Hello Andrew, On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 20:58 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
On 5/01/2013 1:17 PM, Jacinta Richardson wrote:
On 04/01/13 21:21, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
And no, I'm not going to debate it any further.
Good
Really, I do not want to debate things, but just a little something else to think about ... on some of your points.
Debate.....
I agree that this shows that there are a few climate scientists, and more non-climate scientists, who are arguing something else, but I don't think that it's fair to characterize this as "scientists argue both sides regularly". I think that it would be more fair to say "by far and away most scientists agree, but there is a fairly small number who don't".
Some do and some don't agree -- what's new? Those that don't might be right, even if they are minority. And why are they the minority, perhaps there is very good reasons why, (perhaps they don't need or care about getting resource grants under false pretenses), but it was also true that at some stage everyone on Earth thought it was flat and that is just one world theory that was turned on it's head.
When some common belief has the evidence against it, then the few with _real_ evidence are right. Science is not a vote, nor is it opinion. There are some who do not hold to the orthodoxy, mavericks, without evidence, and muddy the waters.
*Some* scientists who disagree are saying at the climate is changing, but it's not caused by humans. And a tiny few are saying that these aren't changes at all.
The numbers (for each side) are irrelevant to me. The fact remains that the opinion isn't universal for whatever reason. There is debate, it doesn't help those scientists on the minority side, but they still strongly keep their beliefs.
There is no debate on climate change. There are a few _PAID_ _MOUTHPIECES_ who muddy the waters. Their arguments and math does not stand up to scrutiny. To use them to justify your position does you a discredit, unless you are a spiv.
One of the biggest industries sensitive to climate change has moved to start dealing with it. Which industry? The insurance industry. I doubt they care whether it's human-induced or not, what they have to care about is how it needs to affect premiums.
Insurance, ANY excuse to raise premiums and maximize profits -- even better if they have something, somewhat tangible to leverage against such as majority view on these matters.
Insurance is competitive, the Insurance industry tend to a measure of cooperation, but not the cartel that is Big Oil. They use acturial tables, and the best real evidence to support them.
I don't expect to change the mind of someone who's not willing to have an open mind on the subject. That's fine, it's your call, but I wasn't going to let you get away with stating that this is something scientists are still debating or that it's being driven only by the media, as if it were only a fringe group of scientists who were arguing for climate change with some special interest group manipulating the media behind the scenes.
Jacinta, I do have an open mind, generally. And I could perhaps be convinced one day, but that day is not in the near future based on current evidence and continued debate on the relevance of facts or lack of facts -- if the day ever comes that ALL scientists agree on this issue, then that will be significant. But when some hold out for whatever reasons and continue to debate the facts / situation, then the issue is not resolved, it is not a forgone conclusion.
Your mind is closed. The debate is over. The quibbles are much like the rearguard action of the tobacco companies. Someone sees money in that position, or more like not so much in their pocket if they acknowledge the reality. The economic discount rates mean that it is worth chewing through everything now, and leaving nothing for the future. Economics is a mismeasure of human activity.
So there you go, no arguments, no debates -- just a few extra things for any thinking person to consider no matter what side of the fence they sit on.
Those with real competence and an open mind see past all the claptrap and noise from the "Climate Deniers". Human law, such as speed limits incur a penalty if you are caught outside the bounds. With the laws of nature, the laws of physics, you are just "dead" wrong.
Cheers A.
Regards, Mark trickett