Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade • The Register Forums

1. 1. 1. 1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 13:20 GMT James Micallef
        
        Cancer fatality rates
        
        Off topic I know, but...
        
        "cancer survival rates" are in fact measured as 5-year survival rates. Which means if someone gets cancer, is stuck on chemo for 5 years and then dies the day after, they are counted in the statistics a a survivor. I wonder what the numbers would be like if they use real survival rates ie the cancer is gone and never comes back.
        
        Of the countless billions spent on Cancer research since the 70s, most have gone on drugs and surgical procedures that treat the symptoms not the cause. Very little research goes into prevention of cancer in the first place, in spite of the fact that Cancer is a lifestyle disease related to poor nutrition, pollution, stress, lack of physical activity. Some cultures eg central Sardinia are almost completely cancer-free due to their diet and exercise habits and lack of stress
        
        0 1
        
        Wednesday 15th June 2011 15:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Cancer 'cure' already available as demonstrated in nature....
        
        Just to back your point up, and without wanting to sound too stupid, and/or over simplifiying the problem, nature already provides us a living example of how to cure (or I should say prevent) cancer. Once cancer has metastasized, it becomes very difficult to treat (by virtue of the fact it has usually spread to organs in the body etc). The key is to *prevent* cancer cells taking hold in the first place. The way to do this is primarily dealt with by the immune system (cancer cell killers). In nature, we have crocodiles which live in the most horrid physical conditions (swamps etc), and yet survive and avoid disease very effectively including cancer. The reason is simply down to their super immune system function. Likewise in humans, as we get older and our immune system function becomes impaired, we become more susceptible to cancer. The same is true for patients who are taking immunosupressives following organ transplants etc (or anyone with a supressed immune function)...anyhow, the key thing here is we should be pouring our research funds into prevention primarily, which ironically will most likely cure a whole host of other issues.Might not be too lucreative for the drug companies though? Humans with 'super' up immune systems is the way forward. Only my opinion of course. Expect to be shot down in flames. A lot of work of course needs to be done in terms of research effort...a few articles to read:
        
        http://health.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1207261,curpg-2.cms
        
        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/could-a-crocodile-save-your-life-716974.html
        
        http://www.newscientist.com/blog/lastword/2007/09/wound-licking.html (a reference in blogs)
        
        1 0
    2. Wednesday 15th June 2011 11:39 GMT strum
      
      Oh dear
      
      >The best they can do is some inconclusive modelling and rough measurements which may well be correct but it's not enough to help very much, as science has had a spectacular fall from grace from about 1960 because of the disingenuous behaviour of many scientists.
      
      Get this into your head. Science is a model. Always has been. Modelling is at the heart of science, now and always. If science has 'fallen from grace', it is because of idiots who don't understand it (but fail to offer any alternative but unsupported certainty).
      
      The best models we have (the best models anyone has), point towards AGW, with the serious risk (not certainty, but serious risk) of accelerating feedback factors.
      
      Until you can come up with better science, STFU.
      
      8 7
      1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 15:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        @strum (and other unscientific campaigners)
        
        "The best models we have (the best models anyone has), point towards AGW"
        
        Models point towards anything you want them to point to. Just fine tune the parameters to get the result you want. The current GC models have overestimated positive cloud feedback significantly.
        
        http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208
        
        They're worthless, except as scenarios for Hollywood scriptwriters.
        
        2 1
      2. Friday 17th June 2011 17:46 GMT Bob. Hitchen
        
        Science is a model
        
        Er Really? Experiment is at the heart of science not models. Make a proposal test its validity - simples!.
        
        0 0
        
        Saturday 18th June 2011 12:10 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        re: Experiment is at the heart of science
        
        Are you suggesting we simply double the CO2 in the atmosphere to see what happens?
        
        Probably not, we only have one atmosphere and we don't want to break it.
        
        >>Make a proposal test its validity - simples
        
        Or make a proposal, make a mathematical model as an expression of your proposal, make some predictions with the model and do experiments to see if the predictions were correct.
        
        0 0
    3. Wednesday 15th June 2011 11:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Absolutely correct. Scientists aren't really helping any cause other than their own.
      
      "Even if science could deliver, it's credibility is shot."
      
      Like your spelling?
      
