But yeah - the fact that denialist voices are given airtime at all is a mark of failure. Illusions of contest, corruption of decision making. All because humans are footdragging dumbos in the main.

I believe that the exact wording is 'very likely'.

Scientific caution or political compromise.

Facewon wrote:

To general a statement. If we're going to talk big business then we need to be clear about which big businesses.

Oil companies are too obviously behind a lot of the anti warming stuff.

Yes, I was being very general, I am not so sure that energy providers are anti warming, opec and their ilk perhaps so. Energy providers can play on the fear however, charge more for energy because we are feeling guilty about using it. At no point do they encourage us to use less, merely charge more to assuage our guilt about it.

If their is truly a battle about the environment and warming is a huge part of it, then maybe we should stop looking for some magic source of unlimited energy. Because even if it is found it will become a political tool anyway, and the same 2% who thrive now will continue to thrive then. Maybe the battle should be with oneself to consume less and make your own difference

This is a good article touching on 'big business' and what their angle is and the general prevalence of climate change denial. 

Last year, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that between 2002 and 2010, via two right-wing groups, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, billionaires had given nearly $120 million to more than 100 anti-climate change groups. And the progressive Center for Media and Democracy revealed that a web of right-wing think tanks called the State Policy Network, affiliated with the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and funded to the tune of $83 million by companies including Facebook, AT&T and Microsoft, was pushing a had right agenda that includes opposition to climate change rules and regulations.

A new study from two groups, Forecast the Facts Action and the SumOfUs.org, says that since 2008, businesses have given campaign contributions to the 160 members of Congress who have rejected climate change that amount to more than $640 million. That includes Google, eBay, Ford and UPS; in fact, 90 percent of the cash came from outside the fossil fuel industry.

A few months ago, the independent BBC Trust said that the British broadcaster was giving "undue attention to marginal opinion" when it came to airtime for climate deniers and should adjust accordingly. The Los Angeles Times announced it would no longer print climate change denial letters to the editor -- contrast that with Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, which last year ran more anti-climate change letters than any other major newspaper. 

Yossarian wrote:

Vela wrote:

Scientific caution or political compromise.

I'd guess the former. Stating things definitively isn't very scientific.

Is there an associated probability inclusive of margins of error? Rather than a qualitative measure. You know, because, science.

dynamiteReady wrote:

That's not a very erudite view.

This is why I'm very weary of the this climate change thing. 
Because the people with the biggest mouths have the most porous arguments.

I show a graph that presents a falling climate, in the face of rising Co2 levels, and look at the answer I receive in return...

How scientific is that, eh?

The graph you cite is the infamous 'pause' graph which has been demonstrated as a furphy. The reason for an apparent pause has been the extra heat sloshing around in the oceans after some significant warm years in the late 20th C.

Of course we've still had consistent warming since then, with something like 13 of the 14 warmest years on record occurring after 2000. The other year being 1998.

In short there is no pause and the graphic you hang your argument on is rubbish.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Ok cool. What would be the main reason for not saying definitively?

Climate science is based on statistical modelling and therefore a measure of likelihood. That doesn't mean they aren't sure, or they're guessing, or they're not firm in their conclusions, it's because the method doesn't allow definitive statements.

[justify] [/justify]

[justify]Just as we are very clear that climate models do not give us a definitive answer about the possible magnitude of future warming, neither do the estimates from observations as some in the climate sceptic community would claim.[/justify]
I welcome scientific debate with those whose research challenges my understanding of climate change and scientists have a well established and robust peer review process for doing this. This process is there for good reason because it ensures the debate is rigorous but never personal.
Professor Dame Julia Slingo
Chief Scientist
Met Office

The drugs would be subject to scrutiny from those in, not outside the field.

Lord_Griff wrote:

All about correlations right?

Yeah that's right. I think they're making it up personally. You could put 'computer games played' and atmospheric CO2 on a chart and get the same effect. Stupid clowns, when will they learn?

Most prob caused by humans, but my other theory is that the solar system is travelling through a particularly hot bit of space at the mo'.

Lord_Griff wrote:

Most prob caused by humans, but my other theory is that the solar system is travelling through a particularly hot bit of space at the mo'.

pretty sure that's not going to stand up to scrutiny since longer term cycles are quite well understood.

Ultimately, the experts are as sure as they can be given our current scientific and technological limits. Almost no scientific theory has survived the test of time completely without modification or refutation. There's no good reason to believe current climate science will escape that same fate. But it is the best science of which we're currently capable of as a species. Maybe it is Griff's 'hot space' theory. 

It's like the people that go on about vaccinations and start trying to poke holes in things that people have said, and cite problems and cast doubt on the whole issue. No, Western medicine is not perfect, yes it makes mistakes, but it is the best we can currently do, and the alternative is backed up by absolutely fuck all. Just go with the best information available to you, even if that is imperfect, because the alternative is going with the second best, or third best, and what sort of reason are you using when you're doing that?

Longer term than the bit of space the solar system is traveling through? I doubt that, it takes something like 250million years for the solar system to orbit the milky way, and the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, so we've only performed 18 orbits and I think a third of those predate photosynthesis

We can't stop burning fossil fuels, and worse we can't do without plastics