IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 02 January 2013 02:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

@seandanaher, which of the sceptics arguments do you find unconvincing?

Do you believe that de-centred PCA has any physical meaning?

Is it valid to invert data if it gives you the answer that you want?

Are the IPCC's warmer models consistent with real world temperatures?

All serious sceptics believe that AGW is real; it is the quantity that is disputed.

We are now nearing certainty that the IPCC estimate of a 3C rise for a doubling of CO2 is too high and it is looking increasingly likely that the final value will be closer to sceptic estimates than to James Hansen's original estimate of 4.2C.

Quite frankly I am horrified that some members of the IET appear to be wilfully ignorant of the genuine issues with climate science and base their 'knowledge' on propaganda sites such as SkS.
 02 January 2013 11:11 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: seandanaher

Geoff you are doing a great job here.

I do not have the time to post in detail having a rather busy job but I will add my tuppence worth.

I have been concerned about environmental impact since my undergraduate placement in KFA Germany working on the Ozone layer in 1976. My opinion on AGW has changed significantly over the past 35 years or so, but I am possibly predisposed to believe in it. My reading of the scientific literature has led me from the 1) precautionary principle to 2) on the balance of probability to 3) beyond reasonable doubt to 4) virtual certainty that AGW is happening.



I find the sceptics arguments deeply unconvincing. Quite frankly I am horrified that so many members of the IET believe their arguments. I would very much prefer if AGW was not happening - business as usual would be far better than having to change. The debate seems to have become highly politicised particularly in the US.



Professor Sean Danaher

BSc(Hons) MSc PhD MIET CEng MInstP CPhys


Sean,

The AGW debate was quite different 35 years ago, many fearing the opposite.
Like Geoff you haven't written in in your own words why there is a problem but you have correctly pointed out that we have a political issue on our hands not a science one. As I've said before the prescription such as 'renewables' is a political invention.
Maths, physics and empirical evidence please. I'm likely to be more interested if you can explain in your own words rather than run off to some canned website, I'm resisting that temptation myself for now.

Best Regards

Dave Nunn
 02 January 2013 11:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@seandanaher

I see you have an interest in the ozone layer.

I think the "ozone hole" concern was exaggerated out of all proportion. Could you give me your take on this please? I ask because no-one at the time could give me any convincing answers to my questions.

The main one was (and still is) was there a hole in the ozone layer before it was discovered? If there was a hole then why was discovering it a problem?

Alternatively, if no-one knew if there was a hole or not why did they assume not?

(I consider this relevant to this thread because some people consider that the "ozone hole problem" was a kind of dry run for the "global warming problem".)

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 02 January 2013 11:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

Several posts ago you said that, originally, you saw the fact that the CO2 change followed the temperature change as a problem to believing the basis for anthropogenic global warming.

Can you describe, please, in your own words, what convinced you otherwise?

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 02 January 2013 11:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

There are quite a few mentions of SourceWatch in this thread. This always amuses me because its use is usually not part of a logical argument.

For instance, if I say: 2 + 2 = 4 do you:

a) make independent enquiries about the mathematics to confirm or deny its veracity?
b) look me up in SourceWatch to see if I am funded by BigOil and base your conclusion on that?

I hope your answer is a). In which case, what use is the other approach?

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 03 January 2013 10:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: richwin
For instance, if I say: 2 + 2 = 4 do you:
a) make independent enquiries about the mathematics to confirm or deny its veracity?
b) look me up in SourceWatch to see if I am funded by BigOil and base your conclusion on that?
I hope your answer is a). In which case, what use is the other approach?

On the other hand, if I suggest that I carry out surgery "y" for medical condition "x" you will probably be more interested in my medical credentials than studying for 10 years yourself to find out whether this is, indeed, the right treatment.

It is simply not possible for anyone to understand the whole of current human knowledge, therefore we have to trust the expertise of others. (As professional engineers we should know that better than many!) However, in those circumstances understanding the motives of the particular expert advising you becomes vital. Not being an expert in pharmacology who would I want to advise me on which medicine to take: an NHS GP or a drug sales rep? Both will have biases, but one is likely to be slightly less biased than the other...

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 03 January 2013 12:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rossall.
rossall

Posts: 1048
Joined: 06 August 2001

May I invite all participants to review the conditions of use, and the IET rules of conduct on which they are based? In particular, there are requirements regarding objectiveness and about professional conduct towards others. Derogatory comments about fellow participants in a debate fall below these standards.

This is an area in which strong views are held, and, in a large and varied Institution, differences are inevitable. However, please conduct the debate in the light of the above guidelines.

