I'm afraid. What about the impact on human societies of changed precipitation patterns which are predicted by models?

I agree that deforestation is probably the single most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions (about 25% according to FAO) - and this is compounded by the reduction in the "carbon sink" function of vegetation. Emmission reduction strategies will require a combination of fossil fuel replacement and reforestation (or at least, a decrease in deforestation)

I do not agree with you here. If you are looking at the problem from a "whole ecosystem" and long-term point of view you may be right. But humans inhabit many different parts of the whole ecosystem, which will undergo varied levels of impact. It is the impact in the short and medium term on human society that concerns me.

Let me give an example. I live in on the east coast of Australia. We have just emerged from one of the most severe droughts in recorded history (albeit a short recorded history - we only have about 150 years of climate data). Drought is a natural part of our climate - it is caused by the ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) system. The drought finished spectacularly a few months ago when we were plunged straight into a strong La Nina phase with severe flooding. Now, I am not saying any of this has anything to do with climate change - we expect a drought every 7 or so years, and some are going to be worse than others.

However, climate model predictions do predict that droughts for south-eastern Australia will probably become increasingly severe. Generally, it is predicted that the precipitation currently received in Australia will as climate change progresses, shift slightly southward a few degrees. This will result generally in greater precipitation in northern Australia and less in southern Australia. Only a subtle change - but one that will have enormous impact on Australia's large cities and farming regions. The fact that plants are getting more CO2 will not help at all the millions of people who will have less and less access to fresh water.

We survived the last drought - as we have survived droughts before - but if that last major drought is a taste of things to come, we are in a bit of trouble. Brisbane, Australia's fastest growing city came dangerously close to actally running out of water last year (a combination of drought and insufficient infrastucture to cope with the growing population - two effects which are likely to increase with progressive climate change).

Now most importantly - Australia is a rich country and though impacts may be severe, it is possible that we may be able to cope with the gradual change and rebuild out infrastructre to allow our cities to continue to function. Less affluent countries will not have that luxury. Climate change will not have to be "catastrophic" to have catastropic impact on human societies. However, should climate change actually start to impact on systems such as ENSO or the Asian monsoon - then catastrophic impacts would be sudden and global. How likely that is - I don't think anyone really knows, the systems are far too complex to model, but that is no reason not to attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions.

As suggested earlier - you seem to be recieving a very warped view of the issue through living in the USA. In my experience, I have not found "scientists who use global warming to receive grants in order to politicize the issue, playing off the fears of the public and liberal arts types in Washington" to really be an issue. It may happen in the USA - but over there you also have the likes of Exxon and the Cato Institute etc. paying millions to the likes of Singer, Ball, Lindzen etc. to continue feeding our our fellow learned collegues in this thread misinformation. It is probaly time the USA stopped treating this as some sort of political issue. Perhaps your upcoming change of government will help. I hope so.

I don't know either. You were the one who originally wrote:
"No, I know that PROVING something one way or the other with a nearly infinite number of variables and limited data is beyond the reach of science - it is VERY similar to a religion."

Perhaps you can explain?