Bishop Hill Climate Change by Numbers
Mar 3, 2015 BBC Climate: Models Climate: other I almost gave up on Climate Change by Numbers last night. By ten o'clock I was flagging fast and not really getting a lot from it which is a pity because it could have been brilliant.
The presentation was really well done. I thought the decision to have three different presenters paid off in spades and the producers did well to come up with three such engaging people - Norman Fenton, Hannah Fry and David Spiegelhalter - to front the show. I liked the style of having them completely separate and avoiding the cheesy infills that TV people seem to like so much. The decision to get just a little bit closer to the maths was a good one and the radical step of showing equations on screen seemed like a bit of a breakthrough.
But at the end of the day it was not the programme I'd hoped for and not the programme that the climate debate needs. There are two types of people who are interested in science - those who get excited by what science can do and those who get excited by what it is merely trying to do. Climate Change by Numbers seemed to me to be firmly in the first camp, with many familiar lines from the mainstream case for climate alarm set out in an accessible fashion alongside unusually technical explications of techniques such as kriging and homegenisation. For those of us who are interested in unanswered questions and scientific controversies there was nothing. This was, at the end of the day, a recitation of the global warming catechism with added geekiness.
Only occasionally did we get hints that there might be some interesting questions to examine. For example, just as almost every other climate programme has done, the presenters invited us to be impressed by the match between greenhouse-fuelled climate models and observations. But, and also just like every climate show before them, the presenters skipped past the tuning and the fudging and the impact of the pause. Norman Fenton's allusion to the extreme complexity of GCMs did suggest that there might be something interesting going on but there, unfortunately, the show moved swiftly on. Fenton's blog post on the show hints that he too found this frustrating, listing a whole series of interesting areas that he would liked to have examined and on which I think his statistician's brain could have shed a great deal of light. I guess none of us are fully in control of our own destiny.
In similar fashion, we were invited to be impressed by Hansen's Pinatubo predictions, a case that I have always seen as rather deceptive since it relates largely to the base greenhouse effect (which almost everyone agrees on) and not the long-term feedbacks (which they don't). This could have sparked an interesting exploration of the areas that climate scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of, but this too was an opportunity spurned.
Clearly this was not a programme directed at me. But I'm not sure who the producers were directing it at either. I don't think it really cuts the mustard as a propaganda piece. Recitation of all these familiar arguments is not going to persuade anyone. And to misquote JS Mill, you really need to have a public clash of ideas to demonstrate the validity of your case and persuade people. Perhaps it was just a geek piece; something that climatologists can coo over and say "isn't the stuff we do cool". If so that's all well and good, but I hope my climatologist friends can understand that this is not for me: I'm from the "what we don't know" school of science.
And no matter how nice the presenters and how whizzy the graphics, I'm going to find the recitation of the climate litany rather dull. Even if they show me some equations.
Bishop Hill
For overseas readers, the programme is now up on YouTube.
Reader Comments (262)
Hi kids! I hadn't realised so many BH commenters were kids. ROFL.
Is the general consensus that the content of this 2007 report is a lie? Or is it truth?
Anybody asking such a question is either a fool or is posing as a fool for their own reasons. Either way, hardly worth responding to.
Oh, well. I had fun 'til I realized I was talking to myself.
================
A great disappointment that Tamsin did not come along to discuss the programme, despite most of us accepting her 'wait and see' admonition. Richard Betts did pop in, but only to take potshots at tangential issues, not to address the programme itself.
Please tell me that this was sarcastic. The idea that anyone can describe the responses to Daimon as "patient" is so absurd that I really can't believe that anyone could seriously describe them in that way. It's one thing for this site to be one of the most unpleasant that I've ever encountered, but for those here to not even realise that this is the case is amazing. I've assumed that people here are rude and unpleasant because they feel so strongly about this topic that they find it hard to behave otherwise. That I can at least understand. The possibility that they don't even realise how rude and unpleasant they are is much harder to understand.
