Problems with the whole climate change idea

[Dr HaxZaw]

Flood risk 'doubled' by greenhouse pollution

I saw this this morning and i geuss what annoys me the most is that sceintists have taken data over a 50 year period and are using it to prove something. Most people will agree that the world is at least 10,000 years old so if you work it out they have taken a .005% section of time and are using that to prove something. Im sorry but if scientists are going to claim that all their "sceintific research" is accurate they are going to have to wait another couple of hundreds years before i'll be accepting it.

Just wondering what other people out there thought of this

[torch]

Flood risk 'doubled' by greenhouse pollution

I saw this this morning and i geuss what annoys me the most is that sceintists have taken data over a 50 year period and are using it to prove something. Most people will agree that the world is at least 10,000 years old so if you work it out they have taken a .005% section of time and are using that to prove something. Im sorry but if scientists are going to claim that all their "sceintific research" is accurate they are going to have to wait another couple of hundreds years before i'll be accepting it.

Just wondering what other people out there thought of this

Firstly, its only according to the bible and Steven Fielding that we are about 10000 years old, human life on earth is about 2 million years, the age of planet earth in the region of 4-5 billion years.
so you wont accept any action on climate change because we dont have records going back that long?

Certainly the climate has been very different to what it is now, however, its the rate of change that is what is of concern to scientists and the ability of man to be able to survive this ,( and no, its not just data from the last 50 years, ice core samples allow us to go back before christ times.)

There have been faster changes to the climate in the past, however, these appear to be from catastrophic incidents such as meteor strikes or large scale volanic activity, none of which have been experienced in the time man has been on the planet.

[Darren_L]

I believe we have contributed or influenced climate change to a degree, but I don't believe we have caused it.
We don't have to be scientists to realise the earth has been through major climate cycles throughout it's history eg ice ages etc and proof that Australia also once had an inland sea....

So yeah, I think it's important that we did something about our lifestyle in regards to the amount of pollution we produce - if only to protect our own health. When you look over a city and see a layer of smog, then it can't be good. But most of this climate change reforms etc these days seems to me to be more an excuse for goverments to hit us with more taxes.

[Snoz]

There have been faster changes to the climate in the past, however, these appear to be from catastrophic incidents such as meteor strikes or large scale volanic activity, none of which have been experienced in the time man has been on the planet.

No volcanic Activity?

When mount Pinatubo (sp?) blew up in the Phillipines in the 80's it spewed out more "green house gases" than man has generated in the entire time we have been on earth. Which by the way is a lot longer than 10000 years.
This is just another lie to perpetuate the myth. So that the greens can tax us for breathing and farting.

[Dr HaxZaw]

Certainly the climate has been very different to what it is now, however, its the rate of change that is what is of concern to scientists and the ability of man to be able to survive this ,( and no, its not just data from the last 50 years, ice core samples allow us to go back before christ times.)

That all depends on who/how you interpret those ice samples... i know some people can paint you a whole picture of the earths condition from one of those samples... i do it just as easily with ice from my freezer or no ice at all

So yeah, I think it's important that we did something about our lifestyle in regards to the amount of pollution we produce - if only to protect our own health. When you look over a city and see a layer of smog, then it can't be good. But most of this climate change reforms etc these days seems to me to be more an excuse for goverments to hit us with more taxes.

im all for lowering pollution levels of harmful chemicals like nitrates, oxides and heavy metals but not CO2... with the amount of money governments have thrown at this there is a huge amount of pressure (in my opinion) to continue to prove that this is all climate change rather than just nature taking its course

[torch]

That all depends on who/how you interpret those ice samples... i know some people can paint you a whole picture of the earths condition from one of those samples... i do it just as easily with ice from my freezer or no ice at all



im all for lowering pollution levels of harmful chemicals like nitrates, oxides and heavy metals but not CO2... with the amount of money governments have thrown at this there is a huge amount of pressure (in my opinion) to continue to prove that this is all climate change rather than just nature taking its course

You do realise that co2 levels havent been as high for the last 15 million years, 13million years before man, the earth was a different place, so really its not a climate cycle man has lived through before.

seems you just want opinions to back up what you want to believe? Ill stay out of it from here.

[minux]

Dr Hakzaw, I'd suggest you do not bother arguing with commsirac, it will just give you headaches. He knows all.

[MasterOfReality]

Its just the whole philosophy of the analysis that goes against the grain.

Using data from a small period of time and then using it in an empirical analysis with interpolated data that stretches thousands of years to draw a conclusion is a bit pointless.

Its like me predicting final stress redistributions in an underground mine when only 15% of the deposit has been extracted. To be sure I would want to wait until at least 50% has been extracted so I have enough data for a concise calibration of my prediction model.