ich

My point, actually. If he electronics are faulty, then so will be the x-rays.

And computer modelers understand computer models.

And since it seems to be difficult to follow the logic, if the model is faulty, then the conclusions based on it will be faulty, no matter the erudition of the one making the conclusions.

Correct. But is David Evans commenting on the computer models? i.e. are his claims based on claiming there are flaws in the computer models?

It's hard to know what to believe. The scientists who do not believe in global warming are certainly in the minority, particularly worldside. Most scientists around the world do believe it is happening. And some of the studies done in the U.S. that supposedly show it is not true have been sponsored by the oil companies, which is not to say they aren't accurate, but they need to be taken with a grain of salt. And even if it is true, then whether it is man-made or a natural cycle thing is another question.

To me, it makes sense that all the pollution we have put out over the last century can't be good. It causes disease and death in human bodies, so why would it be different with plants or the atmosphere or whatever...

It makes sense that if you drop two objects from the same height at the same time, the heavier one will fall faster.

It just doesn't happen to be true.

It's fairly uncontroversial to say that (a) oil is a finite, non-renewable resource but (b) recent discoveries mean it is a larger finite resource than we first thought. We've been saying for almost 50 years that we might only have about 50 years' oil left... and that might tend to lead to the conclusion that that will keep happening forever... but it won't. And demand is about to go through the roof: 4 times the population of the US in China and another 3 times the population of the US in India are going to start using resources at a rate closer to the rate they're used in the US (and Australia - three fingers pointing back at us, for sure).

So *even leaving aside climate change entirely* it makes a lot of sense to move quickly away from our use of fossil fuels. So in one sense the 'is it true or not' argument is moot: there are other very compelling reasons to change our habits and change them quickly.

There are other, large points to be made about the nature of scientific knowledge, the nature of climate knowledge in particular, risk and certainty. These are in some ways new sciences and new approaches to scientific questions, and they are not simple. I'm not trying to pretend that they are.

But really, one of the legacies of the 60s is a lot of relativism, even among those who believe they're immune to it. The refuge of most of us, in one way or another, from the deluge of data and opinion and information that would otherwise tend to overwhelm us is to select the voices we will listen to.

That's part of why the issue of credentials is important: when selecting from among a wide variety of positions and perspectives and voices, knowing whether someone is speaking from a position of knowledge is important. A devaluation of expertise and expert knowledge has been another legacy of the 60s, but whether we like it or not, some people do simply know more than others about some topics.

But we will also tend to select the voices that agree with our existing positions and beliefs, and to find ways to ignore those that disagree. This is part of the human condition, and I know I'm far from immune to it.

I do try to apply scientific methods when looking at arguments on this and other scientific issues. One of those methods is peer review. GIven the claim (untrue, I believe, but widely accepted) that the mainstream scientific community is a vast conspiracy against any evidence that climate change is not (at least in part) human-caused, the standard can be relaxed so that it doesn't mean publication in peer reviewed journals, it just means that other scientists or commentators share the same view.

That's why it's important to note that no-one other than David Evans is talking about the missing hot spot.

Yes I have read this article (on the website as quoted above) and heard a debate on Radio with Dr Evans and a pro carbon trading & global warming scientist. I am still not convinced at all and believe Dr Evans information is far more believable. The alarmists have a major reason for supporting their argument with no real proof. They are basing their proof on 1996 data which is no longer correct. The latest data disproves this.

Some of my reasons:-

• All of the pro scientists who believe that carbon emissions are the cause of global warming are employed in the industry in investigating the carbon emissions and implementing changes. Their livelihood and jobs depend on them supporting this theory. The government hands out huge grants for these scientists to do their work. 50 billion has already been spent…….
• There is no real proof it is all a theory. Do we implement major changes to our lifestyle which will cost on average an extra $2000 per person because carbon emissions may affect global warming ?
• If the government was serious what are they doing about other alternate sources of energy to replace oil and coal ? Absolutely nothing because they are making too much money.

Even if one believes that carbon emissions are causing global warming if Australia makes all the changes to reduce carbon emissions (Aust emits approx 1-2%) and no other country especially the major polluters (USA, China & India) what difference will it make ? Unless the majority of countries implement changes to reduce carbon output then what Australia does will have absolutely no affect on our environment.

Nice try, Ichy, but according to your origional post, the goal was to get pictures.



Now you switch goals...you want to understand the electronics of the Xray machine. Well, let's put it simply. In real life, if the machine is faulty, it aint gonna produce Xray picture.

Come on, Ichy...admit that your logic, while logical, is based upon faulty presumptions, poor illitrations and just plain "hide the head in the sand" arguments....

doctorj: it's true that Australia produces only about 1.5% of the world's CO2. But to put that into perspective, it has only about 0.33% of the world's population. So by that measure we produce about 4.5 times as much as the 'average' human on the planet.

So if we do nothing because 'others pollute more', and they do nothing because we didn't, and everyone does nothing... nothing happens. Since we are among thw world's worst polluters it makes sense for us to move, and to encourage others to move.

The question is not 'do we do an experiment based on a theory'. The question is 'we are already doing the largest experiment the planet has ever seen - is it smart to keep on doing it?'

I suppose you have got a point there. Regardless of whether emissions causes global warming, it would be best not to create pollution that we see hanging around our cities and fouling the air. Therefore it is a good thing that we move to encourage industry and private car owners to reduce pollution.