"There are no absolute truths in science" Prof. Brian Cox
Take a look (from 9 minutes the climate change topic is tabled)
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/brian-cox-and-robin-ince-the-infinite-monkey-cage-interview/54e4c6be78c90aa0650006cb
"It's about coming up with the least wrong version of events" Robin Ince
TTP: please read Paul Matthews’s response to Daimon at 12:21 PM on Mar 3, TinyCO’s at 3:25 PM and mine at 3:17 PM and 6:48 PM on the same day. Then advise me what it is about them that you consider them to be impatient, rude or unpleasant.
Thanks - Robin
@Harry - I have enrolled in OU as I seek education, correct. I never said I had all the answers or any answers. I did look up "Prig", it's a word I've not used. I do not know the entire dictionary, it is my right to look words up. If you'd like to meet up for a discussion I'd be happy to. I'm always interested in a discussion.
I have been open and honest and I do find this site is very one sided at best and rather rude at worst. I think this site is a collection of people that feel very strongly about something, and I am still unsure what it is the majority feel strongly about other than disputing any scientific projections on Climate Change. SO, we have thus far - the IPCC paper is not a lie but contains lies. Yet the overall consensus is apparently an absolute "no" to climate change. What does this tell me? It tells me the entire concept has been binned by the majority because some projections were not 100%. That does not debunk the idea of Climate Change. CC happens, HAS to happen, is happening, will always happen. You will never get a static climate and to encompass the climate and all of its changes in one paper is never going to be 100% right. If we could do that we would have a weather service that told you where every drop of rain is going to fall and when it is due to fall. Science is not saying it knows with absolute certainty that this or that is going to happen, but it can show the best fit having considered the evidence. The best fit may be WAY off (and let's hope it is) and that is the crux of this debate - why should you believe science, why should you believe what is put in front of you? What is the worst that can happen by believing the writing on the proverbial wall? Your answers so far (and I suspect there will be yet more of the same after this as most of the responses along those lines clearly have not read all I have written, rather just run off the moment they read "what's the worst that can happen") have largely pointed towards money. That completely side steps the science. Where is the discussion there? Someone talks about science, it gets a response of "gonna cost too much" or similar.
A program comes on TV to discuss "Climate Change by Numbers" and the first thing that comes forth is negativity of great magnitude. It doesn't help your cause to attempt to belittle me or anyone, I lost respect for the views of some here the second it started, incidentally, I used "Kids" to be deliberately flippant and I shouldn't have (that being said I would imagine most are younger than me so "kids" may be fitting, who knows? - rhetorical question). So that is my bad.
So there we go. Another open and honest 'session' from me. Harry, if you'd like to lower your veil? No, didn't think so.
ATTP "It's one thing for this site to be one of the most unpleasant that I've ever encountered", so you don't read you own blog? Or are you including it?
I notice neither you nor Daimon volunteered to start without us. It's not about the money so long as it's not yours eh? The BBC has produced two more party political broadcasts on behalf of the warmists and the public probably didn't even notice they were on. They're bored of your precious science. Paris will fail, even if they all sign on the dotted line because nobody, not even the most ardent warmist thinks that it's their job to solve it. We have no taste for another set of priests who sermonise one day and sin for the other six. So burn... or not.
Daimon, if you stroll into any long running dispute and ask silly questions you'll get roughed up. Or maybe you're a newbie to the internet and don't know that?
There are thousands of small reasons to be a climate sceptic, not one big one. Since you were very off topic, we were polite enough to reply to you with a few of them. You could have started a discussion where your questions could have been answered more fully, away from the much deserved disgust at yet another BBC whitewash.
Haha, funny, ATTP complaining of unpleasantness here, while his comment was the first extremely unpleasant comment after Damion's first comment. Calling the kettle black much?
Show me abuse of Daimion before this dude came along and called everyone here without standards and infantile.
Damion you say 'So that is my bad.' That's your bad what, Damion?
