Conspiracy Theory Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming?

[JoondalupJ]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Just had a brief run through of some of the posts , and everyone thinks they know the answer and the science.
But actually no one knows anything (here,s the important word) perfectly. Its all theory.
In fact its all guess work , even the science gets questioned by scientists who agree or disagree. We are only smartarse animals after all.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Okay.

The greenhouse signature is missing.
Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hot-spot" warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint. Something else caused the warming. This is the knock-out blow. If greenhouse gases are warming the earth we are supposed to see the first signs of it in the patch of air 10 kilometers above the tropics. But this “hot spot” just isn’t there.

Two graphs. They are on page 9 of the link below.

http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

Graph A is the one on the right (it is labelleted as A, and graph B is the one on the left.

Graph A (from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) shows the pattern of temperature changes the models predict for greenhouse gas-induced warming.

Graph B (published by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program) shows what actually occurred during the recent warming from 1979-1999. Weather balloons measured the global atmosphere but could find no sign of the predicted :hot spot.

Thermometers are telling us, "it wasn’t caused by greenhouse gases."

Conclusion: Something else was causing most or all of the warming. And the models don't know what it was.

Also, evaporation and rain keep the planet 50°C cooler. About 80% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to humidity and clouds. Clouds cover 60% or so of the entire planet. No one has any idea whether cloud cover was the same in 1200, or 1800, or 1950. It’s a guess. The IPCC and the modellers admit they don’t do clouds or rain well. But these factors are the master "knobs" on Earths climate control unit. If the computer simulations are only out by a few percent, any tiny change in evaporation, clouds or rain will wipe out the warming from carbon and it can do it in days.

Al Gore describes how carbon dioxide beats up Mr Sunbeam and stops him
leaving the atmosphere. But he "forgot" to mention that clouds reflect around a quarter of all the sunlight that hits the earth. Those beams of light travel all the way from the sun to get bounced off into space when they are just a few kilometers from the ground.

Any change in cloud cover makes a major difference. The IPCC assumes clouds respond to warming, but clouds could easily drive the warming. There are lots of things that could potentially change cloud cover, which would affect our climate. Things like cosmic rays, changes in patterns of ocean temperature, land clearing, or aerosols all affect clouds.

The climate models rely on best guesses, assumptions and estimates. The models are incredibly accurate on dozens of points that don’t really matter, but they stab in the dark at the one or two points that do.

Who would fall for it, when you look into the detail?

What weather ballons ? Who told you that?
Do you trust them with your life.
The new word for modern day discussion is
generalisation.Or sprouting commentry from
some so called study, or some expert.
Remember Dermies spread sheet of tactics
wait gotta laugh, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Well we all know what an expert is.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

What weather ballons ? Who told you that?
Do you trust them with your life.
The new word for modern day discussion is
generalisation.Or sprouting commentry from
some so called study, or some expert.
Remember Dermies spread sheet of tactics
wait gotta laugh, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Well we all know what an expert is.

ps all the detail may be bullshit too.
Ever thought of that.

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

There is no scam . Its about people and study and opinion on what they are seeing.
All the stuff you read or believe may be bullshit. You don,t know I don,t know .
No one knows.

You are one confused Cat JoondalupJ. First you state with authority that there is no scam. In the next breath you state everything may be bullshit and nobody "knows". Can you sort out the apparent contradiction for me so that I can make sense of your post?

We,ve been studying weather with modern technology for what? a thousand two thousand three thousand years, this modern last two centuries, we,re still guessing. Its all guess work and theory. People believing their science , so your statistics, may be as much bullshit, as the statistics and findings of rampaging global warming believers.

People like me, who are not scientists, do "believe" their science. But we can do so on a rational basis. Yes, science is, if you like, all guess work and theory. But it is educated guess work - that is the "guesses" are driven by a deep understanding of how things work based on pre-existing theories. And from those guesses we get "theories". But all theories in science must be testable. The theory must pass every test of its application. If only once a "theory" does not correctly predict the result of a test it is a dead theory (although, like Newton's Laws of Motion, still has its uses).

