Here's a conundrum

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by RoyW

Whether you like it or not, the opinions of "a consensus of acknowledged experts" will always be used to develop policies on issues like this. And until those who think otherwise can demonstrate that the consensus is actually flawed this is how it should be.

Opinion is fine when it is backed by facts. Opinion based on opinion is of no worth.
I may have an opinion on the identity of a plant I have in my hand, but that is of little importance to others unless I can back it with some detail, some data, some valid measurements. So, as I said, I have little time for simple opinion.
As for 'consensus', you have obviously been reading to much media tripe, sorry hype.
I have already written a piece on another thread on the so called 'scientific consensus' which happens to be that of just 75 scientists,
While well over 40.000 have formally disagreed with the global warming premise.
Many other experts are indeed showing how the 'consensus' is flawed, but at the moment it's a case of; "there's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear"!
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

RoyW - To push the metaphor to and beyond the limit, perhaps one should come down on one or the other side of the fence but keep looking over it to check if the grass looks greener on t'other after all.

Ric

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

RoyW - To push the metaphor to and beyond the limit, perhaps one should come down on one or the other side of the fence but keep looking over it to check if the grass looks greener on t'other after all.

Ric

Here, here! to that Ric. and your previous post on 'fence sitting'. Though to be fair, in the early days of one's interest in such a subject, a certain amount of 'fence sitting' is probably valid however sore ones extremities may get!
Dorts.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Hi Bryan. We're having a whale of a time with this one. Some killer arguments!
CFCs are unequivocally pollutants. They polluted the upper atmosphere and put a bloody great hole in the ozone layer. Once we stopped using them the hole shrank; offhand I don't know whether it has gone altogether, but that was an anthropogenic effect big-time. All these issues are tied together, but that example alone shows that we can screw up nature very easily. Pollution must be taken into account.
Ric

Funny you should mention the CFC induced ozone 'hole'. Recent research is begining to show that the hole in the ozone layer, which was at its peak in the 90's corresponds very well with the peak of recent warming. More research obviously needs to be done, but an interesting possibility.
Dorts.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Opinion is fine when it is backed by facts. Opinion based on opinion is of no worth.
I may have an opinion on the identity of a plant I have in my hand, but that is of little importance to others unless I can back it with some detail, some data, some valid measurements. So, as I said, I have little time for simple opinion.
As for 'consensus', you have obviously been reading to much media tripe, sorry hype.
I have already written a piece on another thread on the so called 'scientific consensus' which happens to be that of just 75 scientists,
While well over 40.000 have formally disagreed with the global warming premise.
Many other experts are indeed showing how the 'consensus' is flawed, but at the moment it's a case of; "there's none so deaf as those who don't want to hear"!
Dorts.

Where have I suggested that government policy should be based on opinions that aren't backed by facts, and valid meausurements? The scientists that the decisions are based on may come to conclusions that others dispute, but they can still back them with the findings of studies.

I have no doubt at all that the "40,000" scientists that have formally disagreed with global warming can be "whittled" down to a much smaller number in the same way as the 75 than you say agree with the idea.
The fact is that it is not "just 75" scientists that agree with the idea of man affecting global climate. (If I lived in the USA I would fit the necessary criteria to sign the petition against it that you claim shows c31,500 scientists are against the idea of man made global warming - but I wouldn't because I don't agree that the statement is correct).

Petetions claiming that there is no man made global warming are only there because the consensus says that there is - it's a trick to try and fool the public (31,500 names on the US petition is probably no more than a maximum of 1% of the US scientists that could sign it!).


Anyway, I'm now withdrawing from this thread.