Tim the plumber

x Harold Squared, on 24 Jan 2015 - 8:21 PM, said: ! Moderator Note If you are going to make claims, you need to back them up, i.e. post a citation. Otherwise this is just trolling, and will not be tolerated. Do not respond to this modnote in the thread. x You could have asked him to cite his sources rather than come down like a school teacher finding a boy smoking behind the bike sheds. Maturity. What??? In a debate about why you are or are not a global warming skeptic the argument turned to the effects of warming on the UK population. A paper was i

OK, I stand corrected. Still nervous about spreading it all over the place, but that might be my general dislike for an industry which keeps telling me it's safe and then having accidents which result in bits of the planet being uninhabitable for thousands of years.

Well if you have peer reviewed papers which show that the world warming up by 1 degree is something other than a 1 degree increase in temperature please enlighten me. What does it all mean then??

I believe that the papers in the list are not all saying that warming is imaginary. That is definately not a widely held view. I believe that the papers in the list all to some extent show that the problem of AGW is over hyped. The Greenland paper you chose which says that the centre of the ice sheet is not warming is thus showing that any melting is likely to be around the edge and not a general fall in altitude of ice. That clearly means that the projected 1m sea level rise by 2100 is off the cards. Also just because a paper assumes a situation as basis for looking at the damage

Drivel. The paper was posted as evidence of what the negative impacts of warming would be. You then retreat to "well you have to look at one variable at a time". Utterly unscientific drivel. Ever heard of a control experiment? Ever heard of the real world? Why is it wrong to consider how people live in warmer places when considering the imapct of a little warming? This is why people get angry about your utterly biased moderation. You post your stupid "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK" things when you have clearly lost an argument. That is a form of dishonesty. Grow up.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or how about the idea that the level of increased heat from a doubling of CO2 in the air is very little. The Royal society gives a figure of 3.6 watts per square meter. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf That's just over a degree c. I don't think that that is any sort of trouble. I would prefer th

Which bits of the world do you expect to experience colder weather as a result of global warming? You can see why people get angry around here when a sensable question gets that sort of response. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep, that appears to be the position. So this U235 is fine to have hanging around the house then? No need for the expensive storage we have today? Or is it that the process of it's decay creates loads of other more hi

1 I do not argue about the ability of space based instruments to measure the temperature of the Earth's surfcae. 2 I would expect modern science to be able to deal with a fairly high amount of cooling. The rich world would be OK, the poor would be in deep trouble. I do think that a 1 foot sea level rise over a century is a very tiny thing. Last century it rose by 180mm. That's more than half a foot. How many cities did we lose to that? The next century will be almost twice as bad. Except that we have far better machinery to tackle this slight issue. I live in England in the UK

So you think that there are people on this science forum who are not aware that human activity is held, correctly I think, as the cause for increases in CO2 in the air? Have you ever come across any post here which has held that view?

Yep, some doctors and scientists can be influenced by money. Who would have thought it, they are just like the rest of us. So why is it that you don't apply the same skepticism to the reports from the scientists who will only get the next research grant if they go along with the consensus on AGW?

If there is something in this thread OP beyond the fact that human activity has increased CO2 in the air please tell me what it is. All I see is an emotion piece which has no, ... erm.. point.

In a discussion about the impacts of increased temperatures on human health in the UK you, or who ever, posted a paper which discussed the impacts of a 2 degree rise assuming that our behavior did not change as a result of that temperature rise. I talked about the fact that we would change our behavior and that people who live in warmer places live longer, other factors aside. You say that I am out of order because my point is not relevant to the impact of a 2 degree temperature rise. Can you explain why my point about comparing the life styles and life expectancies of people in di

I am far more afraid of cooling than warming although us rich people will be OK either way. The scale of sea level rises predicted by the most catastrophic predictions are very minor. I am not a climate scientist but I am a builder type of man and know how expensive it is not to build a 1m high sea defense. Beach front property almost anywhere anybody lives is very worth protecting with a little concrete. Cold times have been when there has been mass starvation. When the Roman Empire collapsed. When vast droughts wiped out civilizations.

My apologies. I tend to get a little punch drunck here. Ooops, i got the wrong quote first time and the thread is rolling fast. That was the philosophy bit i was responding to.

No, those are direct insults. The ad hom thing is about attacking the person rather than the argument. Saying that somebody has presented something which is a lie and thus they are a luiar is clear and part of the debating process. It is, when linked to what they have done wrong, not an ad hom. At least that's how I see it. But OK, if this is a "NO INSULTING THE SCIENTIFICALLY DISINGENUOUS " forum I'll moderate my approach. Lying gets me all ryled up, I might flip now and agin though. If you think that talking about how people live in a warmer place is out of order in a disc