Climate change / pollution and answers

Zany said: "Yes I appreciate that you think nothing is proved until its proven."

As usual you don't understand what I've said. NOTHING is ever "proven" in science. You either have working theories or you don't. If you don't have a working theory you CANNOT understand what's going on and you CANNOT make predictions. And if you have a complex system for which there are many competing factors - most of which you have no working equations to represent - you CANNOT make statements (as the IPCC has done) that man-made greenhouse gases are causing half the warming.

I know your understanding of science is weak but science is basically very simple. You look at data and draw up your equations to represent the behaviour of the factors involved. If you understand ALL the factors you can model the system. But we have little knowledge of most of the factors involved in our weather/climate. We can't even predict the weather for more than a few days. Yet these numpties are running the models for years ahead and expecting people to believe what they say. It's obviously nonsense.

If people actually want to help the planet the ONE thing that will definitely solve a lot of problems is to take measures to control our population. But will that happen? Of course not.

It depends on what you are using the theory to do. If you are using the theory to make decisions that have costs, the theory needs to quantitatively accurate enough to justify those decisions

To do one thing rather than another rationally on the basis of a theory, the theory has to be accurate enough to justify not doing that something else instead. If the costs are experienced non-voluntarily by others, this becomes a moral issue.

Yeah those lazy scientists, if only they read Whatsupwiththat. 



"It is the strongest and most significant IPCC report to date, incorporating advances in climate observations, analysis methods and modelling, and will be a key input to climate negotiations and decision-making.



Drawn from 14 000 scientific publications, the report concludes that ‘it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land’ and warns that the changes to the state of many parts of the climate system are ‘unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.’



Carbon dioxide is now at its highest level in at least two million years, and every tonne adds to global heating. This is causing widespread and rapid changes to the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.



Across many chapters, the report highlights the valuable contribution that satellites provide in tracking change and improving models for climate prediction. New and improved observational data records, which are longer since the IPCC’s previous report in 2013, support greater confidence in climate attribution assessments.



“The latest IPCC report clearly demonstrates the value of ESA programmes in providing the evidence base for monitoring and understanding climate change.” said Josef Aschbacher, ESA’s Director General. “These hard facts are also highly appreciated by political decision makers in Europe and globally.”



The report explicitly acknowledges ESA’s Climate Change Initiative (CCI), which supports science teams to create long-term datasets spanning up to four decades for key aspects of the climate, known as Essential Climate Variables.



These variables underpin the ‘headline indicators’ for climate monitoring. Fifteen scientists from ESA’s CCI programme worked as contributing authors to the report, with five taking lead and coordinating author roles."

It is not that there is bribery and corruption it is that there is a direction in which research is promoted and to get published, that most scientists desperately want, then the direction of a paper is quite important. 
As an example consider a religious order that had a publication the vast majority of published papers would be as regards God, what he is, how he affects us, what he wants, what we can do for him etc. Very few would deal with his actual existence and if they did then their direction would be to seek evidence for his existence. There is always a direction of travel and that is often directed by funding. If one is researching one is more likely to get funding if one researches the effect of climate change on x,y or z but probably not likely to get it if one researches why the climate models are inaccurate. These are just the facts of life.

I have not changed position, it's just that you are realising i have a point. The core of the argument would be whether your theory is accurate enough to warrant the kind of economic disaster and destruction you seems determined to create. I would say no - you have very little basis to saying that total costs would be greater if some other less destructive course were followed. For practical purposes, the theory seems to have an accuracy of close to zero. I would say it justifies some movement as a hedge.

Then we are both saying the same thing. We just disagree. I think the evidence is sufficient you don't.

Its distraction science. 

Could it be urban heat, tarmac, volcanoes, the sun, I've heard every one there is. I've heard its not getting warmer, it is but its natural, it is and its us but the Gaia will correct it.

Tell me how do you reason with such rubbish? Here's a link saying some readings were wrong with a picture of a weather station in a built up area. 
Me:  do please tell me how many are in the wrong place? How do they compare to the modern satellite readings? No answer. 
Just: 
Here's a different reason 
And another one and another one, its like arguing with quick silver.

Add to this the idea that so many scientists could be dishonest for personal gain which I personally find insulting as two of my friends are scientists.