      Your credibility isn't exactly soaring after making blanket claims about cancer (hint: there is more than one "disease" that gets called cancer, and many kinds of cancer are treatable and survivable, even though other kinds sadly are not, currently), fusion (hint: there are different, successful approaches for achieving controlled nuclear fusion, but to do so continuously with net output requires hard work, obviously), cold fusion (which despite the press releases is actually an ongoing topic of niche research), or really anything at all.
      
      I don't deny that science funding has a corrupting or damaging influence on the way work has to be planned and pitched, but your little rant reveals how in the developed world where science has done a lot to improve the quality and standard of living, the narrow-minded show little gratitude for the hard work being done to keep everything running, preferring instead to shout down anyone who isn't offering free goodies on a silver tray and to pretend that had those meddlesome scientists not been given laboratories and instruments and things, we'd be living in a "purer" society where all the men have manners and top hats and all the women have low-cut dresses and speak in some kind of west country accent, Merchant Ivory-style.
      
      Science has bought you the privilege to indulge your bitterness, just as it has bought the gamer their online gaming escapism where they can pretend that they're really in another galaxy meeting aliens and other things (rather than actually looking at what the universe is all about), and just as it has bought the modern day creationist their "once upon a time" delusions while still getting the benefit of decent healthcare and steadily advancing medicine based on stuff they don't believe in.
      
      4 0
  2. Tuesday 14th June 2011 23:13 GMT nyelvmark
    
    Re: The physics isn't in dispute
    
    I think you missed out a significant group (possibly even the majority) who simply don't believe ANYTHING they read in the media, believing that it's all propaganda from someone or other. I notice this particularly because I live in a post-communist country. Even 22 years after the 1989 evolution to democracy in Hungary, hardly anybody believes anything that politicians or the newspapers say. Belief in conspiracy theories is rife - even the most ludicrous ones. The principle seems to be that anything is possible, except what the newspapers say, so if all the newspapers agree that global warming is happening, then it certainly isn't.
    
    I'm beginning to think they might be right.
    
    7 0
  3. Wednesday 15th June 2011 09:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    'screaming "catastrophe" is more likely to get you funding'
    
    ... submitted a lot of funding applications, eh? Do let us know your hit/miss rate, correlated with title.
    
    3 1
    1. Thursday 16th June 2011 08:43 GMT Dodgy Geezer
      
      Screaming Catastrophe...
      
      @AC
      
      "...... submitted a lot of funding applications, eh? Do let us know your hit/miss rate, correlated with title..."
      
      On a completely separate board some years ago, I read a story from an editor who ran a local magazine in New Zealand. One week, as an experiment, he decided to run nothing but good news for the coming month. Sales plummeted, and he rapidly revised that decision.
      
      Unfortunately, it's the way humans are made...
      
      1 0
  4. Wednesday 15th June 2011 09:45 GMT indulis
    
    The scientists are not looking to do further research
    
    For an overwhelming majority of climate scientists, the science is settled. The only people calling for more research (and more money spent) to prove that CO2 is causing the warming are the deniers.
    
    So how does this tie in with the claim that "those money grubbing scientists are just wanting things to not be settled so they can line their pockets"? Yeah, lots of scientists can be seen on weekends at the country club parking their Ferraris. Right.
    
    There are no scientists screaming "catastrophe" (in fact wasn't it a denier review of scientific papers that said that there were no papers which reported "imminent catastophes"?).
    
    Yet again ,the illogic of the denier camp is exposed. The deniers are the ones calling for more research, then say it is the scientists who want more research to get rich. The deniers say it is scientists who are claiming catastrophe, contradicting their own claims that no scientific papers are claiming a catastrophe.
    
    8 7
    1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 10:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      "The scientists are not looking to do further research"
      
      I suspect they probably are - otherwise they wouldn't be scientists.
      
      As for what Catastrophe! predicting titles get funded, go here
      
      http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/Search.aspx
      
      and enter "climate" as a search term. Be scared out of your pretty yellow socks by proposals such as "The Use of Probabilistic Climate Scenarios in Decision Making for Adaptation of Building and Property Drainage" and "The Development of a Local Urban Climate Model and its Application to the Intelligent Development of Cities (LUCID)"
      
      3 0
  5. Wednesday 15th June 2011 09:59 GMT Liam Johnson
    
    re: The physics isn't in dispute
    
    If the physics is not disputed, how come you just posted 4 different points of view on how the physics should be viewed?
    