The first third of the program said that there has been a warming of roughly 0.85 °C, but it did not indicate what the cause of that warming might be, or if such warming should be considered dangerous. The next two thirds were based on computer simulations of the climate system (i.e. GCMs). Thus, the program did not really present any purely-observational evidence to support the claim of dangerous anthropogenic global warming: rather, the claim was based solely on GCMs. That is fair and honest.
Given that the claim of dangerous AGW is based solely on GCMs, the big question is this: how much trust should policymakers have in the GCMs? That question was very poorly addressed. I would like to see a program that adequately addressed that question.
One number that could be very usefully discussed by the BBC and others is 1.2C. What the 'settled science' of radiative physics determines as the effect of doubling the concentration of CO2, without dynamic feedbacks. Not sure what the correct description for this is, Roe(2009) calls it 'reference-system climate sensitivity'. It's not exactly scary, to say the least. Surely any mission to 'educate and inform' would want to explain that the rest of projected warming is from the very 'unsettled' GCM's.
aTTP/Wottsupwiththat/Totheleftofcentre/Ken Rice,
Good grief man grow up! That comment is absolutely pathetic. I dunno about you mate, but I work for a living. In the real world. Reading the comments here is like watching Jackanory compared to the kind of conversations I have as part of my everyday working life. If you're of such a sensitive disposition as to consider this site “unpleasant”, then for goodness sake don't go getting a job on the factory floor or on a building site. And if you really think that about this place, then what are we to make of your own site and some of the commenters and comments you allow there?
If you don't like it here, don't come. You wont be missed. I've never yet seen you make a substantive comment in all the time you've been coming here. All I've seen you do is whinge and whine about how nasty everyone is to you. You're the most unscientific scientist I've ever come across (I'm genuinely amazed that you actually are one) and I've come across quite a few in the 8 or 9 years I've been following this.
There, is that rude and unpleasant enough for you?
Everyone else,
You can waste your time engaging with Daimon if you want. It won't get you anywhere. He obviously knows nothing about the subject, but guess what? He doesn't care. He's not here to have any meaningful engagement, he's here to mickey take. Both he and Rice are here to troll, nothing more.
Laurie,
Firstly, at least thanks for being honest, which was kind of my point. My point wasn't so much that the site is unpleasant (it is, as your comment aptly illustrates) it was more to do with amazement that someone could post a comment essentially saying "but we tried to be so patient", when that was patently not the case (a few exceptions doesn't make it true). I don't particularly care if people want to be rude and unpleasant. I don't particularly like it, but it is a free world and - as others have pointed out above - I'm not guiltless myself. My bigger issue is with the apparent lack of self-awareness that seems prevalent at times (what I've come to call the "if only those poopyheads would stop calling us poopyheads" fallacy). At least own your own behaviour. So, thank you, again, for at least being honest enough to do so.
It's Beyond our Ken. He still hasn't answered Robin's question. And the guy who told Richard Tol to F*** off (without the asterisks) at his own blog is whining at alleged unpleasantness, and then complaining about lack of self-awareness! He's a hoot! I'm done, but thanks for providing such entertainment.
And yet again, Anders and his fanboy fail to make any substantive points while tone - trolling at inordinate length. Everyone is just so mean to them.
Paul,
Of course you're done, because otherwise you might have to actually think a little about how you could possible have had the gall to write a comment claiming to have tried to be so patient. It probably qualifies as one of the most amazing comments I've encountered in all my time discussing this topic. I would have probably ignored it otherwise, but to see one of the least patient people I've ever encountered, claiming to have tried to patiently answer someone's comment was just too much to pass up. And quite what this has to do with my past infractions is slightly beyond me. My point isn't so much about the unpleasantness and rudeness (it exists, I'm not guiltless in that regard) it's about people's awareness of this behaviour - this isn't a complicated concept!
And, FWIW, constantly pointing out where others have behaved less well than maybe they should have, and then going "what a hoot" rather proves my point about comments on this site typically being infantile taunts. Then again - as should be obvious - that's no longer a surprise. Again, I'm not somehow claiming to be above this, simply pointing out that it exists.
