Sky HighI suppose it depends whether you want a coherent narrative worked around the planes and the flying or just 100 mins of teaming warbirds tearing around the sky. I’d go for both but that would be two films, not one.
Sky HighHow would that help the discussion? Nobody has ever disputed that the climate is subject to cyclical variation.
But never before has a natural warming or cooling had the massive increases in man-made emissions added to it.
Moggy
But it is CORE to the entire process. And cyclical variation is what has been such a serious problem that attempts have been made to subvert it, some already proven.
If your contention is correct we would expect to see widely increased variations, due to the “massive increases in man-made emmissions”, whereas the current warming is relatively mild compared to the three most recent cyclical warmings and of course there has been no increase in the warming for 5 or 6 years. You also mention cooling. And it was upon that the edifice was originally constructed about 20 years ago until it was clear that the earth was warming and so warming replaced cooling as the doomesday scenario. It cannot be both.
Sky HighHow would that help the discussion? Nobody has ever disputed that the climate is subject to cyclical variation.
But never before has a natural warming or cooling had the massive increases in man-made emissions added to it.
Moggy
But it is CORE to the entire process. And cyclical variation is what has been such a serious problem that attempts have been made to subvert it, some already proven.
If your contention is correct we would expect to see widely increased variations, due to the “massive increases in man-made emmissions”, whereas the current warming is relatively mild compared to the three most recent cyclical warmings and of course there has been no increase in the warming for 5 or 6 years. You also mention cooling. And it was upon that the edifice was originally constructed about 20 years ago until it was clear that the earth was warming and so warming replaced cooling as the doomesday scenario. It cannot be both.
Sky HighA few moment’s research will show you that this is patently not the case, whatever your stance on the issue.
The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.
Sky HighA few moment’s research will show you that this is patently not the case, whatever your stance on the issue.
The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.
Sky HighMike repeats the same fiction above.
Where is your source?
Moggy
The 200 or so scientists, many with specialist knowledge who dissented from the last IPCC report. The scientists who gave evidence at the senate hearings in the US and countless others who have published papers on the subject.
Anything else?
Moggy, let me ask you one question out of many I would like to, if I may. How do you, as a clearly confirmed believer, account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?
Sky HighMike repeats the same fiction above.
Where is your source?
Moggy
The 200 or so scientists, many with specialist knowledge who dissented from the last IPCC report. The scientists who gave evidence at the senate hearings in the US and countless others who have published papers on the subject.
Anything else?
Moggy, let me ask you one question out of many I would like to, if I may. How do you, as a clearly confirmed believer, account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?
Sky HighWho is talking about the IPCC?
I am talking the global scientific community. And amongst that part of it who are climate specialists you will not find any who don’t believe that climate change is human activity driven.
But anyway. Are you so certain of your belief that you are happy to go on chopping down rain forests and pumping out CO2 regardless? Because even if the ratios were reversed and the vast majority of scientists believed man’s activity had nothing to do with climate change, and there was just a small dissenting lobby, would you take the chance?
Because if you answer ‘yes’ to that you stand condemned as foolish in the extreme.
Moggy
Well we are clearly never going to find common ground because I totally dispute your statement – indeed it is simply untrue. there are many climate scientists who do not accept any link at all between man’s production of CO2 and warming. Indeed the evidence of the opposite is accepted by many that the increase in CO2 follows climatic warming.
Who talked about chopping down rainforests – I haven’t mentioned them.
What chance? There is no chance in this. It is as inevitable as night follows day that the earth will warm and cool until it dies, either when the sun does, or before. Even if man’s activities had some effect they would be eclipsed by the natural variations and changes, which are of far greater intensity than anything man could achieve.
Man’s time on earth, Moggy, will be for a few thousands of years in the perhaps 7 or 8 billion years of its life. One of the things lacking in this debate, globally, is perspective. Politicians are in danger of destroying much of what has been achieved by man simply because they think” they can do something”. Well that is just what some of us do not want them to do.