    1 0
    1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 11:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
      
      Re: Liam Johnson
      
      >If the physics is not disputed, how come you just posted 4 different points of view on how the physics should be viewed?
      
      I'll try to explain the OP in simple terms.
      
      1. Doubling CO2 will result in a temperature increase of approximately 1.2F
      
      2. Increasing temperature by 1.2F will result in more evaporation (and hence more water vapour entering atmosphere).
      
      The above 2 things are dictated by the physics. Everything else is speculation because the physics does not say what impact more evaporation will have.
      
      Water vapour in the atmosphere can cause both a positive feedback and a negative feedback depending upon what state it is in and where in the world it is. Some clouds (of the same type), for example, can cause a positive feedback if located in the Arctic and negative feedback if located in the tropics (or is the other way round?).
      
      Water vapour leaving the atmosphere can cause both a positive feedback and a negative feedback depending upon what state it is in when it leaves and where it leaves.
      
      On top of the water vapour problem there are also other indirect impacts, on feedbacks, of increasing CO2. For example, increasing CO2 results in faster and more plant growth. This in turn can change the albedo of the area of growth. This would have a very very minor impact and is intended simply as a demonstration of the complexity of the problem.
      
      Different values for all of these feedbacks results in different values for the temperature change resulting from a doubling of CO2.
      
      5 1
      1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 13:20 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Anonymous Coward
        
        >>I'll try to explain the OP in simple terms.
        
        Maybe you should try and make it a bit more complicated since your simple explanation makes no sense.
        
        >>The above 2 things are dictated by the physics.
        
        Yes, we know the world can be modelled with physics, that is what it is there for. This is not that same as acutally knowing what that physics is.
        
        >>Different values for all of these feedbacks results in different values for the temperature change resulting from a doubling of CO2.
        
        So your conclusion is that in some abstract sense, doubling CO2 increases temperature (your point 1). But since the system is more complicated than that, increasing temperature will result in more evaporation (your point 2). But your final point is "Different values for all of these feedbacks results in different values for the temperature"
        
        In other words, you have just proved that your (point 1) is invalid, since you do not know what temperature increase will come from a doubling of CO2 since it is complicated by other feedbacks.
        
        As I said, you don't yet know the physics.
        
        0 2
        
        Wednesday 15th June 2011 15:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Re: Liam Johnson
        
        I'll try and explain it again in even simpler terms.
        
        There are primary effects and secondary effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
        
        Double CO2 and a primary effect is that temperature will increase by approximately 1.2F. This is well known and is very basic physics. If this temperature increase did not have an effect then that would be the end of the story.
        
        Increase the temperature by 1.2F and more water will evaporate. This is basic physics and is one of the secondary effects of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere.
        
        If more water evaporates then this could impact humidity, cloud formation, precipitation, snowfall and many other things. This is a tertiary effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere. Guess what, all of these have an impact on temperature, some positive, some negative. This is where the basic physics breaks down. These (and many more) are what are known as feedbacks that act to both amplify and dampen the initial impact of doubling CO2. It is here that the dispute lies.
        
        The fact that secondary and tertiary effects come into play does not change the fact that the physics of the primary effect is well understood and that the physics of one of the secondary effects is well understood.
        
        Now you might not like the fact that in many systems there are primary, secondary and many more levels of feedback on the initial change. And you might not like the fact that physics will say "the effect of doing this is THAT" even though after all secondary and tertiary feedbacks of "THAT" have occurred something completely different happens but that is how it is. The end result of all this is that you can sit there and watch you TV and listen to your iPod(tm) and not care about all of the multiple levels of feedback involved in simply bringing you the picture and sound, all described, according to your logic, incorrectly by physics.
        
        1 2
        
        This post has been deleted by its author
        
        Wednesday 15th June 2011 22:09 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @ Anonymous Coward
        
        While pondering your stupidity, a little example occurred to me.
        
        Let us consider a heavy ball. Throw it a 45 degrees and a simple model with just gravity will be fully sufficient to get you at least 90% accuracy in calculating it's trajectory. You know the physics, brilliant.
        
        Now replace the ball with golf ball and add some spin. Oops, your assertion that knowing the physics of gravity means you know all the physics of all trajectories simply falls flat on it's face. So we need to add in a bit more physics, let's try some Bernoulli equations.
        