So, when "scientists" report in prestiguous journals their insights into the world around us (their theories) I am persuaded to believe the report from my understanding of the rational process by which those theories are meant to be obtained. Of course, occasionally, scams do occur but, given the theory must continue to pass tests, the scam must inevitably be revealed or, at least, the theory discredited.

The planet has been around for billions of years. There may be a lot of us humans but we are just a tiny blink in the scheme of things. One day we,ll be gone, and nothing will know or remember what we were.

You are aware that this claim is just "theory" too, aren't you.

I really hate this carbon debate whether you think its happening or you don,t believe the globe is warming. Who gives a stuff . Nature will decide, not the piddly little human race.

The point JoondalupJ, is whether you accept the logic of the scientific method. If you do accept the logic of scientific method then the only conclusion you can reach if you inform yourself as to the science is that humans are dangerously (for our comfortable continuing existence) heating up the planet.

If you do not accept the logic of scientific method then you need to explain how it is that every day our apparent understanding of the world demonstrated by our technological harnessing of that understanding has by hocus pocus luck given us improved medicines, better tvs, cars and computers, and improved agricultural productivity.

What science should do is stop pissing around with maybes and put every single cent of research money into medicine and make us a happy healthy planet.
And when it either cooks or freezes we,ll be feeling pretty good.

Because the scientific method (by which we make our discoveries) is based on guesswork and theories (as explained above) I do not understand why you would think it is "pissing around with maybes". On the contrary "scientific discovery" is devoted to the consideration of "maybes". If you know of a more rational method for understanding the world around us you have not explained it.

So to answer your question who gives a stuff if global warming is real or not.
Why don,t we try to stop polluting the joint just in case.

To answer your last question with a question, How do we know we are "polluting" the joint except by understanding the scientific method and accepting ("believing") the science that purports to be based on that method.?

To answer your penultimate question, I care. Worse, because I accept the logical foundation of science (that is, I accept that application of the scientific method will provide useful information about the world around me) I am bound to accept that orthodox science informs me that unless humans significantly reduce our emission of CO2 we are probably going to experience increasing global temperatures with a profound and deleterious effect on our way of life. On that basis I think everyone should care.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

You are one confused Cat JoondalupJ. First you state with authority that there is no scam. In the next breath you state everything may be bullshit and nobody "knows". Can you sort out the apparent contradiction for me so that I can make sense of your post?



People like me, who are not scientists, do "believe" their science. But we can do so on a rational basis. Yes, science is, if you like, all guess work and theory. But it is educated guess work - that is the "guesses" are driven by a deep understanding of how things work based on pre-existing theories. And from those guesses we get "theories". But all theories in science must be testable. The theory must pass every test of its application. If only once a "theory" does not correctly predict the result of a test it is a dead theory (although, like Newton's Laws of Motion, still has its uses).

So, when "scientists" report in prestiguous journals their insights into the world around us (their theories) I am persuaded to believe the report from my understanding of the rational process by which those theories are meant to be obtained. Of course, occasionally, scams do occur but, given the theory must continue to pass tests, the scam must inevitably be revealed or, at least, the theory discredited.



You are aware that this claim is just "theory" too, aren't you.




The point JoondalupJ, is whether you accept the logic of the scientific method. If you do accept the logic of scientific method then the only conclusion you can reach if you inform yourself as to the science is that humans are dangerously (for our comfortable continuing existence) heating up the planet.

If you do not accept the logic of scientific method then you need to explain how it is that every day our apparent understanding of the world demonstrated by our technological harnessing of that understanding has by hocus pocus luck given us improved medicines, better tvs, cars and computers, and improved agricultural productivity.

What science should do is stop pissing around with maybes and put every single cent of research money into medicine and make us a happy healthy planet.
And when it either cooks or freezes we,ll be feeling pretty good.