My name is Harry Passfield and I endorse this message. (And I needed the laugh so, so much).
ATTP: a gentle reminder. At 2:56 this afternoon I asked you to
I'm awaiting your reply.Thanks - Robin
Says the guy who's ONLY contribution to this thread has been to constantly point out where others have behaved less well than maybe they should have.
LMFAO, you are something else Getting-physical-overthere-dude.
Robin,
Maybe try reading Paul's comment and my response a little more carefully. I find it galling for someone to suggest that the responses to Daimon were somehow patient. That is patently not true in general, even if some of them were. If yours happen to have been patient, pleasant and not rude, and if you think my response was to suggest that they weren't, then my apologies (although I didn't make any such statement). On the other hand, if you are a patient, pleasant and not rude person, why are you comfortable associating positively with a site where that is very obviously not the norm? On the other hand, if your comments to me are the standard rhetorical and pedantic games that are typically played on these comment threads, then maybe you fit in perfectly.
So ATTP you're happy to pointlessly debate whether we're polite or not but it's no go on whether you and Daimon are prepared to go it alone on cutting CO2? And you guys wonder why the climate conferences get nowhere. Your attention to the insignificant is telling.
Neither of you have answered the question of why warmists don't go first.
Your projection is sooooooo obvious. And the obvious answer is: if you don't like sand in your speedos, get off the beach! In other words, "If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it." (h/t Bairnsfather)
Bye-Bye
ATTP, the lack of self awareness is what keeps place like the Hill so amusing.
Yes Mr Halpern, the psychological projection on display is worth a paper or two.
Agreed Eli, so keep coming back displaying it, I are having a ball!
ATTP: here's the relevant extract from Paul's comment:
Note he refers to "several people", not all, and specifies himself, Tiny and me as examples. And it's referring to that comment that you characterise responses to Daimon as impatient, rude and unpleasant. I therefore invited you to read four examples of his, Tiny's and my responses and to advise me what it is about them that you consider to be impatient, rude or unpleasant. But now you say this: Note the "If". So you haven't even read them. Yet you're content to make sweeping criticisms of this site without even reading the material you're criticising. Not very impressive.Same question to you Eli Rabett. Why don't you guys forget about sceptics and go ahead without us? I've started a new disussion where you can sign up. Think what you could achieve if you stopped whining and got on with it.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/discussion/post/2478450
"ATTP, the lack of self awareness is what keeps place like the Hill so amusing."
From a grown man who assumes the imaginary persona of a bunny rabbit. Except when he doesn't.
Too beautiful.
Looking at the answers to Daimon Walker's conjectures, I am amazed at the patience and politeness of the responses in general. If Mr Walker needs a comparison then he should try opposing windmills on even an MSM site like the Daily Mail - "denier" and "flat-earther" were some of the epithets I was subjected to: rather worse than here.
Unfortunately, neither Mr Walker nor ATTP nor Dr Betts seem willing to engage in the substantive scientific issues addressed in the patient answers to Mr Walker; or the analysis of the BBC program, or its bias, which was the subject of the original post. Each has made an issue of politeness which, coming from the "side" that invented and freely uses the term "denier", is quite an exercise in hypocrisy.
And it is no use claiming that they have not used the term "denier" (this time) themselves: the debate is so polarised that if the intention really is honest debate then the CAGW supporters must renounce, and be seen to renounce, the use of epithets like "denier".
As for Mr Walker who sets such store by being merely criticised himself, yet almost in the same breath would mete out the death of his fellow men in huge numbers by plague, if he cannot see the incongruity, nay the sociopathy, of his own worldview then he lacks that self-awareness that so seems to excite ATTP in others.
Robin,
I read a large number of the relevant comments. The idea that the above is a defensible statement is patently absurd.