        Now lets add some fins to that ball whack it up the speed.
        
        Gravity and Bernoulli no longer hack it, maybe we need to try Navier–Stokes.
        
        So basically the assertion that knowing the physics of a single phenomenon very well means anything about knowing the physics of a complex system is fundamentally lacking. As you proved in every single post by saying CO2 make the temperature go up 1.2F and then listing a number of factors which make this NOT the case and then compounding the situation by clearly stating that you don't even know what the physics behind these other mechanisms actually is.
        
        3 1
        
        Wednesday 15th June 2011 22:10 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Anonymous Coward
        
        Sorry, but you seem to be missing a rather huge point. You can't sit there and claim that just because you know the affect of one variable in isolation, in some lab experiment, that the rest is easy just because it is just a load of feedbacks on top.
        
        You keep saying "Double CO2 and a primary effect is that temperature will increase by approximately 1.2F". But that is a totally pointless statement, since you can't do that in the atmosphere without all the other feedback mechanisms coming into play. You might be able to double the CO2 in your dry atmosphere test experiment and see a 1.2F increase, but that doesn't apply to the atmosphere because it is not dry. You could then attempt to show that all the other feedback mechanisms are small secondary affects but until you have done that exhaustively for all possibilities, and then proved your model actually works, then you don't know the physics. You even admit "physics of the primary effect is well understood and that the physics of one of the secondary effects is well understood". But understanding the physics of the primary effect is not the same as understanding the physics of the whole. It is just one step on the way, which is why 70 years more research might be useful in completing our understanding.
        
        >>listen to your iPod(tm) and not care about all of the multiple levels of feedback involved
        
        What a completely stupid analogy. The physics of each little piece of the hardware and the logic of each bit of software in that setup is completely understood. I have no problem with the complexity at all. You can break it down bit by bit and it all makes sense at every level.
        
        >>and not care about all of the multiple levels of feedback involved
        
        Sorry but WTF. It is you who is claiming you can ignore all the feedbacks and just go with the physics of one primary affect. I am quite happy with complex systems, which is why it irritates the hell out of me that you claim to be able to model the atmosphere with 1 variable (and some secondary affects which we can ignore)
        
        Your logic is completely flawed and I assume you failed maths and physics quite badly.
        
        I hope to god you don't model the atmosphere professionally.
        
        2 2
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 08:15 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Re: Liam Johnson
        
        Are you deliberately being obtuse or just plain stupid?
        
        > You can't sit there and claim that just because you know the affect of one variable in isolation, in some lab experiment, that the rest is easy just because it is just a load of feedbacks on top.
        
        At no point have I ever said this. I have said the exact opposite!!!
        
        I have consistency stated that the impacts, on temperature, of the secondary and tertiary effects are unknown.
        
        > "Double CO2 and a primary effect is that temperature will increase by approximately 1.2F". But that is a totally pointless statement, since you can't do that in the atmosphere without all the other feedback mechanisms coming into play.
        
        Once again you have a complete lack of comprehension. I state, and you even quote it, that this 1.2F increase is a primary effect. I do not say it occurs without the secondary effects. I do not suggest that feedbacks will not come into play. In fact I do say that feedback will come into play, here is the quote "These (and many more) are what are known as feedbacks that act to both amplify and dampen the initial impact of doubling CO2.". See its there.
        
        > But understanding the physics of the primary effect is not the same as understanding the physics of the whole.
        
        Try reading the comment. Where do I say that the physics of the whole is understood?
        
        > which is why it irritates the hell out of me that you claim to be able to model the atmosphere with 1 variable (and some secondary affects which we can ignore)
        
        Where do I make this claim or any claim like it? In fact here are some quotes from my posts that imply the exact opposite.
        
        "It is here that the dispute lies." - Referring to the secondary, tertiary effects
        
        "The above 2 things are dictated by the physics. Everything else is speculation because the physics does not say what impact more evaporation will have."
        
        Now that really sounds like I'm claiming to able to model the atmosphere.
        
        > Your logic is completely flawed and I assume you failed maths and physics quite badly
        
        Your comprehension skills are flawed so I assume English is not your first language and I will forgive you for your assumptions.
        