Because the scientific method (by which we make our discoveries) is based on guesswork and theories (as explained above) I do not understand why you would think it is "pissing around with maybes". On the contrary "scientific discovery" is devoted to the consideration of "maybes". If you know of a more rational method for understanding the world around us you have not explained it.



To answer your last question with a question, How do we know we are "polluting" the joint except by understanding the scientific method and accepting ("believing") the science that purports to be based on that method.?

To answer your penultimate question, I care. Worse, because I accept the logical foundation of science (that is, I accept that application of the scientific method will provide useful information about the world around me) I am bound to accept that orthodox science informs me that unless humans significantly reduce our emission of CO2 we are probably going to experience increasing global temperatures with a profound and deleterious effect on our way of life. On that basis I think everyone should care.

I refuse to debate science with people who argue in Haiku

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

NO to the OP...

I've always thought it was BS.

Since Europe and Al Gore came out with this tripe years ago I smelt a rat.

Great way to create fear and make a few billions bucks in the process.

Complete sham.

What do the Government and Greens think...that we live an incubation tube, and we have our own atmospheric districts. That the 3rd world/developing countries think, hey now is our turn, but s**t we can't produce the energy we need so **** it...lets bow to populous crap rationale.

People who think this is being fought out over humanity versus greed and self fulfiling crap need seriously to wake up.

 

[Claypigeon]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

What do the Government and Greens think...that we live an incubation tube, and we have our own atmospheric districts. That the 3rd world/developing countries think, hey now is our turn, but s**t we can't produce the energy we need so **** it...lets bow to populous crap rationale.

People who think this is being fought out over humanity versus greed and self fulfiling crap need seriously to wake up.

Ignoring the whole CO2 debate, we are going to need to steadily switch over to clean(er) energy consumption anyway and the only way to do that is to force it. .. At a minimum we get a jump on clean(er) energy consumption before it is required and thus create jobs in the market because we are then leaders in the market. ..

For those that believe the climate science that we need to reduce CO2 emissions, now, then its a bonus. .. Whether or not you believe in human CO2 and its affects doesn't necessarily mean you cannot see the need for a change. .. Its not all black and white, yes and no, etc. ..

 

[Father Jack]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

NO to the OP...

I've always thought it was BS.

Since Europe and Al Gore came out with this tripe years ago I smelt a rat.

Great way to create fear and make a few billions bucks in the process.

Complete sham.

What do the Government and Greens think...that we live an incubation tube, and we have our own atmospheric districts. That the 3rd world/developing countries think, hey now is our turn, but s**t we can't produce the energy we need so **** it...lets bow to populous crap rationale.

People who think this is being fought out over humanity versus greed and self fulfiling crap need seriously to wake up.

Your tears say far more than hard evidence ever could

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Your tears say far more than hard evidence ever could

 

[Docker Clint]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

I cant bring myself to believe it. Of course those greedy scientists and greens have made this up to rake in the big dollars.

I for one would rather listen to our benevolent corporations who wish nothing but peace harmony and to share the economic prosperity, that can only come about by creating industry that uses fossil fuels, with the average person in the street.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

I gave a talk called “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” for the College of Science and Health at Utah Valley University. For those of you who aren’t familiar with me, I am a Republican and a geochemist who, until a few years ago, was quite skeptical about the idea that humans are causing significant climate change.

In the presentation, I briefly talked about how I had made the transition from being a climate change “skeptic” to being an outspoken advocate of mainstream climate science. I then discussed how it is that people like me can so effectively avoid the truth about climate change.

Please pass this video along! I am actually writing a book with the same title, but there’s no way I can get it published before the Republican primaries. Hopefully this kind of thing can influence a few people toward the center on this issue.
​

[YOUTUBE]vDNXuX6D60U[/YOUTUBE]

 

[wmvaux]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Well that was a waste of 40 mins

Rather than trying to discredit someone for what they do and who they are not, discredit them with facts. As soon as they go for the man and not tackle the issues, you know they're not serious.

