Safe Speed Forums

Because it is an extremely complex subject to understand. The fact that I don't fully understand another subject, for example the engineering behind the safety of nucleur reactors, doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy to conceal the facts from me.

Though of course, in the case of your analogy, nobody is justifying their job/raising taxation/exerting influence based on you, and others, believing something about nuclear safety without any proof/consensus.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Is the warming observed even real warming and not down to change in number and location of temperature recording stations? The whole argument is based on whether a) the world has warmed and b) whether it is something unusual and c) whether man is the cause. If the whole warming is down to a statistical bias then it doesn't matter about the rest as there is no global warming so maybe politicians should spend time doing something useful instead of pushing the poor into fuel poverty because of their adherence to cock eyed theories.

How accurate are temperature sensors anyway?

But I’ve gotten pulled into showing that the whole Global Warming thesis is just broken. It is based on a belief that the computer generated fantasy is more accurate than reality. That is all too common in folks who have not had the experience of working with computers “down and dirty” in the code. So for now, I’ve dusted off those old FORTRAN skills and I’m working my way, one step at a time, through the code and the data, finding just where, and how, it is broken. Maybe a book will come from this some day, too.

Why? Because the “running out” paranoia and the “carbon cap” solution will destroy the American Economy. I want a better world than that for my kids. Simple as that. Because I hate error and waste, and the AGW thesis with the proposed “solution” is both. The rest flows as a natural consequence.

Totally missing is any indication of who will pay for the increased carbon price, and/or the vastly increased cost of power generation. Somehow, Ofgem seems to believe that this is a no-cost option.

You can have referenda to decide whether the world is flat or whether it would be more convenient to set the value of pi to be exactly three. But no amount of voting will change the physical reality.

You can have referenda to decide whether the world is flat or whether it would be more convenient to set the value of pi to be exactly three. But no amount of voting will change the physical reality.

But that wasn't the point of my post. It is actually following on from this one about what Joe/Jane Average thinks and how they would be thinking that given this critical issue is based on science, science which is "settled".

Please don't try to obfuscate the issue with these previously failed 'flat earth' references.

As I suspected. Anti AGW propaganda is being financed by big oil.

Oh dear! The age old fallacy "My opponent paid for the research therefore it is invalid".

yawn

Sand, suitable for the burying of heads, is available at all builders merchants and DiY stores.

#The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
# Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
# Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded [with no obvious product existing]
# Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics [in over ten years] — less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
# The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

– Upton Sinclair, 1935

Given that the government and opposition parties of this country have been stealing taxpayers money to fund their extravagant lifestyle/s and property deals for many decades, and having been discovered are hardly apologetic and are hastily putting in-place another way of stealing without being found out, I find your allegation that "sceptics" have their heads buried in sand for not "believing" the politicians protestations that we are "doomed" rather amusing.