        1 1
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 10:04 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Anonymous Coward
        
        >>Are you deliberately being obtuse or just plain stupid?
        
        I could ask you exactly the same.
        
        >>At no point have I ever said this.
        
        Only in every single post - you start every post with "Double CO2 = 1.2F" as a statement of fact.
        
        >>I have said the exact opposite!!!
        
        Yes, the second half of each post lists a number of reasons for the previous increase not being correct.
        
        >>Where do I say that the physics of the whole is understood?
        
        Your post of 14th June 2011 21:30 GMT. "The physics is not in dispute". What is the point in saying that if you agree that the physics is incomplete? Why do you keep restating your arguments? My whole point has always been that the secondary and tertiary affects complicate the physics such that "Double CO2 = 1.2F" is an oversimplification of little value.
        
        My post to which you first replied said "Well, it does give us 70 years to work out what the Physics of greenhouse gases actually are"
        
        You then stated "The physics is not in dispute" mentioned your "Double CO2 = 1.2F" and then listed a number of caveats. I agree with the body of you text, but disagreed with you title which led me to question it. All the secondary and tertiary effects are just as much part of the physics of greenhouse gases as "Double CO2 = 1.2F" is. There would be no greenhouse effect if all the secondary and tertiary consistently effects cancelled it out.
        
        I think I might be getting to the source of your misunderstanding:-
        
        You seem to be under the impression that doubling the CO2 will cause the temperature to rise, THEN at some later point evaporation occurs and the secondary and tertiary effects kick in causing the situation to become more complex.
        
        This is not the case. All these things happen at the same time. As the temperature rises even 0.01F (or centigrade or whatever), then these secondary and tertiary effects will also have some comparably small impact, which means that the temperature rise will (probably) not be 1.2F for a doubling in CO2.
        
        0 1
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 11:09 GMT Anonymous Coward
        
        Re: Liam Johnson
        
        Final attempt.
        
        From the OP.
        
        "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, adding CO2 will increase temperature."
        
        The physics of this is well known. It is understood. It can be calculated. It is not controversial.
        
        Note the "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL". It is important because ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL. There are secondary and tertiary effects that mean ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL.
        
        The impacts of ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL are not well understood. This does not change the fact that "ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, adding CO2 will increase temperature.", the physics of this is well understood, can be calculated and has been calculated to be approximately 1.2F.
        
        Now because ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL the temperature change from doubling CO2 will be different from that when ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL. Note. I do not claim it will be more. I do not claim it will be less. I do not claim it will be exactly the same. The reason I don’t make these claims is because the secondary and tertiary effects are not well understood. Understand?
        
        > I think I might be getting to the source of your misunderstanding:-
        
        I don't have any misunderstanding about this. Anybody who thought the climate would wait around and decide "Oh the temperatures gone up by 1.2F time to evaporate more water" instead of it being a continuous process of feedbacks would have to be a complete imbecile.
        
        1 0
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 13:22 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Anonymous Coward
        
        >>ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL ... The physics of this is well known. It is not controversial
        
        Agreed
        
        >>ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL
        
        Agree also. That is exactly my point from the start.
        
        >>has been calculated to be approximately 1.2F
        
        OK let me have another go. The fact that CO2 (and water) absorb and emit IR and can cause a greenhouse effect is known. You can take these facts, throw out all the difficult unknown stuff (all the NOT EQUAL bits) and arrive at a temperature increase of 1.2F. This is fine, but it is just a restatement of point 1) because we had the thrown out all the NOT EQUAL bits to perform the calculation. This in itself would not be a bad thing _if_ we know that all the NOT EQUAL parts are insignificant. We could say "hey, first order approximation" and leave it at that.
        
        You seem to be saying that knowledge of the “ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL” constitutes understanding of the basic physics. I am simply rejecting this by saying your admittance that there is a “NOT EQUAL” part and, more significantly, that it is also non trivial means you cannot realistically claim understanding. You may have gained some insight into the basic physics, but you have not yet understood it in a meaningful fashion since the model makes no useful predictions until you add in the non trivial stuff. You can break down a complex problem into manageable parts only if you know that those parts are relatively independent, and in this case, they are not.
        
        0 0
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 13:50 GMT Swarthy
        
        Violent agreement
        
        I just had to post... AC and Liam are saying the exact same thing, but they are using different words. To sum up "The science is settled"= bunk.
        