 

[medusala]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Even the IPCC can't say they are 100% certain

Yet for some reason as soon as anyone says there is scope for doubt the Chicken Little brigade froth at the mouth.

 

[wmvaux]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Even the IPCC can't say they are 100% certain

Yet for some reason as soon as anyone says there is scope for doubt the Chicken Little brigade froth at the mouth.

No the IPCC have given us a 400% variation of their prediction, unfortunately we haven't gotten into their smallest prediction yet, but when we do...watch out

I loved this from the Skeptical Science site...

"CO2 limits won't cool the planet, but they can make the difference between continued accelerating global warming to catastrophic levels vs. slowing and eventually stopping the warming at hopefully safe levels"

On one hand reducing CO2 won't cool the planet, yet on the other hand it will stop the warming They are saying CO2 is the controlling factor, well if it is, then reducing CO2 to levels of the past years would surely cool the planet, if it doesn't, why are we wasting time talking about it then?

And loved how they threw in catastrophic... as we all know it will be the end of the world

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

On one hand reducing CO2 won't cool the planet, yet on the other hand it will stop the warming They are saying CO2 is the controlling factor, well if it is, then reducing CO2 to levels of the past years would surely cool the planet, if it doesn't, why are we wasting time talking about it then?

If you reduced CO2 to its pre-industrial conditions then, sure, it would eventually cool the planet. That is impossible though. We stop producing Co2 but we can't extract it from the air.

And CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100+ years, so even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow we would still see an accelerated warming, possibly as high as 2 degrees, for the next hundred years before the warming slows. Then it would take another century or two - possibly as high as 1000 years - before the planet started to cool, due to latency in the system (heat builds up in the oceans takes longer to dissipate than in the atmosphere, for instance).

The difference between taking action and not taking action means that instead of 2 degrees, it will be 4 - 5 or even 6 - 7 degrees, which truly would be catastrophic and could easily push the planet into a new geological epoch, ending 50 million years of cool/dry conditions and ushering in a hot/wet greenhouse Eath that hasn't been seen since the dinosaurs roamed the planet.

And loved how they threw in catastrophic... as we all know it will be the end of the world

No, it won't but it could well be the end of the human species.

 

[Windhover]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Even the IPCC can't say they are 100% certain

Yet for some reason as soon as anyone says there is scope for doubt the Chicken Little brigade froth at the mouth.

You have got your barnyard animals confused old moo. It is the mad cows that froth at the mouth, not the chickens, little or otherwise. [And, by the way, consider what odds the IPCC actually give and then contemplate your chances escaping the abattoirs with those odds. Still feeling "relaxed and confortable, you old ungulate you.]

 

[JavaBlue]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Most organisations are government funded, and would stand to lose funding, jobs if they supported a stance that the current government did not support. For instance the fradulent hockey stick graph was found to be bogus by INDEPENDENT scientist Steve McIntyre, not a company.

Steve McIntyre was trained in mathematics and worked in mineral exploration for 30 years. McIntyre became suspicious of the Hockey Stick Graph. He is retired, and worked at considerable personal expense and without funding. He found embarrassing crippling flaws in the Hockey Stick graph, a graph that wiped out centuries of recorded anecdotal history, archaeological finds, and data from almost every other source. McIntyre found that the graph Michael Mann had produced, which was used repeatedly through the IPCC 2001 report, was so poorly constructed statistically that it was possible to feed in random data and it still produced a hockey stick shape. A true peer review ought to have picked this up. Instead the graph occupied center stage for three or four years until a determined skeptical individual demanded the data (which was misplaced, then inaccurate, then inconsistent) and checked the statistics.

Listen mate, McIntyre is not a scientist and when they say he was "trained as a mathematician" means he did it at uni and hasn't touched it since (and it doesn't qualify him as a climatologist anyway). He worked as a mining consultant and now sits on a mining company board - hardly independent.

The lag explanation - amplification/feedback - is very well scientifically supported, in fact, it is and has long been part and parcel of the greenhouse effect. You're argument depends on CO2 increases being the only cause of climate change. But whatever causes the planet to warm will produce more CO2 which in turn further heats the planet which produces more CO2 and so on - feedback.