Sky HighWho is talking about the IPCC?
I am talking the global scientific community. And amongst that part of it who are climate specialists you will not find any who don’t believe that climate change is human activity driven.
But anyway. Are you so certain of your belief that you are happy to go on chopping down rain forests and pumping out CO2 regardless? Because even if the ratios were reversed and the vast majority of scientists believed man’s activity had nothing to do with climate change, and there was just a small dissenting lobby, would you take the chance?
Because if you answer ‘yes’ to that you stand condemned as foolish in the extreme.
Moggy
Well we are clearly never going to find common ground because I totally dispute your statement – indeed it is simply untrue. there are many climate scientists who do not accept any link at all between man’s production of CO2 and warming. Indeed the evidence of the opposite is accepted by many that the increase in CO2 follows climatic warming.
Who talked about chopping down rainforests – I haven’t mentioned them.
What chance? There is no chance in this. It is as inevitable as night follows day that the earth will warm and cool until it dies, either when the sun does, or before. Even if man’s activities had some effect they would be eclipsed by the natural variations and changes, which are of far greater intensity than anything man could achieve.
Man’s time on earth, Moggy, will be for a few thousands of years in the perhaps 7 or 8 billion years of its life. One of the things lacking in this debate, globally, is perspective. Politicians are in danger of destroying much of what has been achieved by man simply because they think” they can do something”. Well that is just what some of us do not want them to do.
Sky HighThanks to all who have responded to this post so far.
Much interesting information and great photo’s.
I think it just serves to illustrate how influential they were and the regard in which they are still held.
Exactly my feelings. I have been reading and enjoying every contribution but feel I can add nothing to what has been said, except to recall many great memories.
Sky HighAs mentioned above the argument is polarised and nothing one side can say will convince the other.
I don’t care. A few years and I’ll be out of here with no offspring left behind to cope with whatever happens, so I am the genuine disinterested observer.
I know I prefer to believe the overwhelming mass of scientific opinion over the vague, unsupported protestations of the deniers. But then I oddly believe that those who specialise in the field and submit their findings for peer review might just have a better chance of being right.
But let me ask the deniers this question. It’s an analogy.
You stand in a hall, in front of a table. On the table is a glass of liquid.
The audience consists of 200 scientists specialising in poisons and another 200 that includes a few scientists whose fields are metallurgy, quantum physics, aerodynamics, whatever, and a lot of people who have read stuff on the internet about poisons.
199 of the scientists in the first group believe that to drink from the glass will lead to a slow lingering death
One of that group and some of the others are not certain and think that to drink the liquid will probably do you no harm. Most of the other non specialists are not convinced either way, but there is a vociferous handful, including a metallurgist and a couple of other science specialists who post on every bulletin board and forum that they can find saying there is no way that the stuff in the glass is poisonous and it is all just a conspiracy by (fill in your own candidates here) to stop you drinking the delicious liquid. Nobody is clear why this conspiracy exists , who benefits from it, or how it has managed to assemble virtually all the poison experts in the world behind it. But they know it isn’t poison and suggest you fill your boots.
What would you do?
Moggy
Your analogy has one crucial flaw, Moggy. The majority of the actual signatories to the IPCC reports have nothing to do with climatology, meteorology or any other science offering specialist knowledge. The Chairman of the panel is a medical doctor and the really interesting fact is that the majority of those scientists who dissenting from signing the last protocol are specialists.
The entire MMGW edifice is based on constructed computer modelling designed to produce the required results and which has no historical bias, so that the crucial input of the previous 500,000 years, say, is excluded.
I think read another poster who was trying to claim that global warming is the phrase used by the “deniers”, when of course, it is the phrase which describes what the proponents have been claiming for the last 20 years. The deniers claim the exact opposite – that man made global warming is a myth whereas climate change is a reality and has been for millenia.
Sky HighAs mentioned above the argument is polarised and nothing one side can say will convince the other.