        To use Liam's analogy: Our current understanding is much like Bernoulli's. We understand the ball being thrown (primary effect, 2xCO2=1.7F). We can wrap our collective heads around the golf ball with spin (secondary effect, warmer air causes more evaporation) but we don' have the math/observations to know how the fins and increased speed will change things (tertiary effects, cloud formation, increased plant growth, etc.)
        
        I do have to say, that is one of the most entertaining violent agreements I have watched in a while.
        
        1 0
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 14:19 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Swarthy
        
        uh, thanks?
        
        0 0
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 09:16 GMT Some Beggar
        
        That's it, Liam, reach for the ad hominem, bluster and deliberate misquote.
        
        If the argument has infuriated you and you have run out of constructive points then that is generally a good indication that you have lost the argument. The dignified and humble thing to do at this point is to concede that the person you are talking to might actually have a point.
        
        Try it. You might like it.
        
        0 1
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 10:57 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Some Beggar
        
        >>ad hominem, bluster
        
        True enough, but I wasn't the one who started with the slur about being some iPod and TV watching moron who can't comprehend complexity. Addmitedly the Moron was implied and not explicitly mentioned.
        
        >>deliberate misquote
        
        There was no deliberate missquote. But if you would like to tell me which one you are talking about I could perhaps explain in more detail.
        
        >>If the argument has infuriated you and you have run out of constructive points
        
        Enfuriated yes, by being told I am an iPod and TV watching moron who can't comprehend complexity. That doesn't not mean I have no constructive points to make. In fact I keep making new points trying to move the argument onward and actually achieve some meaningful communication. It is AC who keeps banging with the same points, which I have repeateldy pointed out are two conflicting statements.
        
        >>The dignified and humble thing to do at this point is to concede that the person you are talking to might actually have a point.
        
        Sorry, which point does he have? He keeps saying the physics is completely understood and then saying it is not. That is not a point, it is just a mess. Either the physics is understood or it is not, it can't be both.
        
        >>Try it. You might like it.
        
        Why? Where would that get us? If you think you have understood both arguments, then perhaps you could apply your superior intellect to pointing to a solution.
        
        0 1
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 11:26 GMT Some Beggar
        
        @Liam Johnson
        
        "Addmitedly the Moron was implied and not explicitly mentioned."
        
        No. The "moron" part was entirely in your imagination. In fact, it is most likely just a lame attempt to backtrack and suggest that the ad hominem argument started with the other person. It clearly didn't.
        
        "Why? Where would that get us?"
        
        Away from your current position of "lalalala I'm not listening".
        
        The snivelling AC has explained his point multiple times in increasingly simple terms because you have refused to acknowledge it. There's literally nothing controversial about what is being said. The fact that you finally resorted to insult reveals that you _know_ that there is nothing controversial about it but are too proud to admit that you were wrong. On the internet.
        
        There's really not a lot of dignity in that.
        
        0 1
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 13:47 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Some Beggar
        
        >>The "moron" part was entirely in your imagination
        
        Perhaps, but it is not the way it came across at the time.
        
        >>"lalalala I'm not listening".
        
        My current position is not "I'm not listening". I have tried repeated times to reformulate my position. It is quite simple really - the physics of greenhouse gases is not fully understood.
        
        >>AC has explained his point multiple times in increasingly simple terms
        
        No. From my position he has simply repeated his position with no attempt to vary the argument it at all. His argument from the beginning has been that a doubling of CO2 produces a 1.2F rise. He then goes on top point out how that is an insufficient statement due to various feedbacks. I don’t see how that conflicts with the physics not being completely understood.
        
        >>There's literally nothing controversial about what is being said.
        
        I can find nothing controversial in individual elements of what he keeps repeating.
        
        My position from the start has been that the physics of greenhouse gases is not completely understood. I have never said there was NO understanding. Go back and read the posts.
        
        You will find AC replied with a post saying "The physics isn't in dispute" while going on to list a number of unknowns in the physics. Later he says that he never said the physics was completely understood. My problem is not with the content of his posts, but the title "The physics isn't in dispute" in the context of my statement that that we could use the next 70 years to figure the physics out.
        
        Perhaps you didn’t bother to read from the beginning?
        