-------------------------
David Rossall
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
 03 January 2013 12:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



seandanaher

Posts: 4
Joined: 10 June 2009

A few points
I certainly have no time to get heavily involved with this. I have expressed my opinion for what it is worth, but had certainly not intended to get dragged into discussion. I am not a climate scientist; my PhD is in what is now called Astroparticle Physics though back in 1981 there was no such speciality. I have had nothing to do with ozone for 35+ years so am not by any means an expert

@Richwin
Ozone, O3 acts as a strong UV filter but exists in low concentration in the upper atmosphere and is easily broken down to O2 by free radicles such as those produced by cloro-fluro carbons (CFCs) which were commonly used at the time as a refrigerant. Increased UV is a bad thing as it can cause skin cancer in humans and blindness in certain animals for example. We were looking at free radical concentrations in the upper atmosphere with balloon flights, to try to ascertain if they existed in sufficient quantities to have a significant depletion effect on the ozone layer.


@Dave Nunn
It's a free country as they say and you can think what you like. I certainly do not have the time or inclination to become mired in a debate, or to read through this thread in detail. You do however seem to be very wedded to the idea that increase of CO2 lags global warming and hence there is some element of implied causality? Positive feedback mechanisms exist between CO2 and global warming, hence cause and effect become intertwined - increasing CO2 creates a warming and warming creates increased CO2.

I'm not sure what your background is, but my own inclination would be to write a toy model in terms of nonlinear ODEs and solve by the Runge-Kutta technique for example. Alternatively you might simplify by using something like a linear state space model with appropriate initial conditions. It would be quite fun to do this. Please indicate if you are interested as this might be quite useful and give me a reason to hang around a bit longer.

The term lag and lead may make sense if you are thinking about transfer functions such as H(s)=1/(s+1) where s is the Laplace variable, but this is because Laplace relies on zero initial conditions. The earth has been around for some time (c 4.5 billion years). The terms lagging and leading certainly do not imply causality in complex systems with no- zero initial conditions.

To put this possibly more in the context of an IET forum let's take the example of current and voltage in an inductor and capacitor under steady state ac conditions. For an inductor the current lags voltage by 90 degrees. For a capacitor the voltage lags the current by 90 degrees. Does this mean that in one case voltage causes current and in the other case current causes voltage?
 03 January 2013 05:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 35
Joined: 13 October 2007

@seandanaher,

If you are interested in playing with toy models then you may find an occasional visit to the Blackboard interesting:

http://rankexploits.com/musings

Posts are mainly technical with little of the background noise common in more extreme blogs and none of the censorship that prevents debate on the committed AGW blogs.
 03 January 2013 09:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: westonpa

The climate scientists mislead people, with regards to key parts of their data, and were found out.


I believe you are very much mistaken. What you're doing is putting out mis-information and creating doubt, is that what you're trying to do? Are you hung up on the following myth which already appears several pages back?: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
and the Advanced option
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.


I have no plans to explain climate science "in my own words". I'm not a climate scientist as I've made clear, and there is plenty for genuine climate skeptics to read. That people don't like quotes from main-stream peer-reviewed science is very understandable if they don't have an answer.

It's great to have a few more positive people on here :-)

The big question concerns how conclusive the evidence is. I've seen nothing of significance on here to suggest that we shouldn't simply be getting on with addressing the problem as quickly as possible.

There are various people asking what I would consider to be leading questions, without citing any sources. If you have a point to make then please make it, and cite a serious source if you intend to be taken seriously. The truth is probably that you dare not reveal your sources for fear of a response based on main-stream peer-reviewed science.

In fact surely if there was a significant issue there would be sensible papers out there which wouldn't go anywhere near such obviously silly arguments like "it hasn't warmed since 1998".

Feel free to express your opinions, but expect to be putting your reputation on the line...

With 174 myths on SkepticalScience.com there isn't much wriggle room left for denying what science is telling us. I keep toying with checking how many of the 174 we've covered...

skepticalscience.com/
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?


Got to go, rather busy time,

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 03 January 2013 10:29 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: seandanaher
I would very much prefer if AGW was not happening - business as usual would be far better than having to change.

Well we are in luck because it is not happening, just live our life and enjoy it and let's not worry too much about a bit of weather now and again, it's life. If we want to see how people worry just get the government to mention there is a remote possibility of a fuel shortage and then keep our eye on the petrol pumps. If I want our tax and I want us to pay more for our energy and use less so others can use more I could ask for it but then we would probably be too smart and challenge a lot.....better idea is to invent some demon and then tell us how we need to give me more of our money and use less energy in order to avoid it. I get my tax, we use less energy and in the process I am thanked for it because the demon was kept at bay. And the best thing of all is I do not even have to produce the demon, I just have to play on our worries. At the same time I become more important than I otherwise would have been because I am now the one who has the power to keep demons at bay. Get enough people to worry and then it spreads like wildfire. Welcome to AGW.
The debate seems to have become highly politicised particularly in the US.