I don’t care. A few years and I’ll be out of here with no offspring left behind to cope with whatever happens, so I am the genuine disinterested observer.
I know I prefer to believe the overwhelming mass of scientific opinion over the vague, unsupported protestations of the deniers. But then I oddly believe that those who specialise in the field and submit their findings for peer review might just have a better chance of being right.
But let me ask the deniers this question. It’s an analogy.
You stand in a hall, in front of a table. On the table is a glass of liquid.
The audience consists of 200 scientists specialising in poisons and another 200 that includes a few scientists whose fields are metallurgy, quantum physics, aerodynamics, whatever, and a lot of people who have read stuff on the internet about poisons.
199 of the scientists in the first group believe that to drink from the glass will lead to a slow lingering death
One of that group and some of the others are not certain and think that to drink the liquid will probably do you no harm. Most of the other non specialists are not convinced either way, but there is a vociferous handful, including a metallurgist and a couple of other science specialists who post on every bulletin board and forum that they can find saying there is no way that the stuff in the glass is poisonous and it is all just a conspiracy by (fill in your own candidates here) to stop you drinking the delicious liquid. Nobody is clear why this conspiracy exists , who benefits from it, or how it has managed to assemble virtually all the poison experts in the world behind it. But they know it isn’t poison and suggest you fill your boots.
What would you do?
Moggy
Your analogy has one crucial flaw, Moggy. The majority of the actual signatories to the IPCC reports have nothing to do with climatology, meteorology or any other science offering specialist knowledge. The Chairman of the panel is a medical doctor and the really interesting fact is that the majority of those scientists who dissenting from signing the last protocol are specialists.
The entire MMGW edifice is based on constructed computer modelling designed to produce the required results and which has no historical bias, so that the crucial input of the previous 500,000 years, say, is excluded.
I think read another poster who was trying to claim that global warming is the phrase used by the “deniers”, when of course, it is the phrase which describes what the proponents have been claiming for the last 20 years. The deniers claim the exact opposite – that man made global warming is a myth whereas climate change is a reality and has been for millenia.
Sky High1) All the peer-reviewed scientific opinion in the world currently accepts that man’s activities are contributing to a change in the climate patterns that may spell disaster for the earth.
2) A few conspiracy-theorists, none of them with any expertise in climatology, believe this is not true.
3) I have no descendants who will have to cope with the conditions past 2060
4) Think what you like. But if I for a second believed I’d be walking the earth beyond 2050 I’d be doing something about it NOW. Just in case the climate scientists had got it right.
Moggy
1. That’s exactly the problem – little of the science warmists expound is peer reviewed.
2. This is of course, incorrect.
3. Points 3 and 4 are only relevant to those who, despite all the geological, historical and fossil evidence to the contrary believe that man is responsible for warming the earth. This is quite different to the fact that the climate is always changing, and always will and there is nothing we can do about it. Climactic change will probably wipe us out in a millenia or less, in any case.
Sky High1) All the peer-reviewed scientific opinion in the world currently accepts that man’s activities are contributing to a change in the climate patterns that may spell disaster for the earth.
2) A few conspiracy-theorists, none of them with any expertise in climatology, believe this is not true.
3) I have no descendants who will have to cope with the conditions past 2060
4) Think what you like. But if I for a second believed I’d be walking the earth beyond 2050 I’d be doing something about it NOW. Just in case the climate scientists had got it right.
Moggy
1. That’s exactly the problem – little of the science warmists expound is peer reviewed.
2. This is of course, incorrect.
3. Points 3 and 4 are only relevant to those who, despite all the geological, historical and fossil evidence to the contrary believe that man is responsible for warming the earth. This is quite different to the fact that the climate is always changing, and always will and there is nothing we can do about it. Climactic change will probably wipe us out in a millenia or less, in any case.
Sky HighSome of his stand-up is brilliant, some dire. There have been few sitcoms, if any, following The Office to match it.:)
Sign In
