1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scotty, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Cutter's comparison to doctors in this argument is apt, but not to support his case. There are many examples where doctors do things out of a vested interest, such as giving a patient a particularly drug due to influence from a pharmaceutical company.

    I guess what Cutter is saying is that we should ignore all views that do not support human climate change theory, despite where they come from, and believe all views that do support it, no matter who espouses it.
  2. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    Yes, because it seems to be having a profound negative impact on the debate, and giving massively undue publicity to anthropomorphic climate change denial.
  3. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,532
    As I said earlier, this "debate" doesn't get to the starting gate for me. Whatever the questions about climate change in general, the greenhouse effect is rock solid, therefore we should try to put fewer greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. The second point for me is that the risk/reward balance is ludicrous: I find it tragi-comic that people want to hang on to their wide screen TVs so badly.

    Having said all that, this thread is a microcosm of the debate in general: a science and evidence free zone. I reckon we're a bunch of smart guys, we can handle a few concepts and equations. Anyone got any?
    sevenpointdropgoal likes this.
  4. #1 Tah Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    824
    Yes.

    Water displaced = Weight of object = Volume

    Therefore, if the ice caps melt, the water just takes up the space it was displacing as ice.
  5. Nusadan Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    527
    Not if the ice was above ground level to start with.
  6. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,532
    matty_k likes this.
  7. #1 Tah Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    824
    the ice weighs the same weather its floating or not.
  8. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    I might be missing something, but I can't see how that's related to anything.
  9. matty_k Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,037
    I think he means "The ice weighs the same whether it is floating or not."
    But what #1 Tah has missed is that people are talking about glaciers not ice shelves (Arctic and Antarctic) and icebergs. But even then there is still a significant amount of ice above the surface of the water.
  10. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Ok, so the one doctor theory doesn't work. What about if thousands of them, from all around the world told you based on independent examinations and without necessarily relying on the same data? Would that change anything?

    I'm all for challenging the status quo on a whole multitude of things (does democracy work being one small example). However, there comes a point where the time for challenge is over. To use a lawyer analogy, the smartest legal guys from around the globe have argued the point and there is not a credible dissenter. Does it really enhance the legal point for any of us to inexpertly rehash their arguments?

    Why have experts if we ignore their expertise?
  11. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Are none of the people I have quoted considered experts?
  12. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Not unless they subject themselves to peer review.
  13. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    14,468
    Of course, if there is consensus of opinion from many, it carries more weight than the derived opinion of one, taken in isolation. I was more pointing out a flaw in your example, than arguing against climate change, one way or another.
    We have to be careful about who is an expert.
    For example, in any matter on road safety out here, one Howard Scruby is quoted ad nauseam as the Chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia and his opinion trumpeted as expert. I am not sure that there are any significant number of members or other councillors in that organisation, so as far as I can see, it is the opinion of a man with a barrow to push. He quotes statistics as fact, just as many of us do on this site for rugby!
    Thus, your point on peer review is well made.
  14. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,532
    We're still doing it!!!
  15. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,694
    But ice displace its mass and not its volume much like a boat. It is Archimedes principle. That is in the case of an iceberg. Not very climate change related but scientiffically sound.
  16. matty_k Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,037
    The guy in the original video you posted has conducted a study of the available data and has come up with similar results to the guys he criticised for using Mike's Trick.

    See the link in my previous post.
  17. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,532
    Scotty - I'm not aiming this at you. But there's too little science on this thread to be worth reading. #1 Tah's attempt is typical (I believe) of the sceptics. They take one tiny rumour that passes around the sceptic community (e.g., floating ice will not add to sea levels) and then dismiss the whole climate change argument as self-interested nonsense. In this case, nobody is actually saying that floating ice will add to sea levels - just all the massive amounts of land-based ice that IS (factually, actually) raising sea levels. In the process, they throw out all the evidence that sea temperatures are rising, that sea levels are rising, and so on, because they find one tiny fraction of an argument that seems to justify their pro-commerce ideology.

    I'll check this thread from time to time, but it does disappoint me that nothing sensible is being raised.
  18. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    14,468
    Scarfy, feel free to throw some data on here then.
    Ruggo likes this.
  19. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,532
    Not my job as I see it. As I said, the debate doesn't get to the starting line for me. It's up to the sceptics to show where the numbers go wrong. And here to tell you - not one ever has. On here, on anywhere else I've read - including climatesciencedaily.com

    Imagine this - someone tells you that the earth's climate will definitely fly out of the comfort zone. You have the chance to stop it. How much would you pay? 80% of your wealth? 90%? The situation is that the scientific consensus is that unless we change human behaviour, the climate of the earth will become difficult to keep stable, with many unknown consequences. To stop it, you are being asked for about 0.5% of your income, and to switch off lights when you don't need them. Maybe stick a couple of solar panels on the roof, which might take 8 years to pay back the investment. Maybe buy a slightly smaller car. All of this is peanuts compared to the possible consequences. I would want to be VERY VERY VERY sure that the climate science consensus was wrong before I started betting the planet against slightly higher energy bills.
  20. Scarfman Knitter of the Scarf

    Likes Received:
    1,532
    P.S. I have read the IPCC report in detail, as well as Australia's economic model (prepared by ABARE) for getting out Kyoto.

    The case can easily be made that the IPCC committe is non-neutral. However, sceptics would be better served by overturning the science that lies therein. And so far, I have read not a single line anywhere that is more convincing than IPCC on any point (apart from the one well-publicised mistake).

Share This Page