Good it is about time to......there should be vigorous debate on these important issues, each and every one of them.

Regards.
 03 January 2013 10:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@Andy

"On the other hand, if I suggest that I carry out surgery "y" for medical condition "x" you will probably be more interested in my medical credentials ..."

That is my point.

I could look try and find out to see if you supported my football club or political party but it would be your abilities as a surgeon and your success rate that would be of most interest.

My issue is with people who claim to have disproved a point by using a guilt by association technique.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 03 January 2013 11:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Originally posted by: westonpa



The climate scientists mislead people, with regards to key parts of their data, and were found out.




I believe you are very much mistaken. What you're doing is putting out mis-information and creating doubt, is that what you're trying to do? Are you hung up on the following myth which already appears several pages back?: What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.
and the Advanced option
Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.




I have no plans to explain climate science "in my own words". I'm not a climate scientist as I've made clear, and there is plenty for genuine climate skeptics to read. That people don't like quotes from main-stream peer-reviewed science is very understandable if they don't have an answer.



It's great to have a few more positive people on here :-)



The big question concerns how conclusive the evidence is. I've seen nothing of significance on here to suggest that we shouldn't simply be getting on with addressing the problem as quickly as possible.



There are various people asking what I would consider to be leading questions, without citing any sources. If you have a point to make then please make it, and cite a serious source if you intend to be taken seriously. The truth is probably that you dare not reveal your sources for fear of a response based on main-stream peer-reviewed science.



In fact surely if there was a significant issue there would be sensible papers out there which wouldn't go anywhere near such obviously silly arguments like "it hasn't warmed since 1998".



Feel free to express your opinions, but expect to be putting your reputation on the line...



With 174 myths on SkepticalScience.com there isn't much wriggle room left for denying what science is telling us. I keep toying with checking how many of the 174 we've covered...



skepticalscience.com/
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation



Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?




Got to go, rather busy time,



Regards


Geoff,

I've repeatedly asked you to not constantly treat Skeptical Science as gospel. I could reciprocate with a multitude of sceptical views. Why is your favoured website anymore accurate than some of those I have linked to? You have yet to express your view in your own words unlike Prof. Sean.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 03 January 2013 at 11:39 PM by HazelGroveWolf
 03 January 2013 11:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

"The big question concerns how conclusive the evidence is. I've seen nothing of significance on here to suggest that we shouldn't simply be getting on with addressing the problem as quickly as possible."

To me the big question is: Where is the learned paper that proves conclusively that the climate is controlled mainly by man-made CO2 (and not natural CO2 of which there is about 25 times more or H2O of which there is about 25 times as much as there is total CO2) and that this will lead to a warming that will have catastrophic consequences?

The reasons for not addressing your concern must include:
1. In the absence of the above paper, it may not be happening as supposed. (e.g. it may be warming but not be caused by man-made CO2.)
2. Even if it is, mitigation may be cheaper than prevention.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 03 January 2013 11:26 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
I believe you are very much mistaken.

I completely respect your right to believe as you wish.
The big question concerns how conclusive the evidence is. I've seen nothing of significance on here to suggest that we shouldn't simply be getting on with addressing the problem as quickly as possible.

Hopefully you could manually carry a few tons of coal to my house, so I can keep my fire burning, because it will save me using the car and thus cut my carbon footprint. This shows how we can work together together to cut human carbon emissions! I am already starting to see the benefits of this AGW thinking!

Regards.
 03 January 2013 11:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@seandanaher,

"... model in terms of nonlinear ODEs and solve by the Runge-Kutta technique ..."

If we could work out what the climate was doing with a few differential equations then we would be much nearer to a solution. I suspect that the situation is so complex with the climate that Runge-Kutta would fail to home in to a solution.

I take your point about phase angles but that does suggest some sort of oscillatory solution involving a steady state. There is some harmonic input to the climate system, Milankovitch cycles for instance, but the anthropogenic CO2 problem would seem to require transient analysis. If you apply a voltage to a capacitor the current was not charging it prior to the voltage being applied.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 03 January 2013 11:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: seandanaher

@Dave Nunn

It's a free country as they say and you can think what you like. I certainly do not have the time or inclination to become mired in a debate, or to read through this thread in detail. You do however seem to be very wedded to the idea that increase of CO2 lags global warming and hence there is some element of implied causality? Positive feedback mechanisms exist between CO2 and global warming, hence cause and effect become intertwined - increasing CO2 creates a warming and warming creates increased CO2.