        >>too proud to admit that you were wrong
        
        Why should I admit I am wrong? AC agreed with me when he said "where do I say that the physics of the whole is understood?" My point from the beginning was that the physics is not complete. I never once said there was NO physics.
        
        >>There's really not a lot of dignity in that.
        
        I see you didn't actually try to post anything constructive. Why am I not amazed.
        
        0 0
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 16:06 GMT Some Beggar
        
        @Liam Johnson
        
        You're playing a lazy game of Concern Troll sowing seemingly reasonable seeds of doubt. You've played it on here before and I have a vague recollection that I've seen a similar name playing it on other venues. I have absolutely zero interest in getting involved. It's even duller than the shrill end of denialism.
        
        I threw my oar in simply to allow you a chance to exit gracefully when you had clearly become irate and irrational. If you don't want to take it then that's obviously up to you. But now that you've thrown in the ad hom argument, you can only look increasingly foolish.
        
        0 1
        
        Thursday 16th June 2011 18:02 GMT Liam Johnson
        
        @Some Beggar
        
        >>sowing seemingly reasonable seeds of doubt.
        
        Seeds of doubt about what exactly?
        
        >> I have a vague recollection
        
        ooh, ooh, making shit up.
        
        >>I threw my oar in simply to allow you a chance to exit gracefully
        
        Oh, I see, it is all for my own good to end the discussion. Who was it playing the Concern Troll card? Nope not me, but I do so wonder why you brought it up.
        
        And what was that about ad Hominem before? You still haven't said what exactly it is you disagree with apart from the fact that I said anything at all.
        
        0 1
  6. Wednesday 15th June 2011 17:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Re
    
    "The majority of the people who get called a denier don't dispute that:
    
    1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    
    2. All things being equal, adding CO2 will increase temperature.
    
    The dispute lies in the "All things being equal" and the amount of temperature change."
    
    This.
    
    Adding a single grain of sand raises the elevation of the beach. The problem is the IPCC is ignoring the HUGE FING WAVE that moves the sand around.
    
    2 0
  7. Wednesday 15th June 2011 19:25 GMT Constitution First
    
    Excellent post, but with these additions...
    
    The only missing component is, motivation.
    
    Ask yourself, why are this environMENTALLY religious fanatics making such outrageous accusations and even more insane "solutions"?
    
    Money, Power, Control.
    
    And by control, I mean Societal Control; control of what people eat, what they drive, where they live, what they do for labor, how and how much energy they are allowed to use.
    
    The stakes are much, much higher than you're being allowed to read in the Malfeasant Media. When you control the peoples energy, and you control the world and all it's wealth my friend.
    
    3 0
Tuesday 14th June 2011 17:55 GMT Anonymous Coward

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start

good, cos I'm frikken sweltering

2 0
1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 09:58 GMT cymbalhead
  
  Konami Code
  
  You just put my Palm Pre into developer mode...
  
  2 0
Tuesday 14th June 2011 17:56 GMT Anonymous Coward

"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening"

Or Lewis has got the wrong end of the stick.

One of the two.

10 7
Tuesday 14th June 2011 17:56 GMT Nick Gisburne

Good news for...

Good news for polar bears and penguins. Perhaps we should pray to the Norse gods, who in their wrath have brought this ice age upon us. Only Thor can help us now.

4 0
1. Wednesday 15th June 2011 08:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Fortunately, Thor has an investment in our survival!!
  
  Hey, if I got to first base with Natalie Portman, I'd look out for Earth's survival too!
  
  Paris, since she could turn a Norse god's head, and we don't have a Natalie icon!!
  
  1 1
Tuesday 14th June 2011 18:05 GMT fLaMePrOoF

Title...

Meh.

1 0
Tuesday 14th June 2011 18:05 GMT Anonymous Coward

Is El Reg recycling old news ?

"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening,"

ahem, cough .... a Google for "sun cycle 25 Maunder Minimum" brings up at least one blog post from 2009 discussing Maunder Minimums. Similarly there's a forum post from 2010 entitled "Are we heading into a new Ice Age?"

0 1
1. Tuesday 14th June 2011 21:29 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  your point?
  
  People have been gathering data for some time and evidence is being mulled over. Unlike climate scientists, space scientists like to be somewhat sure of their hypothesis before they run to the politicians and charities. Even once they are sure they tend to frame it in unsure terms.
  
