Ah I think it's geologists

No those questions are asking whether global warming exists, not what are the causes. If it doesn't exist there are no causes

Once again though we're veering into cult of reason territory. Stop being scared to ask questions, stop trying to be "right", and definitely stop demonising someone who does ask questions

This is exactly why Dawkins was a dangerous, irresponsible man who set the debate on religion back years, served only to divide and anger rather than create debate

What branch of science modelled historic temps?

dynamiteReady wrote:

The official line that best expresses my current view?:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.

Why is that considered stupid, please?

(I'm nowhere near as well versed in the climate change debate as I ought to be, but...)

None of that is stupid.  I suppose I'd make the point however that a defensible scientific understanding has been developed.  Scientific consensus, as much as there is ever scientific consensus on anything has been established for a long time now.  (There is never 100% consensus on anything, nor should there be.)

I'm not going to labour the arguments about climate change again here, as others have done it already.  For me it feels much like the arguments that waged on about whether or not smoking caused cancer.  There was good evidence for it early on, but there were lots of reasons why dissenting voices were given undue prominence.  (Of which money was one, but arguably people just not wanting to believe it was the more powerful.)

However as a footnote - I googled The American Institute of Professional Geographers to see if opinion had changed since they wrote that.  There is an Association of American Geographers but they have come down firmly in support of the consensus (they even produce educational materials).  There is however an American Institute of Professional Geologists, who did indeed produce the statement you've quoted.  They subsequently refined it to:

"The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring regardless of cause. AIPG supports continued research into all forces driving climate change."

Subsequently they've dropped anything about a formal position on climate change because of arguments within their own membership.  But of course, these are geologists and climate change has a pretty big impact on their work.  I'll stop harping on about this largely irrelevant tangent by pointing to a piece they produced in 2007 advising its members on what they ought to be doing to alter their business practices in the light of climate change.  It's a fairly dry bit of business advice, but it leaves climate change pretty much unchallenged, and talks instead about how they're likely to lose business if they continue to look at coal in the same old way...

If you are answering yes to any if those questions funk, then we have something to take to the cynics, as far as I know those questions are all no answers at the minute. So I can see the (blind and ignorant) logic behind the cynics stance. A stance which is merely an excuse to continue to consume. I doubt that climate change will be the incitement to change that it is currently being relied on for

Excluding my revolutionary theory of Hot Space™ it should be relatively simple to understand (but incorrect because, Hot Space™).

- One heat source (Sun).
- Variability of energy incident on Earth.
- Transmission of energy through the atmosphere and how it is affected by composition.
- Reflection and absorption of energy by the Earth's surface and how's its composition affected this.
- Internal reflection by the atmosphere and transmission of surface reflected energy through the atmosphere and how that is affected by atmospheric composition.

So quite a few variables when you consider the constituents of the atmosphere and the Earth, what affects the proportion of the constituents, whether through interaction there is some self normalising force (more water due to ice caps melting making the Earth slightly more reflective etc etc etc).

tin_robot wrote:

[/i]They subsequently refined it to: "The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring regardless of cause. AIPG supports continued research into all forces driving climate change."

Yeah... I'd be happy to support that view too.

Is Hot Space™ caused by neutrinos and dark matter?

Nah, neutrinos are like MC Hammer.

Lord_Griff wrote:

What branch of science modelled historic temps?

Climatologists informed by glaciologists, oceanographers, geologists, biologists and physicists I imagine as well as chemists, paleontologists and mathematicans.

cockbeard wrote:

But they are clearly and demonstrably not out if the ordinary.

Expand. This would be counter to pretty much all climate science currently so quite frankly would be a revolutionary breakthrough. And Brooks could stop worrying.

To clarify: climate science position is world is hotting up faster than previously measured and we're heading for bad shit. Normal cycles of heating and cooling are much slower. Your position is this is not true. Please explain to world!

Raw shrimp don't really taste too great, even with condiments. Cooked or nowt, and as I don't cook...

I've ordered that pea powder stuff, but I'm not confident.

tin_robot wrote:

Subsequently they've dropped anything about a formal position on climate change because of arguments within their own membership.

I knew it. I've been busy for the last hour or so but was dying to look this up properly. I thought that was a weird position for a bunch of almost scientists to hold. I wondered if it caused any problems in the group. I was imagining articles about the controversy it caused, the chairman resigning in disgrace, a rewording by the new regime. The truth is a bit less dramatic but I knew something smelt funny about that quote.

Well, that's what I was going to cover next, or at least after I've been surviving on dust for a bit. If it's not completely disappointing to eat, it should at least be pretty fucking cheap.

As stated earlier, it's really important that max. good consumption is also very very easy. Otherwise you have to be a zealot to keep it up, and bell curves don't really do much for zealotry.