Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I'd love Cavey's posts in this thread to be put in a time capsule for his grandkids and their kids to read. Unless 95%+ of all climate scientists are utterly incompetent and/or lying for some reason that's never been clearly explained to me, then they'd made for comforting reading as they contemplate the fucked planet and wait to die in hurricanes, droughts, flash fires, and famines.
Again Doc, that's needlessly emotive. If I'd come on here and said, d'you know what, 'I don't give a rat's arse because I'll be dead before the nasty stuff really starts to kick in', that comment might be fair enough, but I absolutely haven't. The point is, I don't know, or claim to know, I am a self-confessed layperson. (Again, I haven't claimed any knowledge). Whenever this comes up, the heat has to be turned up to max (pardon the pun) and I just cannot be bothered with that anymore.
As far as this latest 'proof' is concerned, it doesn't look like it even remotely stacks up to me - even little old me, when issuing a most humble report, have to get it peer reviewed, including all data and calculations, before issue/sign off. I mean, given the potential gravity of these supposed findings and their implications, does this not raise an eyebrow or two at your end? Sanctity of data and all that; this looks to be no more than polemic, let alone 'science'. Global warming/climate change is, of course, an immensely politicized arena with all sorts of conflicts of interests, including from the scientific community itself IMO, as far as I can tell.
I'd seriously like someone to explain to
me the basic mechanisms and causations of repeated pre-industrialisation climate change events within geologically speaking very recent timescales on Earth (and even elsewhere in the Solar System). I'd like someone to tell me how we can assert man-made causation with such absolute confidence when we demonstrably know so little about the sun and how it works, apart from the fact that we do know it is deeply cyclical in the short and medium term, and I'm not simply referring to sunspots. (Or the Earth's atmosphere, long terms effects of oceanic currents and all the rest - immeasurably complex, chaotic systems of course). The consequences of mistakenly not using readily available fuel sources for humanity as a whole, on the back of a false premise, would be almost as dire as the predicted outcomes of global warming. Plus, I don't know about anyone else, but the thought of en masse use of nuclear power, with *no* way of storing the intensely toxic fission byproducts and reactor components etc. for hundreds of thousands of years, and the clear and present danger to life, particularly in genetic terms, sends a shiver down my spine. These dangers are
real and demonstrable, unlike those supposed by man-made global warming?
But anyway, there's no point to all this as it always ends up the same way and as I've said, I can't be arsed
_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...
Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but
interestingly wrong