Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 43 to 44 of 44
  1. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    For me the point is this. If everyone pursues policy based on a false premise, we all waste our time. We also risk implementing policies that could be very damaging to existing and emerging economies for no good reason. So when you are presented with "evidence" supposedly showing the correlation between Co2 emission and global temperature over thousands of years, and it is used to support the argument that increase Co2 emission increases global temperature, you are of course inclined to believe it. Those graphs were however produced by scientists in the meteorological research units. When that same data was analysed by a mathematician..........using axis of the correct scale......that same data actually showed that the increase in temperature pre dated the increase in CO2 emissions.....and by a few thousand years...... obviously it paints a very different picture. As has been said before, that does not mean that we should not be actively pursuing ways to replace fossil fuels which will eventually run out, or improve the air we breathe.

    With the political weight that has been placed behind the current global warming lobby, it is those that argue that the data used to support that argument is fundamentally flawed that the ones suggesting the world is in fact round!

  2. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bournemouth
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    I've no idea which mathematician your talking about, but the numerous geologists, metrologists, physicists and other scientists who work on climate aren't mathematically illiterate. The unfortunate incident at UEA drew a lot of negative publicity but doesn't affect the conclusions. The lines of evidence come from basic physics, geological record, observational data from the last hundred years or so and ice cores, varves, sediments. The list goes on and on. The work on CO2s been peer reviewed , replicated by numerous sources and is as solid as science gets. You can argue about the timings, extent other confounding factors but one dissenting voice/crank is not enough to overturn the data. However convenient it might be to find a justification for doing nothing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •