UKC

New Zealand not warming up

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
baron 08 Dec 2009
More ammunition for the sceptics (real scientists).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a...


pmc
 MJH 08 Dec 2009
In reply to baron: I love the way you put real scientists after sceptics...in what way are the several thousand scientists who happen to disagree with you not real scientists???

As to whether it is more ammunition for sceptics - given that most of them seem to be half wits that can't come up with any coherent arguments other than a whiff of innuendo I wouldn't be too sure just yet.

I don't suppose you have a link to the NIWA response do you?
 MJH 08 Dec 2009
In reply to MJH: Actually here you go: http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-cl...

Far from as damning as you made out...
 Monk 08 Dec 2009
In reply to baron:

The planet is not equally warm. Global warming is about global temperatures. Not all places will necessarily get warmer. For example, some predictions for the UK say that we will get colder as we lose the effect of the gulf stream. This is the root of the 'the last 10 years has been cooling' argument too - that data is for parts of the USA, not for the whole planet. If they have been massaging data, there is no excuse - they should get trouble for that. Ultimately, they have damaged their cause.

The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is that what do the sceptics have to gain? What do they lose by cutting emissions? If we cut our emissions to a reasonable level only to find that man-made warming was actually not real, what have we lost?

 mockerkin 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk: The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is that what do the sceptics have to gain? What do they lose by cutting emissions? If we cut our emissions to a reasonable level only to find that man-made warming was actually not real, what have we lost?
>> The sceptics/deniers include big companies that use or provide polluting energy, coal, oil etc. They would loose out on selling or using these sources of energy so they ridicule the idea of global warming being man made.
 MJH 09 Dec 2009
In reply to mockerkin:
> The sceptics/deniers include big companies that use or provide polluting energy, coal, oil etc. They would loose out on selling or using these sources of energy so they ridicule the idea of global warming being man made.


I hear what you are saying, but even that is more than a bit stupid on their part. Fossil fuels are finite and by holding onto stocks for longer the value will increase as scarcity becomes an issue...
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk:

Having a sceptical viewpoint over the issue, isn't as black and white as saying 'I'm not very sure about this "robust" theory about co2's role in the overall mechanism; Therefore lets party like its 1994'

Cutting emissions is a no-brainer, but this doesn't mean the dogmatic party line which they are trotting out is anywhere close to the real picture.
 Monk 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> Having a sceptical viewpoint over the issue, isn't as black and white as saying 'I'm not very sure about this "robust" theory about co2's role in the overall mechanism; Therefore lets party like its 1994'
>
> Cutting emissions is a no-brainer, but this doesn't mean the dogmatic party line which they are trotting out is anywhere close to the real picture.

I do tend to agree. CO2 is very 'trendy' at the moment, and one of those excrucuatingly middle class things you can image being discussed at dinner parties in Islington (with your Prius parked next to your range rover outside - but that's ok, because you paid quite a lot of money to have someone plant some trees on your behalf). And the CO2 card is trotted out in the most irrational and ludicrous places. I think my problem is that the 'sceptics' simply appear to be conspiracy theorists.
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk: It's now a well used put down, anyone who is sceptical about the story we get told must be a conspiracy theorist. I remember when I was growing up we were told it was good to ask questions, now this doesn't seem to be the case, anyone asking question which goes against the flow must be a cellar dwelling wearer of tinfoil.
My scepticism over this 'robust' science is mainly concerned with; The theory seems to mainly use Victorian methods of Newtonian Physics with a relativity closed system, plus the fact the the gas in question can (as you say) be traded.
Robert Dickson 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> The theory seems to mainly use Victorian methods of Newtonian Physics with a relativity closed system

Not sure what you mean
 Monk 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:

I wasn't saying that you are a conspiracy theorist, just that the most vocal anti-warming people on here do appear to be. There is also the other camp of deniers - those that use their denial (rather than rational scepticism) to justify not changing anything they do. Then I suspect there are quite a lot of people who don't really have an opinion either way as the science is very complicated and too much for even a well meaning amateur to really understand - I guess these are the 'agnostics' of the warming debate.

For what it's worth I am pretty much certain that there is a fairly large element of antrhopogenic warming at play. No idea what that means for the planet though, but it's probably not good for large swathes of humanity. I would guess that we are currently on that exponential phase of the ppulation graph they teach you at school, and we all know what happens to those graphs... I do feel that the issue has been hijacked by politicians and interested parties of all persuasions though. I would always agree that it is right to ask questions, but it is equally right that one should take on board the answers you receive. People dedicate their lives to researching climate change, so I am in no position to say that they are wrong.
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Robert Dickson:

I'm far from an expert on it, I only have a 2.1 at BSc. but from what I can gather from very briefly reading around the subject is. The only externals sources of energy which come from everything which is out there is the constant heat of the sun, the rest of the system is enclosed in the observable world, no talk of the more contemporary branches of quantum, meta, or even torsional hyper-dimensional physics.
 Mike Stretford 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Monk) It's now a well used put down, anyone who is sceptical about the story we get told must be a conspiracy theorist. I remember when I was growing up we were told it was good to ask questions,

Good questions, after you have listened carefully to the explanation, not stupid ones before the teacher has had a chance to say anything. That's not aimed at you, but it is were the 'tin foil hat nutter' label has come from.

> My scepticism over this 'robust' science is mainly concerned with; The theory seems to mainly use Victorian methods of Newtonian Physics with a relativity closed system, plus the fact the the gas in question can (as you say) be traded.

Not sure what you mean, take a look at this.

http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/absorption_lecture.pdf

 Mike Stretford 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj: Quantum physics is fully integrated.... relying on metaphysics would be unwise!
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Papillon:

But metaphysics is part of the system in place, you know the bit where we create our own reality, that's what is currently happening with the day to day evolution of the theory of man-made climate change!
So if you think that it is unwise to utilise branches of physics because it doesn't fit with the model currently in use, what does that do to the validity of the theory?
 Mike Stretford 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> But metaphysics is part of the system in place, you know the bit where we create our own reality, that's what is currently happening with the day to day evolution of the theory of man-made climate change!
> So if you think that it is unwise to utilise branches of physics because it doesn't fit with the model currently in use, what does that do to the validity of the theory?

It proves you have some good shit.
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Papillon:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> It proves you have some good shit.

And you model will tell you exactly what you want it to.

Ergo

;+)

Robert Dickson 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
>
> Ergo
>
Well, I'm convinced.

 Bruce Hooker 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk & mockerkin:

I don't think this argument is valid, surely it's best to do things for reasons, not just because they can't do any harm?

I have answered many times on this point as without denying all that you are saying about saving energy, global warming and so on it's the excess and exaggerations that can be highly dangerous. To give one example, on another thread recently someone who is normally a serious reasoned person was saying that the situation today resulting from global warming was worse than that facing Britain in 1940 when the nazis looked like over-running the world and suggesting that today's parliament should form the same coalition of national union as at that time in order to be able to impose the draconian measure he feels are required without the inconvenience of the usual democratic checks!

The problems in Copenhagen illustrate the potential difficulties between different groups of countries, and it is very common to read poster calling for harsh austerity measure, reduced living standards (for others!) and so on. The way this can all be used to justify a halt in economic and social progress, improvement in living standards are other reasons why there certainly is "something to lose" if someone has "got it wrong".
 subalpine 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Robert Dickson: i bet you won't find chaos theory or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics discussed much in climate science departments..
 Mike Stretford 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> And you model will tell you exactly what you want it to.
>

Unfortunately not. I like driving, or exploring by car, I like the convenience and experiences accessible by air travel. I'd love to be able to do these without a worrying about the consequences our collective actions may have for future generations. Obviously, it is not telling me what I want it to.

 MJH 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Monk & mockerkin)
>
> I don't think this argument is valid, surely it's best to do things for reasons, not just because they can't do any harm?

Complete straw man - the reason for action is the harm that will be done from climate change. The codicil or added benefit is that even if the climate change bit is wrong you don't do any harm if by acting you improve the sustainability of both the developed and developing world.

> I have answered many times on this point as without denying all that you are saying about saving energy, global warming and so on it's the excess and exaggerations that can be highly dangerous.

It is much more dangerous to try and play down the impacts (and potential cost) of inaction.

> The problems in Copenhagen illustrate the potential difficulties between different groups of countries, and it is very common to read poster calling for harsh austerity measure, reduced living standards (for others!) and so on. The way this can all be used to justify a halt in economic and social progress, improvement in living standards are other reasons why there certainly is "something to lose" if someone has "got it wrong".

Again you are creating a straw man - it is a complete and utter fallacy to claim that action has to reduce living standards or halt economic progress. It will mean changes to how we live, but by necessity those changes will provide massive economic opportunity for businesses - if they don't then it is all a bit academic as the change will not happen...
Robert Dickson 09 Dec 2009
In reply to subalpine: They seem to be thinking about it here:
http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/pg-research/downloads/2009/pgr-lucarini.pdf
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Papillon:

Ah doesn't take long does it, till the old emotion of guilt comes into play, which would make one wonder is this theory of man made climate change fundamentally based around science or religion?
 subalpine 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Monk & mockerkin)
> ..there certainly is "something to lose" if someone has "got it wrong".

it would be a far greater loss if the "got it wrong"ers were in fact right

 Monk 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Monk & mockerkin)
>
> I don't think this argument is valid, surely it's best to do things for reasons, not just because they can't do any harm?
>
> ...global warming was worse than that facing Britain in 1940 when the nazis looked like over-running the world a...
>
> The problems in Copenhagen illustrate the potential difficulties between different groups of countries, and it is very common to read poster calling for harsh austerity measure, reduced living standards (for others!) and so on. The way this can all be used to justify a halt in economic and social progress, improvement in living standards are other reasons why there certainly is "something to lose" if someone has "got it wrong".

I think this is exactly the point I was trying to make when I said that interested (and I don't mean curious) parties of all persuasions have hijaked the issue.
 Monk 09 Dec 2009
In reply to subalpine:
> (In reply to Robert Dickson) i bet you won't find chaos theory or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-equilibrium_thermodynamics discussed much in climate science departments..

I don't think you could be more wrong. I am pretty certain that chaos theory is used extensively in modelling the atmosphere, weather patterns etc.
 Jim Fraser 09 Dec 2009
In reply to baron:

F*ck the science. Where's the ice? New Zealand? OK, let's go climbing.

Any professional negotiators out there?

Who's going to start negotiating the UKC member discount with Air New Zealand?
 John_Hat 09 Dec 2009
In reply to baron:

FWIW, I'm an agnostic about the science. It does appear that man-made global warming is the current buzz-word.

The degree to which people asking fairly reasonable questions are ridiculed worries me - science has, in the past, gone very awry when an accepted view is not permitted to be challenged, which is where it appears we are on this topic.

However, whether we are or are not responsible for warming the planet does not in any way mean we have a license to exploit natural resources and trample over the planet's ecosystem. I've said before here that acting in a manner sympathetic to the ecosystem in which we live is a good thing, regardless of the reasons why acting in such a manner has come about.
 tony 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> Ah doesn't take long does it, till the old emotion of guilt comes into play, which would make one wonder is this theory of man made climate change fundamentally based around science or religion?

Remind me, which bits of the bible talk about radiative transfer?
 Neil Pratt 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk:

just asked the wife (she studied this stuff at uni) and she says "that's bollocks". Apparently all that stuff is central to climate and weather system modelling.

I don't have a clue whether she's right or not - I'm an arts student!!
i.munro 09 Dec 2009
In reply to John_Hat:

> The degree to which people asking fairly reasonable questions are ridiculed worries me - science has, in the past, gone very awry when an accepted view is not permitted to be challenged

Could you remind me what that situation was (where science went so awry & was corrected by questions from unqualified laymen?) I seem to have forgotten it?
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to tony:

Well there's always someone whos going to take your comments completely out of context for whatever their reasons I dunno, so I'll respond just this time with the same contempt.
That ones easy, Genesis dude Sodom and Gomorrah were bombed into oblivion with the use of nuclear or atomic weaponry.
 tony 09 Dec 2009
In reply to John_Hat:
> (In reply to baron)
>
> FWIW, I'm an agnostic about the science. It does appear that man-made global warming is the current buzz-word.
>
It may appear to be a current buzz-word, but the basic science was first presented over 100 years ago. It's far from being the new fad that some people seem to think it is.

> The degree to which people asking fairly reasonable questions are ridiculed worries me - science has, in the past, gone very awry when an accepted view is not permitted to be challenged, which is where it appears we are on this topic.
>
I do my best to give decent reasonable answers to decent reasonable questions. Science will only develop with decent reasonable questions and decent reasonable answers. However, what is missing in many of the questions floated here and elsewhere is much understanding of the underlying science being presented and proposed. Decent questions need to be informed by an understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases. I've tried to point people in the direction of simple introductions to the subject, only be met with the retort 'I don't have time to be an expert' - no one's asking you to be an expert, but having a vague understanding of the science wouldn't go amiss.

So, in the interests of education, I'll do my usual thing of recommending this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

and this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/printall.php



 tony 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:

Apologies, I obviously missed your context. I have no idea what your Sodom and Gomorrah thing is supposed to be about.
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to tony:

Its ok its not a difficult link to make. The radioactive transfer of Lots wife to salt or even vapour.
 tony 09 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to tony)
>
> Its ok its not a difficult link to make. The radioactive transfer of Lots wife to salt or even vapour.

I was asking about radiative transfer. I've no idea what your radioactive transfer is.
JanI 09 Dec 2009
In reply to Jim Fraser: Too right
johnj 09 Dec 2009
In reply to tony:

'Radiative transfer is the physical phenomenon of energy transfer in the form of electromagnetic radiation'

We not talking about the same thing then?
Pan Ron 09 Dec 2009
In reply to baron:

A bit like standing on the stern of the Titanic, claiming the ship isn't sinking because you are still high above water.
 John_Hat 09 Dec 2009
In reply to i.munro:
> (In reply to John_Hat)
>
> [...]
>
> Could you remind me what that situation was (where science went so awry & was corrected by questions from unqualified laymen?) I seem to have forgotten it?

Well, lets start with Coppernicus...

Like I tried to say, I do NOT think that we shouldn't make any effort to reduce our impact on the planet. In fact I think its a really good idea dn we should do much, much more. Let me state that again. I think we should reduce Co2 production, stop cutting down trees, recycle everything we can and use less energy. etc.

It's funny. You state that you're a bit of an agnostic (note NOT against the prevailing view) regarding man's effect on global warming and despite stating that you are 100% behind every effort to reduce humanity's effect on the planet the sarcasm is wheeled out and your view is ridiculed.

So you can't now even say you are not sure even when you are in 100% agreement with the proposed solution. This is precisely the blinkered offensive view which makes me less sure. It really shouldn't be necessary.
i.munro 10 Dec 2009
In reply to John_Hat:

Ah yes Copernicus who claimed that the Sun was the centre of the solar system & was duly corrected by the Pope. A great example of science going horribly wrong.
 Banned User 77 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Monk) It's now a well used put down, anyone who is sceptical about the story we get told must be a conspiracy theorist. I remember when I was growing up we were told it was good to ask questions, now this doesn't seem to be the case, anyone asking question which goes against the flow must be a cellar dwelling wearer of tinfoil.
> My scepticism over this 'robust' science is mainly concerned with; The theory seems to mainly use Victorian methods of Newtonian Physics with a relativity closed system, plus the fact the the gas in question can (as you say) be traded.

No, askin questions is good. We teach students to question, not to accept, our understanding of the environment is changing all the time because of those questions. However to create those gains you have to ask intelligent questions, ones supported by evidence or clues from the environment.

Anyway C02 isn't just related to temps, there's also the ocean pH.
 Banned User 77 10 Dec 2009
In reply to John_Hat:
> (In reply to baron)
>> The degree to which people asking fairly reasonable questions are ridiculed worries me - science has, in the past, gone very awry when an accepted view is not permitted to be challenged, which is where it appears we are on this topic.
>

When??

When has science not allowed questions??

Articles refused publication?
Funding withdrawn?

Any examples.
johnj 10 Dec 2009
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj)
> [...]
>
> No, askin questions is good. We teach students to question, not to accept, our understanding of the environment is changing all the time because of those questions. However to create those gains you have to ask intelligent questions, ones supported by evidence or clues from the environment.
>
> Anyway C02 isn't just related to temps, there's also the ocean pH.

So as you say the environment is changing all the time, not just because students ask questions, but more probably because we're in a completely new place in space and time today from what we were yesterday. The students questions are just a reflection of this, which gives an understanding of why this robust science has a long way to go really, of course there's ocean pH, how deep is that 10km, add to that the 75 or so km till we get outer-space.

Then you see the Earth is a mere drop in the ocean of the greater environment. So my question is, and if it's not intelligent enough for you well such is life, some of us just aint that bright.

What does the constantly changing multidimensional positions of infinity do to the equations, i.e. not just heat constants, but also electromagnetic, torsional forces and angles of change, and the unknown nature of deep space?
 MJH 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> What does the constantly changing multidimensional positions of infinity do to the equations, i.e. not just heat constants, but also electromagnetic, torsional forces and angles of change, and the unknown nature of deep space?

I would flip that on its head and say what impact do they have? Or what evidence do you have that say electromagnetic effects are not considered? Why should the unknown nature of deep space have an impact (it is a bit like asking if god has an unknown effect).

 Monk 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>

>
> What does the constantly changing multidimensional positions of infinity do to the equations, i.e. not just heat constants, but also electromagnetic, torsional forces and angles of change, and the unknown nature of deep space?

I think if you could explain and make a good case for the constantly changing multidimensions of infinity to us, and posit a reasonable case as to why this has an effect on the current models of the earth's climate, then we may concede that you have a very good question
johnj 10 Dec 2009
In reply to MJH:

Flip it either way you want to, basic maths teaches you the requirement to balance equations, and you don't need to be a mathematician to work than one out.
johnj 10 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk:

So now I have to justify my question at the stage of questioning for you to concede I have a very good question, does your question in itself not do that?
 Monk 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> So now I have to justify my question at the stage of questioning for you to concede I have a very good question, does your question in itself not do that?

What I am saying is that your question has to be reasonable and relevant for it to challenge the current models. I am not an expert in climate, but I do know for example that a previous poster asked about chaos theory etc. There was a very simple answer that the current models already use this. Therefore, the question was valid, but didn't challenge the status quo.

The flipside to this is that if I ask "but what about the effect of giant avacodos falling from the moon, that must surely mean warming is bunkum!", then I am entitled to ask, but scientists are equally entitled to dismiss it as a daft question.

However, if I have been doing my research, studied all the current information in learned journals, and noticed that perhaps there is a hitherto unnoticed pattern in el ninos and ocean currents that may just account for a 0.1 degree C annual increase in global temperatures, but is only a temporary anomaly, then I am perfectly entitled to discuss this with scientists, perform the required research and publish it in a learned journal. This is how scientists ask questions of established theories.

There is a fairly big difference between these 3 scenarios. For your question to be relevant, you must be able to frame it so that it can be understood, and you must have some sort of basis behind it.

