Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

But that is a practical answer, they are not interested in ideas like that, someone else suggested painting roofs white. Both would have more of an effect on climate than taxes and regulations and carbon trading which is rich countries buying the prosperity of poor people in Africa so they can keep polluting. Fact

Honestly, they are not interested in practical solutions, the IPCC has got nearly 40bn now and wants 2% of global GDP per year, and they wont plant 1 tree.
How many trees could you have planted for 40bn? Enough to offset a ****ing lot of emissions, but no.

 

It's a conclusion based on continued, detailed analysis. Nobody is saying "it's a fact", merely that it's the best explanation of the (considerable amount of) available data.
It's how all scientific theories work, you follow the best fitting theory unless and until a better one comes up.

 

btw the rainforests disappearing is a myth. They are growing faster than the farmers can take the land. Or were last time I checked.

 

I take it you have compelling evidence to back up this accusation?

 

Painting roofs white, cool idea

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/27/white-roofs-global-warming

 

That's just general description of something, it's not the topic.

"data available" you say, what data? which science? Which scientist? Are there any uncertainties, are their conflicting findings\papers?

 

That was thought of decades ago, yet.. Nothing.

I guess they are the same place as the flood defences.

 

But people with other theory's are called deniers, where are these other theory's to come from?

 

You never read the link did you?

 

It's the guardian they blocked me for posting argo data showing raw data for 0.03c per decade rise in ocean temps, so I wont give them hits and they are epic liars

 

Like all theories, you have to present a body of evidence. The pro lobby as well as the anti.

 

I dont read climate stuff from the media anyway. Unless it is to poke fun at their claims like the Indo in 2000, no snow by 2010

 

Do you have "compelling" evidence to prove it wrong? if you do you are better than the IPCC

 

Problem is saint this theory now means that Britain can buy carbon credits from Liberia or somewhere, robbing the people there of the opportunity of cheap energy, the lifeblood of civilisation, and polluting it's self instead.

The cost of that is human suffering and human lives.

It cost lives when corn was turned to biofuel, and skyrocketed food prices. Biofuel, pityful biofuel

this fraud has killed people and saved 0

 

And what happens when you get shouted down and your backing taken away?

 

Carbon trading will guarantee the infant mortality rates in those places will remain high

but we are ok, we can feel smug knowing we are "saving the planet"

 

Of course there are- if there weren't it wouldn't just be a theory, would it?
In anything that is not an indisputable certainty, the best we can do is go with the consensus. It's not perfect, but it's better than any alternative.

Are you going to answer my question as to whether you think climate change is itself a myth, or merely the anthropogenic part of the theory?
Until I know that, I can't have a reasonable debate with you.

 

Ant answer re CO2

 

I know that one- it happens to me every time I talk to sis on this thread.
Bullying doesn't affect my opinion, and certainly can't affect the facts.

 

How can climate change be a myth? Caveat, make the distinction, I hate it when the media says climate change. There is no such thing as a climate in balance, there never was.

Do you mean man induced climate change from AGW?