Safe Speed Forums

I think you are being a little unfair there. Your previous posts had all been aout CO2 concentration so naturally I concluded the matter referred to was that.

Are you now saying that the disasters you refer to are caused by some other man made problem if so which disasters?

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I think you are being a little unfair here as well. You carefully left off the word before the quote which said 'financially' which implys money lost rather than lives. And I only said for while which also implys that we could recover from that when we all find out how to use skis and sleds

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

As I said I only remember reading it somewhere but even 2,100 scientists is still a lot on the basis that as you said it is the physics that counts. And the paper is way over the top (perhaps) in saying that all that extra CO2 will stimulate growth in plants. It will but perhaps not to the extent that it will be that good for the planet.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Yes, I am unfair. If you read the paper, you know yourself that many experts (not the noddy scientists this Robinson bloke has drawn up) who have studied the matter think that disasters are brewing. But there are a few car cranks out there who want it to go away, so that they can push the pedal to the metal and no feel bad about it.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I am not quite sure how you perceive some scientist as noddies and others as not but I suppose that is down to what you wish to believe.

And lets get this one out in the open for a start I am not a car crank. I consider myself to be a conscientious motorist. That is the main reason for me being a member of this site.

I have read lots of stuff on this 'climate change' with some interest because it used to be my job and I got paid for understanding it.

I have come to the conclusion that the doom mongers amongst the scientists are mostly after more research grants to keep their jobs while they investigate their version of 'the problem' as they see it. There is very little money in saying there is no problem.

Remember the panic about the Ozone layer? (but lets not get into that one as well).

I believe this planet will be here for another 4 billion years and man may be very good and destroying himself but it would be very arrogant to assume that he is big enough to destroy the planet with his puny efforts. The planet has been in a lot worse state than it is now and people survived.

So if you wish to believe the doom and gloom then you are playing into the hands of Governments who wish to keep you afraid and scientists who want more money from your pocket.

In the meantime I am going to have a beer and comtemplate how good life really is.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Its OK chaps....all is saved. Its all down to cow farts.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/01122005/80/cure-cow-flatulence-cooked-scientists.html



Now I have seen everything

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It's not nearly as delicate a balance as they would have you believe, otherwise it would probably shut down annually.
In the Arctic winter, vast areas of ocean freeze up, considerably increasing the salinity of the water as they do so. Also, there is little fresh water coming from the rivers and glaciers, as they're mostly frozen up. This would strengthen the stream.
In the summer, with those same vast areas of ice turning back into freshwater, the salinity decreases considerably, thus weakening the stream.
And its largely self-regulating, because if the stream slows down it transports less heat to the Arctic, so it gets colder - which increases the salinity and so strengthens the stream.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

To put things into perspective, before the GW scare kicked off there was only a handful of climatologists around, and universities offering degree courses in climatology were very few and far between.
Now, two-point-something decades later, climatologists are penny-a-dozen, and they all owe their livelihoods to the GW scare. Are any of them going to turn around and say that there's nothing to worry about? No, I didn't think so.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

That makes sense and sounds logical. I'll investigate a bit more, not very well up on oceanic currents.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Click here first http://slashdot.org/~basingwerk/friends

Awwwww. Diddums.

Looks like the same song......from http://science.slashdot.org somebody needs a new record! Everything from killer asteroids to
the Welsh colonising the Americas. Are all Basingwerks like this? Or could it be.......ah!
eg.


And for the activists out there - a friend!

I've emboldened the "criticism" concerning the "wrong" credentials of the gainsayers.

In an ealier incarnation I was a physicist, so I suppose that the "Mandy Rice-Davies clause" should be applied to what I say, however, physics is the most intellectually rigorous of the sciences. The reason that so many physicists are critical of the "science" of Global Warming is that too little of it really is science. The climatologists have a tendency to "cock a deaf 'un" at Scientific Method - much of the doom and gloom is based upon computer models that are incapable of recreating today's climate when fed with genuine historical data, which means that they are flawed. Scientific Method demands that flawed theories are not seen as scientific laws, except in certain exceptions where a flawed theory is "near enough", so although Newton's Laws of Motion are flawed when compared with Einstein's postulates, they are "good enough" to produce accurate results in non-relativistic frames. I suggest that the present "Laws" of climatology are not quite in that ballpark.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

No you're not stupid. It's much easier to bury your head in the sand than take painful measures to counteract the problem.

_________________
Brian