  At the end of the day though, hotter or colder, it's nothing that you can't cure with enough power and invention.
  
  9 1
2. Tuesday 14th June 2011 21:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  title
  
  If you search hard enough you can probably find a blog post on anything.
  
  This isn't a story about a blog post, its a story about an announcement by the AAS (American Astronomical Society) regarding solar activity. The announcement this talks about was released at 18:00 BST today and this article is timed at 18:00 BST today. So not only is this new news it was as up to date as it could possibly get.
  
  8 0
Tuesday 14th June 2011 18:05 GMT Anonymous John

and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide

I wonder. Politicians are usually very reluctant to admit mistakes. We're still building wind farms despite all the evidence that they aren't a useful source of renewable energy. Now they are going to accept they aren't needed.

And MMGW has been more of a religious belief than science for some time.

11 7
1. Tuesday 14th June 2011 20:00 GMT Anonymous John
  
  Missed question mark.
  
  Now they are going to accept they aren't needed?
  
  That's better.
  
  1 0
2. Tuesday 14th June 2011 21:29 GMT Chris 3
  
  Huh?
  
  Again, in what way is there a "mistake" that needs to be "admitted"? An unexpected and unusual dip in solar output in no way invalidates the information about MMWW. It may certainly change the impact and lead to new policies, but that's due to a new phenomenon occurring, not due to another phenomenon *not* occurring.
  
  4 5
  1. Thursday 16th June 2011 01:24 GMT Anonymous Coward
    
    Title
    
    Well one, "mistake," would be that, "OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS EVERYONE DOES WHAT WE SAY," may turn out, as many of us have suggested, to be politically-motivated bullshit masquerading under the veil of science. "Inventing the internet wasn't good enough for you? How about I SAVE THE PLANET!"
    
    Another, "STFU, your models that say we're wrong are crap, you can't predict this shit with models. Except our models which are the real dealio and say we're right." Again, seems not so much...
    
    2 1
Tuesday 14th June 2011 18:05 GMT Sam Farrell

Really?

Reduced solar activity = evidence on effect of CO2 is nonsense?

19 2
1. Tuesday 14th June 2011 21:29 GMT david wilson
  
  @Sam
  
  >>"Reduced solar activity = evidence on effect of CO2 is nonsense?"
  
  Seems to make as much logical sense as "Someone makes exaggerated statement on possible effects of AGW = There's no such thing as AGW" and various other bogus logic that gets fairly regularly trotted out .
  
  5 0
Tuesday 14th June 2011 18:06 GMT Pete 2

Need to apply the usual solutions

Just install a few wind turbines on the sun's surface - isn't that the standard fix for all climate-related problems?

10 2
1. Tuesday 14th June 2011 19:59 GMT Aaron Em
  
  Not on the sun's surface
  
  On Mercury instead, so they'll spin in the solar wind.
  
  2 1

Topics

Special Features

Vendor Voice

Resources

COMMENTS

Page:

Cancer fatality rates

Cancer 'cure' already available as demonstrated in nature....

Oh dear

@strum (and other unscientific campaigners)

Science is a model

re: Experiment is at the heart of science

Re: Absolutely correct. Scientists aren't really helping any cause other than their own.

Re: The physics isn't in dispute

'screaming "catastrophe" is more likely to get you funding'

Screaming Catastrophe...

The scientists are not looking to do further research

"The scientists are not looking to do further research"

re: The physics isn't in dispute

Re: Liam Johnson

@Anonymous Coward

Re: Liam Johnson

@ Anonymous Coward

@Anonymous Coward

Re: Liam Johnson

@Anonymous Coward

Re: Liam Johnson

@Anonymous Coward

Violent agreement

@Swarthy

That's it, Liam, reach for the ad hominem, bluster and deliberate misquote.

@Some Beggar

@Liam Johnson

@Some Beggar

@Liam Johnson

@Some Beggar

Re

Excellent post, but with these additions...

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start

Konami Code

"What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening"

Good news for...

Fortunately, Thor has an investment in our survival!!

Title...

Is El Reg recycling old news ?

your point?

title

and lead to radical shifts in government policy worldwide

Missed question mark.

Huh?

Title

Really?

@Sam

Need to apply the usual solutions

Not on the sun's surface

Page:

About Us

Our Websites

Your Privacy