Something is Definitely Rotten in Denmark

[markg]

Originally Posted by Polwart

certainly (its easy to tweak taxes - and politically easier to present than just admitting we need more £) ah - unfortunately that is the downside to the taxation... it makes people assume that the problems not real - just because the politicians are doing sweet f.a. thats tangible doesn't mean that the issue itself is not real, when maybe they just don't understand it or aren't brave enough to take the initiative.

the "problem" is not real though is it! its a dream scheme to make us pay more to cover the incompetence of the tax and spend and borrow and spend again years of gordon clown, the idiot employed another 500,000 civil servants for no reason, once you employ a civil servant they are payed by the taxpayer for life, thier wage and thier pension is a constant drain on our wage, they depend on the taxpayer for wage and pension like a leech needs blood, brown is a moron and darling is an incompetent communist fantasizer,
alex salmond had notions of indepedence its a bloody shame the english dont get to vote snp

[Poly]

Originally Posted by markg

the "problem" is not real though is it!

I don't know - I've not seen any convincing evidence to suggest its not real.

oh - and you'll find Mr Salmond, claims it IS real!

[prairie tuber]

Originally Posted by Polwart

I don't know - I've not seen any convincing evidence to suggest its not real.

oh - and you'll find Mr Salmond, claims it IS real!

If I were to tell you that I have a complete, real skeleton of the Loch Ness Monster in my house, and have a leprochaun guarding it, the burden of proof would rest with me. The burden of disproof of such a claim would not lie with those who are skeptical of the claim.

And so it is with AGW - the onus of proof lies with the scientists who claim it is real not with the scientists who are skeptical of its existence. In its essence, scientific method involves formulation a hypothesis (eg. 'humans cause climate change'), and developing a (duplicatable) method of testing the hypothesis that yields valid data that can be analyzed statistically. Only one of 2 possible results can come from any given statistical treatment of the collected data, which is; either the failure to reject the null hypothesis (analysis does not support the hypothesis), or the rejection of the null hypothesis (analysis suppots the hypothesis).

And this is where several the worlds foremost pro-AGW climate scientists have failed miserably and shown themselves to be conniving fraudulent bastards (do some thorough research on climategate). In realizing that they were unable to legitimately produce research that supports the theory of AGW, they have reverted to techniques that fall far outside the bounds of scientific method. This includes misrepresenting the raw data and destroying the original raw data to attempt to cover up their misrepresentation. It also includes bullying journal editors into shutting out the publication of papers by other scientists with opposing views, and several other serious infractions.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by prairie tuber

If I were to tell you that I have a complete, real skeleton of the Loch Ness Monster in my house, and have a leprochaun guarding it, the burden of proof would rest with me. The burden of disproof of such a claim would not lie with those who are skeptical of the claim.

A leprochaun (sp?) is a bad choice of security guard - he seems to spend too much time on here arguing with Garf.

I said earlier that I had no intention on getting into a debate on Global Warming and I'm not going to join in now. I remain agnostic. About 10 yrs ago I was asked in a job interview to explain the mechanism behind the "greenhouse effect", which I did. I was then asked to discuss if I believed the "claims" which were in the literature, scientific press and mainstream media at the time. I'm fairly sure that part of the reason I got the job was my reasoned debate on the credibility of various claims and a healthy degree of cynacism about who was funding the work on both sides. There's dodgy science in every field, but just because there is some dodgy science doesn't mean its all dodgy.

However - the area where the "greatest debate lies" is in the future prediction of temperature rises, and the modelling of the effects on mankind (and other species). The problem is - it is probably impossible to prove with certainty what will, or will not happen as a result of various "decisions" we may or may not take. The problem is - that if you wait to see if temperature rises will result in significant sea level rises, flooding, and the other "horror stories" suggested in the media then by the time these things happen (IF they are going to happen) its too late. On the otherhand, if you take action to minimise any possible effect (i.e. reduce CO2 emissions etc) then if the Global Warming claims turn out to be exagerated or even fabricated then all you've done is take some unnecessary precautions.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Polwart

A leprochaun (sp?) is a bad choice of security guard - he seems to spend too much time on here arguing with Garf.

Do you not have something useful to be at, a spot of dusting or whatever?

Q. A Leipreachán, a French Maid and The Garfish were walking along a pontoon and spotted a wallet on the boards. Which one secured it?

A. The Leipreachán, the other two are figments of certain ribnetters feverish imaginations.

[prairie tuber]

Originally Posted by Polwart

On the otherhand, if you take action to minimise any possible effect (i.e. reduce CO2 emissions etc) then if the Global Warming claims turn out to be exagerated or even fabricated then all you've done is take some unnecessary precautions.

If it were a case of possibly "unnecessary precautions" with some manageable costs that were being proposed at Copenhagen, I wouldn't have a problem with it. That simplty is not the case however. What is being proposed and negotiated at the Copenhagen conference is;

1. A massive transfer of wealth from the energy producing developed countries to the poorer countries which would completely cripple our economies

2. The signing countries would reliquish control of their energy production to the UN. This in effect means that any country who signs on to this treaty would their sovereignty to an unelected UN appointed governing body.

As far as I'm concerned any leader of a country who condemns their country by signing this pact in its currently proposed form is a traitor to their own people.

Here is some good info about the consequences of ratifying this Copenhagen disaster.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...e_concerns.pdf

Something else to consider;

http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.a...s=pr091209.htm

[Poly]

PT - you've made the mistake though of confusing the Scientific question of global warming with the political question of the appropriate response to any potential threat presented by the possible conclusion for the scientific results. Unfortunately people on both sides of the argument seem obsessed with completely discrediting the other - so if you find the "Copenhagen Solution" unpalatable then it seems to be the trend to try to discredit all the science rather than accept that some of the science may in fact be reasonable (enough that it is a perceived risk) and propose an alternative more palatable solution. I find that as disturbing as any "global warming campaigner" who refuses to believe that the worst case scenario projections may in fact turn out to be 'exagerated'.

[markg]

Originally Posted by Polwart

PT - you've made the mistake though of confusing the Scientific question of global warming with the political question of the appropriate response to any potential threat presented by the possible conclusion for the scientific results. Unfortunately people on both sides of the argument seem obsessed with completely discrediting the other - so if you find the "Copenhagen Solution" unpalatable then it seems to be the trend to try to discredit all the science rather than accept that some of the science may in fact be reasonable (enough that it is a perceived risk) and propose an alternative more palatable solution. I find that as disturbing as any "global warming campaigner" who refuses to believe that the worst case scenario projections may in fact turn out to be 'exagerated'.

the scientists are contradicting themselves a bit though, they have spent years showing us core samples that show the channel was frozen 10,000 years ago in the last ice age and fishing boats dredging up mammoth bones to prove it, 10,000 years in the timeframe of the planet is just a blip as they used to say, i distrust the science because every solution proposed involves taxation and as prairie tuber said a large transfer of cash to failing third world economies,
given the state of the british economy at the moment we would do well to rid ourselves of the scots mafia currently in westminster and concentrate on paying down the national debt of britain