Greenpeace protestor gets her ass handed to her

[Woodsey]

About 80-90% chance he is correct based on available research. Ain't guaranteed, but its a lot more likely than not that global warming is a problem and real.

[StuartHopkin]

Im still not convinced.

Would anyone like to partake in an argument about the benefits of DVD upscaling?

[titaniumbean]

Im still not convinced.

Would anyone like to partake in an argument about the benefits of DVD upscaling?

Upscaling


IS IT??

[gatso]

is it the opposite of downloading? if not I'm not particularly interested

[StuartHopkin]

Norrr

Its the way DVD players make the picture better by 'upscaling' the picture.

PS3's do it, they make DVD's look amazing.

[StuartHopkin]

Norrr

Its the way DVD players make the picture better by 'upscaling' the picture.

PS3's do it, they make DVD's look amazing.

No idea if Matt reads this thread, but if someone starts a 'Is upscaling real?' thread and we all start posting it is he will probably go nuts and possibly explode.

[nirvana]

The greatest achievement of the climate change doomsayers is that they have managed to take a theory so far that the burden is now on people to 'deny' it rather than for people to use 'good' science to prove there is a problem.

I'm all in favour of conservation (pretty much for conservation's sake) since being frugal and refusing to massively over consume is in a long tradition of sensible husbandry and good, healthy living.

I think the climate scare mongering and the actonC02 nonsense actually deflects from a much more meaningful debate around how we live our lives and distribute wealth across the world. ie eat like a hog, over consume just about everything, keep the wealth where it is now but just drive 5 miles less a week and switch your lights off and everything will start to be OK again.

The climate thing imo, is about trying to restrict the growth and potential power of emerging nations and preserve the wealth of the already wealthy.

Can anybody, convinced by the global warming disaster scenarios, tell me of a unilateral action, taken by a wealthy nation, which causes some hardship to its citizens today, that is designed to reverse the effects of climate change ?

[AndrewT]

Of course the real problem about climate change is that unfettered consumption was all well and good when it was just a billion or so people in North America and Europe who were pumping greenhouse gases into the air. The problem is that now 1.3bn Chinese want to join the party, quickly followed by 1.2bn Indians.

Don't they realise they're going to spoil our fun?

They're being so selfish.

[rex008]

I'd like to think I have reasonable general scientific knowledge and an ability to judge evidence objectively, but I have to admit to being a little worried about the evidence on this subject.

1. Is warming happening?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
It worries me a lot that long-term (hah! 150 years out of the last 4.5 billion anyway) temperature data is controlled by a small number of organisations (3 main ones, I believe) , and it appears that there may be a genuine conspiracy to "correct" the numbers for public and IPCC consumption. There also appears to be some cherry picking of data going on. I read an article about dendro-climatology (temperature from tree rings) recently that was fairly damning, and believable. A study used 11 trees from Siberia to "show" that global warming was happening, and those figures have been accepted by the IPCC. It's unscientific crap like that that worries me.
I'm also unconvinced that there has been enough proof shown of how much of climate change is caused by increased greenhouse gases. Given that there was a "scientific consensus" in the 70s that we were heading for an ice age, and humans have been chucking out polluting gases for quite some time, I'm wondering how things have got supposedly so bad in the last 30 years.
I wouldn't say I'm a sceptic or a denier, but is the evidence conclusive enough to spend vast amounts of money dealing with a problem that either may not exist, we may be able to do nothing about, or if it does exist, nobody can clearly say what problems it's going to cause (6 inches or 6 meters of sea level rise - you can find studies that suggest either)?
That said, finding sources of energy that don't involve burning our finite supply of fossil fuels is most definitely a good idea, if we don't want the human race to go back to the middle ages in a couple of hundred years. But forcing that to happen while totally ignoring market forces isn't a good idea either.

My 2p. Normally I agree with most of what Kin says, but I fear he has an entrenched faith-based position in this argument 
And yes, I've read that IPCC doc. It's graphs like on p100 that scare me. Look - CO2 has risen from nothing to loads in like the last 5 minutes. Scary scary. And then you read the scales. A graph like that seems more about sending a message than actually presenting useful data. Which is what worries me about the IPCC. Then there is the radiative forcing one on the next page. The error bars are huge.

[bolt pp]

Someone cliffs notes on whether kin is right or wrong pls? Cba to read his replies as he often tilts me like mad when he argues.

yeah, this please

are there any posts on this thread worth reading? every time I open it there's just stuff that looks really dull

this as well pls, stopped reading at about page 9.

If it helps and you're still talking about the world ending i watched a documentry that said the scientists had made it all up because as soon as you mention a study you'd like to do about climate change the government give you weelbarrows of money to do this as theyre scared shitless so the scientists keep banging on about it and getting PAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID!!!

there was an ice age in europe like 7500 years ago, everything went, it happends now and then, dont panic, look what youve done to kinboshi!

