Don't discount the skeptics until you have proven your case.

[slamlander]

They're at it again, but this article is a welcome breath of fresh air.
Mr. Derwent -- a politician and former investment banker, not a scientist -- meant that there is no middle way, that the "anthropogenic" or man-made nature of climate change is now established beyond all but the most frivolous skepticism, wilful blindness or complete ignorance

Comments

[patrixa]

But please remember that in chemical processes, a small amount of change in ingredients (elements), pressure, temperature etc. often has immense consequences. While the CO2 contribution by man to the atmosphere may not be vast amount, it can produce vast changes. Population changes and the demand by more and more consumers for more and more goods can, over time, cause BIG problems.

My own take on the situation is the bigots exist on both sides and extremists abound. What is important is that we treat our planet with respect and work at preventing its disintegration. Destruction will not be due to one cause, but a combination of them. The same can be said of salvation (Not talking religions here, but the opposite of destruction)

[johan_de_ronin]

To some extent, I agree with that and understand it. However, when you are discussing differences on theorder of three orders of magnitude (x1000) then we are beyond the realm of 'vast'.

There is no doubt that the weather is changing but I maintain that they haven't proven the connection between that change and our civilization, yet they are acting as if it is a scientific fact. This isn't even bad science, it's political bullshit.

Yes, CO2 is a small issue, I maintain that toxic pollutants are a bigger issue, absent the climate ( The reall effects of our CO2 production).

Though your thesis sounds plausible,

[real_skeptic]

...it too needs to be proven. That is, that human contributions to CO2 have a significant effect which is not overshadowed by natural changes in CO2 levels. Even showing laboratory or computer simulations would be evidence. Has anything like that been done.

The mistake is making the assumption just because "it could be true". Many things could be true but aren't, and resources are being wasted on non-truths that could have been better spent elsewhere (like reducing pollutants in the atmosphere, thereby improving our health).

Re: Though your thesis sounds plausible,

[slamlander]

For the moment, they are on the wrong end of Occam's razor, given the currently available facts. It is less than 3.5% contribution of CO2 levels and that is less than 2% of the cause for Greeenhouse effect (water vapor is 98%). They have made a case for amplification. It is an arguable case but I'll grant that it is still a case. However, even that case does not support an amplification of 1000% and they need something on the order of 10,000%.

To support anthropological causes of Global Warming would take a much too convoluted a chain of causality. Whereas, it has been statistically proven that Nature practices KISS. This is the validity behind Occam's razor and it is the argument working against the hoaxers hucksters.

Errata

[slamlander]

replace anthropologic with anthropomorphic.

Re: Errata

[real_skeptic]

Actually, replace both with "anthropogenic" :)

Thanx

[slamlander]

I knew it was one of those anthro words ;)

tired today ....