I'm not sure what your background is, but my own inclination would be to write a toy model in terms of nonlinear ODEs and solve by the Runge-Kutta technique for example. Alternatively you might simplify by using something like a linear state space model with appropriate initial conditions. It would be quite fun to do this. Please indicate if you are interested as this might be quite useful and give me a reason to hang around a bit longer.



The term lag and lead may make sense if you are thinking about transfer functions such as H(s)=1/(s+1) where s is the Laplace variable, but this is because Laplace relies on zero initial conditions. The earth has been around for some time (c 4.5 billion years). The terms lagging and leading certainly do not imply causality in complex systems with no- zero initial conditions.



To put this possibly more in the context of an IET forum let's take the example of current and voltage in an inductor and capacitor under steady state ac conditions. For an inductor the current lags voltage by 90 degrees. For a capacitor the voltage lags the current by 90 degrees. Does this mean that in one case voltage causes current and in the other case current causes voltage?


Sean,

Thanks for your considered and concise reply. For your information my background is 25 years plus in product development within industry. You are correct to point out that feedback mechanisms must be at play for the carbon dioxide hypothesis to work. All those that accept the hypothesis dispute net negative or positive feedback. The models do not have a good track record.
I had to look up your numerical analysis stuff. I cannot claim any expertise in that but I've loads of experience in real world empirical evidence gathering and signal processing. I am more interested in that rather than faith in models. I iterate around models, great tools but no substitute for the real world.
If I had an analogous model for the earth it would be a X5R 100uF ceramic capacitor (land/oceans and every thing within), atmosphere being the lead inductance and albedo the ESR. Simplistic I know but this is the kind of model that some rely on. Multidecadal oscillations within the earth system have to dominate short term, alongside external forcings.

Regards

Dave Nunn

Perhaps a timely paper EarthSystemsDynamics?

Edited: 04 January 2013 at 12:18 AM by HazelGroveWolf
 04 January 2013 12:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

@geoffbenn

Can you not see the problem with pasting quotes from SKS?

It is a blog run by a cartoonist. How would your react to that kind of response?
The blog responses are censored to make it look as if they are all thinking the same way. They have even changd the original article after posting has been underway on occasion to make some replies look ridiculous.
We could go there and read them ourselves. I, for one, have and have come away unconvinced.

==============================================================

"Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW. "

Have you read any of these emails yourself? I have and found some quite damning - the context is clear in many cases despite the standard protest. The main characters in the mails call themselves "The Team". Amongst other things they try to manipulate the peer review process. That is why they are so insistent on papers being peer reviewed. They managed to delay one paper long enough to put together a rebuttal that was published in the following edition of the journal in a way that could not be responded to. Why do they need to be so devious if they have all the facts on their side?

The enquiries: Some members of The Team were investigated. However, there was not one enquiry but three. The cynic in me suggests that there were three so that bits could fall down the cracks. The bit no-one investigated was the science. One of the panel chairman admitted as much. A quote at the time was: "A blinder well played!"

Some of the investigative panel chairmen/members had links to the University of East Anglia where the relevant Team members were employed at the Climatic Research Unit. So they could not be described as completely independent. The papers they looked at were suggested by the Royal Society. That would have been impartial except that the RS got the list from the UEA.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 04 January 2013 06:46 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: seandanaher

Geoff you are doing a great job here.

I do not have the time to post in detail having a rather busy job but I will add my tuppence worth.

I have been concerned about environmental impact since my undergraduate placement in KFA Germany working on the Ozone layer in 1976. My opinion on AGW has changed significantly over the past 35 years or so, but I am possibly predisposed to believe in it. My reading of the scientific literature has led me from the 1) precautionary principle to 2) on the balance of probability to 3) beyond reasonable doubt to 4) virtual certainty that AGW is happening.

I find the sceptics arguments deeply unconvincing. Quite frankly I am horrified that so many members of the IET believe their arguments. I would very much prefer if AGW was not happening - business as usual would be far better than having to change. The debate seems to have become highly politicised particularly in the US.

Professor Sean Danaher

BSc(Hons) MSc PhD MIET CEng MInstP CPhys


Cheers Professor!

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 04 January 2013 06:48 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 247
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf

Maths, physics and empirical evidence please. I'm likely to be more interested if you can explain in your own words rather than run off to some canned website, I'm resisting that temptation myself for now.

Best Regards

Dave Nunn
Unfortunate that you haven't cited a source for your 'science', since I believe that since we are not climate scientists we should be careful to ground what we are saying by citing sources. Of course, even the best scientists will cite sources...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.