h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

First of all, apologies if the tone of my posts sounded too vehement.
A few weeks back.

I´ve read your last post in PR, and I´ve decided to answer you here because, PR has an aim and my comment isn´t relevant for that end. There, many people have said to you that the entry is too biased.
And that´s true. YOur last link shows it again.
I´ve looked for information about the man you mention, he is a very well known conservative politician in the UK. And a very well known denialist too.
On mentioning him, you simply are adding more load to the bias.

If you want to go on with the debate- I love a really good debate- you can go to Ask, propose your point or join a recent conversation opened today, Climategate.
H2 has many good "debatists". Maybe they can join.

Good luck with your entries.

Maria,

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your interest and intellectual contribution. It is a very important debate. Does carbon dioxide, a beneficial gas, contribute to global warming more than the sun, which delivers 340 W per square metre? Do you know what 340 W is?

Hi dgs,
Your aproach to this debate isn´t from the scientific point of view but from the political one, just as mine.

You are as lay in that topic as me,so, there´s not point to engage in a discusión with you about it. As a lay person, I rely on what the mayority of scientists say about climate change. However, the data you offer come from unreliable sources from the scientific point of view, and from the political point of view, it´s clear what the intentions of denialists are.

Also, you said something that made quite clear your lack of solid scientific background, you said more or less: science on climate isn´t an done deal.(this is your main point too)
A bit of common sense should make you appreciate what a nonsense is that affirmation. A scientific would never say that their conclusions are a “done deal” about any topic. Science is always open to modifications, that´s why there is progress.
Your entry doesn´t add anything to the science of climate change.
But you insist on defending the political position of those who are afraid of losing power, oil and carbon fuel industries. Nigel Lawson, whom you mentioned in PR isn´t a scientific but a conservative politician, one of those whom I consider an agressive and greedy capitalist.

Both your position and mine are clear enough. As clear as it is that we aren´t going to reach any consensum, any conciliation. If you want to have a debate, do what I´ve told you in my previous post. More people involved in the discussion will make it more attractive.
As Messalina once said: The more, the merrier.

Greetings again, Maria,

Let's talk about the science, and get away from greedy capitalist politicians, who mainly pay for the science to be done.

The main proposition of the IPCC (which is a political forum, by the way) is that the planet is warming because of increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We have seen some of the warmest temperatures since measurements began in the 1880s, during the last decade. But, the temperature anomaly is only 0.5 degrees warmer than the average of the last 150 years, despite mankind pumping an additional 9Gt of carbon each year into the atmosphere. And the temperature is fairly stable, at the moment. None of the very complex models created so far anticipated this pause in global warming, which leads to the question: why not?

So the science is still developing: there is much we still don't understand. Now, if you don't understand something, it is best to avoid making political and economic decisions until you do, otherwise you could cause more harm than a 0.5 degree rise in the temperature. (By the way, people do adapt to temperature change. Finland is quite cold, and Singapore quite hot, but people live very well in both locations, and enjoy high standards of living).

In summary, I think that scientists should not influence or make recommendations to politicians until they fully understand the science and can demonstrate that their models actually do work.

Hi dgs,
Gif has said far better than me what I had in my mind.
It´s not my wish to see the end of that conversation, but to find a way to go on with it without adding unneccesary work to the scouts.

Hi,

You are an engineer so, I´ll remove what I said about your lack of solid scientific fomation, but not that your affirmation about the science as a "done deal" is a nonsense. YOu can have scientific formation, and at the same time ignore the implications, the phylosophy, the ethic... of what the scientific method means.

I´ll also want to say that science research doesn´t depend on "greedy capitalists" There are other sources. Here in Spain the State is one of the main founders along with many differents foundations. And I guess that that is very similar in other countries.