Let's be careful here. In a sense, I'm not really criticising the site. If the goal is to be a site that specialises in infantile taunts and rude and unpleasant comments, that's the choice of the blog owner. I was simply amazed that anyone could really suggest that that wasn't the case. The idea that a good number of people (more than simply yourself, Paul and Tiny - according to Paul, at least) responded patiently to Daimon's comment, is clearly nonsense. I'm not even defending Daimon's comments, per se. It's not uncommon in this topic for people to arrive at sites, ask questions that have generated frustration in the past, and to get responses that reflect that past frustration. Suggesting, however, that numerous people responded patiently, when it's patently clear that that was not the case, is what amazes me (although, as I've said many times before, I really should learn to no longer be amazed by what happens with respect to this topic).
Budgie +1
Damian, who has been all over the blog like a tramp's overcoat, retires to the bench (groin strain?) so ATTP brings on his super-sub, Rabett to help out. Sadly, he's spent so long on the bench (an unusual football injury: piles) he scores a late own-goal when he projects into his own net: says he couldn't figure out which way he was facing. Perhaps Team ATTP will now think about taking a Pause and let things cool down before they launch any more futile attacks. At the moment, they're being denied the ball.
'Night all!
My mistake 'attp' - why bother to be patient when the post is just another smug ruse to derail the discussion to attract more of your condescending drivel?
I put the 2 last posts from ATTP through a summariser:
Paul,
Of course you're done, because otherwise you might have to actually think a little about how you could possible have had the gall to write a comment claiming to have tried to be so patient. It probably qualifies as one of the most amazing comments I've encountered in all my time discussing this topic. I would have probably ignored it otherwise, but to see one of the least patient people I've ever encountered, claiming to have tried to patiently answer someone's comment was just too much to pass up. And quite what this has to do with my past infractions is slightly beyond me. My point isn't so much about the unpleasantness and rudeness (it exists, I'm not guiltless in that regard) it's about people's awareness of this behaviour - this isn't a complicated concept!
And, FWIW, constantly pointing out where others have behaved less well than maybe they should have, and then going "what a hoot" rather proves my point about comments on this site typically being infantile taunts. Then again - as should be obvious - that's no longer a surprise. Again, I'm not somehow claiming to be above this, simply pointing out that it exists.
the results were:
My point isn't so much about the unpleasantness and rudeness (it exists, I'm not guiltless in that regard) it's about people's awareness of this behaviour - this isn't a complicated concept! And, FWIW, constantly pointing out where others have behaved less well than maybe they should have, and then going "what a hoot" rather proves my point about comments on this site typically being infantile taunts.
I would have probably ignored it otherwise, but to see one of the least patient people I've ever encountered, claiming to have tried to patiently answer someone's comment was just too much to pass up.
Paul, Of course you're done, because otherwise you might have to actually think a little about how you could possible have had the gall to write a comment claiming to have tried to be so patient.
It probably qualifies as one of the most amazing comments I've encountered in all my time discussing this topic.
Again, I'm not somehow claiming to be above this, simply pointing out that it exists.
Then again - as should be obvious - that's no longer a surprise.
And quite what this has to do with my past infractions is slightly beyond me.
In other words, he is saying nothing at all.
It's called tone-trolling where his obnoxious pal BBD comes from.
Really now, really, the level of insult over here is, well it's about time the Bish cleared out his dead sheep. Us bunnies are used to more lively fare and after a while they do stink up the place.
Toujour gai, toujour gai.
Far more lively...like a lynch mob? Those are always lively.
By the numbers, four, count 'em again, four alarmists have shown up with the collective impact of a fly. Hey, some of them are supposed to be heavyweights. Was there some implicit understanding that they were to take a fall or was this their best shot? They coulda been contenders.
==============
I for one am thoroughly fed up with this completely pointless and boring interchange of comments between ATTP and others here. The topic of the post was the Climate Change by Numbers programme. How about writing about that?
CLIMATE SCEPTICISM BY NUMBERS
1. 0.6C is the rise in global surface temperature since 1880 once the 60y PDO/AMO oscillation has been detrended.