(this was a proper doc btw it was on Ch4 and had a bloke with glasses)

[thetank]

 i watched a documentry that said the scientists had made it all up because as soon as you mention a study you'd like to do about climate change the government give you weelbarrows of money to do this as theyre scared shitless so the scientists keep banging on about it and getting PAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID!!!

there was an ice age in europe like 7500 years ago, everything went, it happends now and then, dont panic, look what youve done to kinboshi!

(this was a proper doc btw it was on Ch4 and had a bloke with glasses)

Storm in a D-cup was one of his better films.

[rex008]

And this is why I have serious doubts about the IPCC's scientific rigour.

Cliff notes: The IPCC included in their last report a statement that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Except there was no scientific study behind that claim, it was just an off the cuff remark by some bloke, and is total bollox.

[Bongo]

And this is why I have serious doubts about the IPCC's scientific rigour.

Cliff notes: The IPCC included in their last report a statement that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Except there was no scientific study behind that claim, it was just an off the cuff remark by some bloke, and is total bollox.

The bloke made the comment 10 years ago and has since said he was wrong too.

[sledge13]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1246404/Scientists-exaggerated-impact-climate-change-says-Governments-chief-advisor-John-Beddington.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

"Scientists have exaggerated the impact of climate change and need to be more honest about how difficult it is to predict, the Government’s chief scientific adviser said today."

"Professor John Beddington also said experts should be less hostile to sceptics who question man-made global warming, and he condemned those who refuse to publish full report data, adding that public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

Professor Beddington was speaking in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) admission that it had made a mistake by claiming that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035."



"And so the whole global warming conspiracy continues to unravel and the truth is slowly but surely exposed.

There will soon be a lot of vicious zealots who will be just a touch embarrased about this and their rabid hostility to anyone who had a different point of view."

- Steve, Coleshill, 27/1/2010 10:34

[kinboshi]

I'd like to think I have reasonable general scientific knowledge and an ability to judge evidence objectively, but I have to admit to being a little worried about the evidence on this subject.

1. Is warming happening?
2. Is it caused by human activity?
It worries me a lot that long-term (hah! 150 years out of the last 4.5 billion anyway) temperature data is controlled by a small number of organisations (3 main ones, I believe) , and it appears that there may be a genuine conspiracy to "correct" the numbers for public and IPCC consumption. There also appears to be some cherry picking of data going on. I read an article about dendro-climatology (temperature from tree rings) recently that was fairly damning, and believable. A study used 11 trees from Siberia to "show" that global warming was happening, and those figures have been accepted by the IPCC. It's unscientific crap like that that worries me.
I'm also unconvinced that there has been enough proof shown of how much of climate change is caused by increased greenhouse gases. Given that there was a "scientific consensus" in the 70s that we were heading for an ice age, and humans have been chucking out polluting gases for quite some time, I'm wondering how things have got supposedly so bad in the last 30 years.
I wouldn't say I'm a sceptic or a denier, but is the evidence conclusive enough to spend vast amounts of money dealing with a problem that either may not exist, we may be able to do nothing about, or if it does exist, nobody can clearly say what problems it's going to cause (6 inches or 6 meters of sea level rise - you can find studies that suggest either)?
That said, finding sources of energy that don't involve burning our finite supply of fossil fuels is most definitely a good idea, if we don't want the human race to go back to the middle ages in a couple of hundred years. But forcing that to happen while totally ignoring market forces isn't a good idea either.

My 2p. Normally I agree with most of what Kin says, but I fear he has an entrenched faith-based position in this argument 
And yes, I've read that IPCC doc. It's graphs like on p100 that scare me. Look - CO2 has risen from nothing to loads in like the last 5 minutes. Scary scary. And then you read the scales. A graph like that seems more about sending a message than actually presenting useful data. Which is what worries me about the IPCC. Then there is the radiative forcing one on the next page. The error bars are huge.

The IPCC doc was just one piece of 'evidence' that I put forward.  I was waiting for those vehemently opposed to AGW to put forward some evidence that I could read that provides a counter-argument.  Unfortunately, so far I've yet to see any such studies that have been properly undertaken and peer-reviewed. 

Unlike some other subjects where the denialism is just blatantly ignorant (AIDS is one example), I'm sure there are three sides to this global warming debate and that the truth lies somewhere between the two diverse camps.  From the evidence I've read, it just appears to me that the truth lies nearer those who have supported AGW than those who deny it.  However, I'm far from a climate expert and am relying on 'expert' opinion on this one as well as trying to bring an objective mind to the debate.