Yossarian wrote:All I see there is an argument for Obamacare.
monkey wrote:Anyway, again, probably about 90% of climate change policy is best practice for running the world anyway.
monkey wrote:Meaning debates about the science behind it are completely irrelevant. If it's wrong so what?...
dynamiteReady wrote:I wish the international media would make more of an effort to draw attention to both sides of those stories with a strong scientific bent... Because that would be a fucking valuable service to the world at large.
Yossarian wrote:You claim to be being sceptical and considering things, but in fact you're just repeating oil company designed talking points which are meant to throw enough doubt on the science of climate change to allow them to continue raking in massive profits. Sorry dude, but you've been suckered.
dynamiteReady wrote:I just hope that some bellend doesn't try to make a sweeping change based on the findings of the firsttwo1,000+ boffins to book an appointment. And that goes for all arguments oneither sidejust the one side, since there are no reputable boffins on the other side.
Funkstain wrote:I just hope that some bellend doesn't try to make a sweeping change based on the findings of the firsttwo1,000+ boffins to book an appointment. And that goes for all arguments oneither sidejust the one side, since there are no reputable boffins on the other side.
Philip Stott wrote:"Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma."
Yossarian wrote:Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.
Stott regards himself as a Humeian 'mitigated sceptic' [12] on the subject of global warming. He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject.
Yossarian wrote:And where are you getting this '97% of the members of the IPCC' from? Because it sounds greatly like it's being pulled out of thin air, especially considering the fact that the IPCC simply collates all peer-reviewed literature it can get its hands on, the research isn't performed by its members.
I wrote:Yes. A scientist who closely studies the environmental impact on the organisms that inhabit it. Probably one of the first people worth speaking to, actually.Philip Stott is a biogeographer. I presume next time you need a second opinion on a medical issue, you'll consult an aerospace engineer.
Yossarian wrote:That's not what wiki claims a biogeographer does
about.com wrote:Biogeography is a branch of geography that studies the past and present distribution of the world's many species. It is usually considered to be a part of physical geography as it often relates to the examination of the physical environment and how it affects species and shaped their distribution across space. As such it studies the world's biomes and taxonomy - the naming of species. In addition, biogeography has strong ties to biology, ecology, evolution studies, climatology, and soil science.
The New Statesman wrote:
Funkstain wrote:DR, in a thread that is discussing a scientific subject, quoting empty rhetoric and claiming it as the "healthy sceptic's" position will not go down well.
I wrote:Has the Earth's climate ever been higher than it is at present?
Philip Stott wrote:"Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma."
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!