2. 0.5% This is the probability that CMIP5 models can explain the 17 year hiatus in warming: IPCC statement: "It is very unlikely that the pause in global warming can be explained by the enhanced greenhouse effect" (see note 2)
3. 4 Trillion tons. This (rather than 1 trillion tons) is the maximum limit of total CO2 emissions by mankind that are needed to avoid a 2C rise in temperature. (see note 3)
Notes:
1. Even Michael Mann now accepts that the natural PMO/AMO has effected global temperatures over the last 150 years. See his post on realclimate: Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause
2. 0.5% probablility is based on Chapter 9 AR5 Box9.2 Fig. 1 see: this figure
3. The 1 Trillion ton figure used by the BBC is based on Figure 10.1 in SPM. However this assumes that the carbon cycle will saturate in the future such that an ever increasing fraction of carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere. CO2 radiative forcing depends on the logarithm of CO2 levels, In order to get a linear dependence as shown in Fig 10.1 IPCC modellers have assumed that this hypothetical saturation will yank up radiative forcing with increasing emissions. To date there is no evidence whatsoever that the carbon cycle is saturating. The fraction of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere is still about half that emitted. Without saturation the figure is nearer 4 billion as shown by the blue curve here : Figure here
Messenger: you're right. I'd just typed a reply to ATTP's most recent post - but I abandoned it. Clive Best seems to have got things back on track.
Messenger/Clive Best +10
It's pretty obvious that ATTP is only here to derail the thread because he has nothing of substance to contribute to the topic under discussion and, more specifically, the criticisms of the programme that have been made.
Dr Betts likewise has said nothing of substance. Dr Edwards has not even ventured any comment at all. Perhaps she's too embarrassed to do so because, having seen the criticism, she is now able to see just how flawed the programme was.
Daimon wrote
Which is pretty much the point, isn't it? Climate changes anyway.
So how can we discern man’s input?
By noting the correlation with CO2 perhaps? But CO2 follows Temperature on long timescales (ruling out a positive feedback that would be a problem).
And the Pause shows that on short timescales there is no correlation.
So why do self-proclaimed scientists justify their faith in the impact of CO2?
It’s not spectroscopy as the effects of water vapour dwarf CO2 and, let’s face it, the effects of heat transfer by phase changes, conduction and convection in the sea and sky dwarf radiative effects.
So this is not a science issue anymore. If it were then the fear-mongers would describe something that could falsify their faith. But as it is only faith-based they cannot say anything could disprove newsworthy AGW.
This leads us to why the debate is so heated: The Faith (Dharma – religion) of these self-proclaimed scientists is wicked. It attracts those who want to see most of the world’s poor die from plague or starvation (see DayWalker’s comment above).
Why should we polite nod approval to Greens or ISIS or any other ideology that fantasises about mass murder?
I will not.
This raises an important question: why did the programme makers not discuss the issues with anyone on the skeptical side? They would obviously have done so, if they were really interested in the truth. In other words, the answer to the question is that they were not interested in potentially-valid counterarguments—which might counter their belief in what the truth is. Rather, they were only interested in producing propaganda.
@ Geospeculator,
Thanks for this. I haven't come across kriging anywhere else. It seems to be a form of Bayesian inference which uses a Gaussian polynomial interpolation . If it's anything like the normal Climatology use of statistics, they won't have checked the pre-conditions for use. And if challenged will say "Oh, we've it for xyz, and worked out OK" which means the result fitted in nicely with their expectations.
Sorry for being so cynical, but …
Did she really say :
??
I can't access iPlayer from my present location (even with a VPN)
Not sure if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but James Annan has a post on the show here.
tomo -
The update on the main post has a link to Youtube.
Sorry I've been gone so long, I've been counting the amount of times people on here haven't even managed to spell my name right.
I have also been over to the ESRL Global Monitoring division at Mauna Lao. They've been taking all sorts of readings over there. Take a look. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full I think you'll find their readings, which are fact, show a rise in PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. Relate that to the population of planet Earth (and if you want to go back far enough the ice cores from deep Antartic can tell you ball park figures from quite some time ago) and you'll see that humans seem to be making a difference. Even if this is a 95% certainty it seems the wise people here at BH are gamblers and would rather take their chances with the 5% chance this is not attributed to humans and want to just see what happens.