The man on the street is generally very ill equipped to understand the complexities of any branch of modern science.
johnj 10 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk:

Its ok thanks for the feedback but I'll let my question stand as it is, I don't think it needs padding.

Have a good un :+)
 MJH 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj: But I am asking what is the relevance of the points you mention to the equation...a different point to balancing an equation.
johnj 10 Dec 2009
In reply to MJH:

Well if you consider the point of the big bang, that everything came from the same thing, and ultimately everything is connected, would be a reason for the inclusion of additional factors.

An equation doesn't need to model the whole mechanics of the clock to calculate the angular forces of the second hand as it passes zero; However if you calculate solely the intricate mechanics of the second hand whilst giving little or no regards to the rest of the clocks mechanism, your calculations over time may begin to slip or even become nonsensical as the rate of change then moves outside your set parameters, same problems occur with the architecture of software systems, hence the need for the constant rewrite.
 MJH 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj: Which leads us back to my original question - the relevance to what you are questioning is what?
 Monk 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to MJH)
>
> Well if you consider the point of the big bang, that everything came from the same thing, and ultimately everything is connected, would be a reason for the inclusion of additional factors.
>
> An equation doesn't need to model the whole mechanics of the clock to calculate the angular forces of the second hand as it passes zero; However if you calculate solely the intricate mechanics of the second hand whilst giving little or no regards to the rest of the clocks mechanism, your calculations over time may begin to slip or even become nonsensical as the rate of change then moves outside your set parameters, same problems occur with the architecture of software systems, hence the need for the constant rewrite.


All very well, but that argument could be applied to anything. I don't need to know what is happening on planet Zarg in a galaxy 3 million light years away to know that it is 11.15 am, as my clock is set to the rotation of the earth. All 'facts' are based on certain assumptions, and usually those assumptions are minimised and reasonable. The warming of the earth is over a totally insignificant period of time in the earth's history, let alone the history of the universe, so it is highly unlikely that we need to know 'everything' about the universe to answer every question to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
johnj 10 Dec 2009
In reply to Monk and MJH:

I think I'm done here, you two need to speak to each other, one of you is starting to sound like Yoda 'say what' and the other one is rambling on about Zarg!

Later..... much later ;+)
 MJH 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj: You mean you come up with an idea, which when pressed on the relevance/detail you have no answer...
 Monk 10 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj:

Dissapointing. Still, point proven.
 subalpine 10 Dec 2009
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to johnj)
> there's also the ocean pH.

what's your view on the Cquestrate geoengineering project?- ie quarry limestone-> convert to lime-> dump in oceans
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5754684/Lime-in-...


 Banned User 77 11 Dec 2009
In reply to subalpine: Not seen that, I'll have a read, cheers for the link.

Generally I'm wary of large scale environmental manipulation, 'greening the ocean' with iron was (maybe still is) another such example.

I'd imagine they would have to pour in huge amounts of lime to have an impact, that would be a massive amount of quarrying of material.

These plan b's have some sound logic, if we can't stop co2 output cabn wwe increas c02 sequestration.

The main focus now should be on outlining how ocean life will be affected by increasing acidity. It's all 'potentially' at the moment, logic suggests that all the animals which use cac03 shells will be affected, particularly in their larval stage, but this needs demonstrating. Until this is done it runs into the same problem as glocbal warming, ie. we know atompheric c02 is increasing but is it affecting the climate, so we need to clearly demonstrate how ocean life is negatively affected.
 Banned User 77 11 Dec 2009
In reply to johnj: I think MJH Monk have answered it.

Of course the universe is massively complex, chaotic, through science we try to break it down to give nice concise theories so it's a bit more understandable, so we can see the wood from the trees type thing.

Maybe science is generally being a bit simplistic, basic idea is elevated green house gasses = elevated global temperatures, but personally I'd rather favour a caustious low impact approach than 'nah, it's too complex other things willl affect it' approach.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...