This was all done on BF about 5 years ago in a huge and very detailed thread and what I'm seeing here is the same crap arguments that were knocked on the head back then. McIntyre is still crapping on about the ****ing hockey stick - same old, same old. Has this prominent scientist done any new studies? No.

What side of the climate change argument I'm on now is directly related to the company I'd have to keep, both in BF and the wider skeptic "scientific" community. Some of the experts thrown up five years ago - the scientist who stood behind the cigarette industry, a bloke who taught English in China, some misfit blogger from NZ, an Argentinian tour guide, and a whole list of pseudo scientific bloggers. And now I can add those w***ers you introduced in this thread - that Glenn wally, the founder of the Weather Station (no indication he has an formal training as a climatologist - just some old knob business man trying to plug his own interests). And now I can add your name to the BF list (altho you were probably on the original BF thread - you've just sneaked back onsite again under new nick after getting your arse handed to you on a big platter).

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

If you reduced CO2 to its pre-industrial conditions then, sure, it would eventually cool the planet. That is impossible though. We stop producing Co2 but we can't extract it from the air.

And CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100+ years, so even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow we would still see an accelerated warming, possibly as high as 2 degrees, for the next hundred years before the warming slows. Then it would take another century or two - possibly as high as 1000 years - before the planet started to cool, due to latency in the system (heat builds up in the oceans takes longer to dissipate than in the atmosphere, for instance).

The difference between taking action and not taking action means that instead of 2 degrees, it will be 4 - 5 or even 6 - 7 degrees, which truly would be catastrophic and could easily push the planet into a new geological epoch, ending 50 million years of cool/dry conditions and ushering in a hot/wet greenhouse Eath that hasn't been seen since the dinosaurs roamed the planet.



No, it won't but it could well be the end of the human species.

US you do realise that turning a computer on and therefore posting your "thoughts" contributes to global warming don't you..

Hint turn it off and go buy a wind farm or better still a solar farm, the planet needs your brain NOW, don't doodle mate , you're needed right NOW!!!
Please save us

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

If you reduced CO2 to its pre-industrial conditions then, sure, it would eventually cool the planet. That is impossible though. We stop producing Co2 but we can't extract it from the air.

And CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100+ years, so even if we stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow we would still see an accelerated warming, possibly as high as 2 degrees, for the next hundred years before the warming slows. Then it would take another century or two - possibly as high as 1000 years - before the planet started to cool, due to latency in the system (heat builds up in the oceans takes longer to dissipate than in the atmosphere, for instance).

The difference between taking action and not taking action means that instead of 2 degrees, it will be 4 - 5 or even 6 - 7 degrees, which truly would be catastrophic and could easily push the planet into a new geological epoch, ending 50 million years of cool/dry conditions and ushering in a hot/wet greenhouse Eath that hasn't been seen since the dinosaurs roamed the planet.



No, it won't but it could well be the end of the human species.

You should write trailers for disaster movies.

Is climate science any more accurate or reliable than meteorology?

Every single claim is based on computer modelling and forecasting of a chaotic system no?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Meteorology is very accurate, with the increase in computing power over the last couple of decades the resolution of weather models has gotten higher and higher and meteorologists have short term forecasts down pat, they get messy after a week but anything less than that is essentially spot on. But where modelling weather is highly chaotic, modelling climate is essentially a long term weather average - in the same way that flipping a coin is highly variable but calculating the odds of flipping a coin a thousand times is relatively easy. There'll always be uncertainties but over the years they will be, and have been, refined considerably.

Have a look in the other CO2 thread, you can compare the last 30 years of models to the actual observed data, in just about every aspect they have performed sterlingly and in the aspects where they haven't it has been because the models have been too conservative in their predictions, for instance the rate of decline in sea ice was badly underestimated and there are things going on that remain very uncertain.