CO2 doesn't just vanish out of the atmosphere. It's not a magician. It has to go somewhere. Same as all the carbon tied up in various 'reservoirs'. A good analogy is the split sided water tank - a water tank has a split in its side, you run water into it at a steady flow, the level rises but leaks water, eventually the water out is equal to the water in and a steady state is achieved. Liken that to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The tap (in very simple terms) is on and the steady state has been established over many many years (MANY years, not just the last 100 - check those ice cores again). Humans can bee seen as a turning on of the tap, more water in means the steady state has to become higher. Humans are going one further though and patching the leak up as they go (deforestation).
So what if we have more CO2 in the atmosphere? Well, people spout about "tiny amounts" caused by humans. Well, think about a set of scales. You have a perfectly weighted set of scales and everything is good in the world. Then you add a tiny amount, a really tiny amount of weight to one side. It is no longer balanced no matter how tiny the additional weight that is added. Same with CO2 in the atmosphere, only humans are clever, they chop the things down that utilise CO2 from the atmosphere and then they grab loads of fossil fuel and burn it to ensure there is plenty of lovely CO2 in the atmosphere... SO WHAT? I hear you screaming at your PCs. Well... CO2 is rather adept at harnessing the lovely infrared radiation and spewing it back at mother Earth (and everywhere else) you see. SO WHAT??? I hear you cry as you weep at your screen! WHO CARES? WE CAN DO WITH WARMER SUMMERS! Well, the extra heat is now warming the oceans and they like to expand when they get warm (who'd have though it eh?) also a liquid that is warm can dissolve less CO2. Less CO2 in the oceans = less for Plankton to utilise = less Plankton. That means less photosynthesis by phytoplankton (as there is less phytoplankton) less photosynthesis means less carbon is used so less can be dissolved from the atmosphere to replace what is used. There is a circle of terribleness there somewhere - this is the start of what is known as a runaway green house effect. The biological pump gets overloaded and cannot function. That happens and we all go kapput... but it's okay as there is a huge 5 % chance that won't happen if we do nothing.
There is LOADS more on this subject if you just took the time to read about it. You won't though. You get hooked up on trying to belittle people and "proving" you are right.... well, you have a 5% chance of being right.
This is small amount of what goes on, it is a very big topic to discuss. To say its all rubbish or say so what or say something isn't happening... it just shows lack of understanding of the subject.
Like I have said before, I do not know everything about this (there's a quote for the skeptics), I am glad I don't. It means I can learn more but you need to be receptive to learn. Here, in this little corner of the internet I do not see learning. I see the equivalent to hicks in a forgotten mining town yelling "them be bad folks" at anyone with an ounce of intelligence on a subject.
I've been branded a troll, a prig, an idiot, I've been scoffed a for going to OU, my points of view of over population have been summarized in terms of a tweet I made about a zombie program "we could do with a good plague" is what I said, I'll save you the time and effort for going back through here to find it. It was taken from my twitter handle daiwalker, which was also banded around as a way of intimidation.... You will do ANYTHING but answer the questions you ask (such as "So how can we discern man’s input?") It is laughable. You try to cajole people into your way of thinking which is based on trying to debunk science. Go and prove that it is NOT happening... oh wait, what was it someone said on here? It's not down to you to disprove it, its down to science to prove it. Well science tries to prove it to you but you are not listening.
I watched the clip I posted earlier where Robin Ince and Prof Brian Cox touched on the subject of skeptics and I think they nailed it by saying they'd rather look at Science and see the good that it does rather concentrate efforts on wrangling with the skeptics. You'll never win against a skeptic and science isn't there to win an argument. Sooo, there are another 2 pennies worth from me. I suspect it will be met with the normal abusive attitude but hey, I no longer read your replies (I think someone said I skim because that is what trolls do... read at the start of this thread and you will not read anything troll worthy in my original post).
... and cue the skeptics. Go!