On Mar 16, 4:19 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 16, 3:01 pm, "Fod" wrote:
africa in a bit of a mess due to a variety of problems, all man made
but none GW related.

So you can prove 100% that all the recent droughts and heatwaves in
africa that have badly affected crop harvests have nothing to do with
GW and are merely a local blip?

What do you consider to be "recent" and how do you explain those which
occurred previously?

Well why wouldn't they occur previously? Droughts wil have always
occured , the difference is they seem to last for longer , be more
frequent and more severe now.

B2003

In message . com,
Boltar writes
Well why wouldn't they occur previously? Droughts wil have always
occured , the difference is they seem to last for longer , be more
frequent and more severe now.
Or 24 hour news coverage is getting better at pushing the agenda at us.
--
Clive.

In article ,
Clive. wrote:
In message . com,
Boltar writes
Well why wouldn't they occur previously? Droughts wil have always
occured , the difference is they seem to last for longer , be more
frequent and more severe now.
Or 24 hour news coverage is getting better at pushing the agenda at us.

I would agree with you there Clive. News coverage always over-reacts,
sometimes it's to make up for being late on the scene but to be frank
often they treat a vague possiblilty as if it were earth shattering
news. We've seen many scientific theories trumpeted by the papers and
subsequently demolished by better evidence.

This is not the case with Gw. It may have been uncertain a few years
ago, but whilst we've argued over the evidence the figures themselves
have increased, new ideas been included, and even the exceptions people
used to say "yes but" about have been included in the models. The models
themselves have been tested by checking with the real present day numbers.
And the answers come out even worse now. Though I'm not a scientist I
feel there is now very little doubt.

Would you turn to the media first to tell you the causes behind the causes
of derailments or broken rails ? Treat the media and Al "politician"
Gore with the scepticism they deserve if you wish, but don't assume there
is no evidence behind them. You might find New Scientist a better primer
than News International

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself

On 16 Mar, 18:49, (Nick Leverton) wrote:

Though I'm not a scientist I feel there is now very little doubt.

...Treat the media and Al "politician" Gore with the scepticism they deserve if you wish, but don't assume there
is no evidence behind them.

This is the point though - science, real science, is about disproving
things. So to say "Hey, we've found a correlation" is pretty
meaningless, even if it appears to be really quite strong. Science
will then go through and rip things apart to see how robust these
ideas are. Yeah, OK, you may feel that the levels of CO2 are
responsible for something, but how robust is the idea that humans (the
all-powerful humans that is) are solely responsible for climate change
when it's known that the climate changes continually, and has done
forever? We may be contributing in a small way, but as mammals, we
necessarily consume resources, cause pollution, etc, the point is how
much actual, real damage is being done by this? And are the
consequences of global warming actually damage to the earth? Or is it
just damage to humans?

In article .com,
wrote:
On 16 Mar, 18:49, (Nick Leverton) wrote:

Though I'm not a scientist I feel there is now very little doubt.

...Treat the media and Al "politician" Gore with the scepticism they deserve if you wish, but don't
assume there
is no evidence behind them.

This is the point though - science, real science, is about disproving
things. So to say "Hey, we've found a correlation" is pretty
meaningless, even if it appears to be really quite strong. Science
will then go through and rip things apart to see how robust these
ideas are.

It's been done, see the IPCC report. If you want to read science rather
than politics then dump the final report and read the original draft.
And remember that the research there is 5 years old - we know even
more now.

Yeah, OK, you may feel that the levels of CO2 are
responsible for something, but how robust is the idea that humans (the
all-powerful humans that is) are solely responsible for climate change
when it's known that the climate changes continually, and has done
forever?

Read the IPCC report, it summarises the evidence. If you want to read
science rather than politics then dump the final report and read the
original draft. And remember that the research there is 5 years old -
we know even more now.

We may be contributing in a small way, but as mammals, we
necessarily consume resources, cause pollution, etc, the point is how
much actual, real damage is being done by this? And are the
consequences of global warming actually damage to the earth? Or is it
just damage to humans?

That is a good point. The earth will survive, of course. Our species
probably will survive too. But as we enter the sixth great mass
extinction of life on Earth, our plant- and animal-based lifestyle won't,
since we've used up all the easily available fossil fuels and Governments
have wasted decades in failing to research anything better.

If you don't mind that then it's quite true, the earth will survive.
Read the IPCC report, nothing in there about "destruction of the earth".
The draft originally leaked out, but is in several places on the web now.

Nick
--
http://www.leverton.org/blosxom ... So express yourself