But at the end of the day it is physical properties that are being modelled, properties that have been well understood for more than a century, all that has been lacking is the computational power needed to understand such a chaotic system.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Meteorology is very accurate, with the increase in computing power over the last couple of decades the resolution of weather models has gotten higher and higher and meteorologists have short term forecasts down pat, they get messy after a week but anything less than that is essentially spot on. But where modelling weather is highly chaotic, modelling climate is essentially a long term weather average - in the same way that flipping a coin is highly variable but calculating the odds of flipping a coin a thousand times is relatively easy. There'll always be uncertainties but over the years they will be, and have been, refined considerably.

Have a look in the other CO2 thread, you can compare the last 30 years of models to the actual observed data, in just about every aspect they have performed sterlingly and in the aspects where they haven't it has been because the models have been too conservative in their predictions, for instance the rate of decline in sea ice was badly underestimated and there are things going on that remain very uncertain.

But at the end of the day it is physical properties that are being modelled, properties that have been well understood for more than a century, all that has been lacking is the computational power needed to understand such a chaotic system.

I asked you a simple question to which you then manufactured a completely false diatribe to which no meteorologist which subscribe.

Meteorology is incredibly inaccurate and despite the massive advances in computational power not significantly more able to provide accurate medium to long term forecasts, even in the short term, than it was in the 50's.

Ring the BoM and ask for their opinion.

What I asked is whether the numerous computer borne models which have been variously used to forecast the "climate (weather in any other discussion)" in 50-100 years are more accurate than those used to predict the weather?

For me it is not a matter of whether the data being collected is accurate, but weather the assumptions being made have any real validity and on what basis this confidence in the validity is founded.

I'm not making any claims about climate change either way, just asking questions about the methods used to mount the argument.

 

[RIOLIUSTAR]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

I asked you a simple question to which you then manufactured a completely false diatribe to which no meteorologist which subscribe.

Meteorology is incredibly inaccurate and despite the massive advances in computational power not significantly more able to provide accurate medium to long term forecasts, even in the short term, than it was in the 50's.

Ring the BoM and ask for their opinion.

What I asked is whether the numerous computer borne models which have been variously used to forecast the "climate (weather in any other discussion)" in 50-100 years are more accurate than those used to predict the weather?

For me it is not a matter of whether the data being collected is accurate, but weather the assumptions being made have any real validity and on what basis this confidence in the validity is founded.

I'm not making any claims about climate change either way, just asking questions about the methods used to mount the argument.

Prepare to don the shitstorm suit PE coz this dude is as passionate as he is gullible

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Nothing wrong with a bit of passion.

This debate has always been about who is right and who is wrong.
I have never really committed to either camp.

I know we have climate.
I know it's temperature fluctuates.
I know humans pollute.
I know that a preferred position would be to not be polluting.

I read and hear the many opposing views here, read and hear the vast amounts of "expert"opinion in the media and scientific literature.

In my mind the way to start to filter the important info from the dross is to analyses how the original assumption has been reached.

If the foundation science, the method is shaky and uncertain from the start it is hard to see how anyone, scientist or layman, can make definitive statements such as those I read and hear daily on the subject of the problem, the solution, the cause and the effect, alarmist, denialist and everything in between.
Some cause and effect is obvious and in a real life situation non-negotiable.
You drop an apple it falls.
Others are less hard and fast.
The outcome or effect is highly debatable and not always obvious.

So I'm starting with the science on which all claims are based.
Basically Meteorology, Climate Science being for the most part the same field.

For the moment my position is exactly in the middle between Alarmist and Denialist.
Rationalist if you like.

 

[evo]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

Is climate science any more accurate or reliable than meteorology?

Every single claim is based on computer modelling and forecasting of a chaotic system no?

It actually has a lot in common with economic modelling. AFAICT it uses the same statistical methods.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Who here has changed their opinion that human CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming

It actually has a lot in common with economic modelling. AFAICT it uses the same statistical methods.

I would agree with that statement.
So how's our economy going to be in 100 years?