I hate the constant use of the term "carbon"
as a lazy catch all. The way the evidence is distributed isn't down to the scientist who do teh research, it's down to the media, a media which doesn't understand the science and frequently reports things wrongly, as well as media which may well have an interest in discrediting certain fields.

It's naive to expect such a complex issue to be boiled down to a few soundbites. If you really want to have a totally informed opinion it will take a lot of legwork.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:08, 2 replies)

kind of along the lines of my point I think
it is naive to expect the issue to be boiled down you are correct.

what I said however, was that it pissed me off, and then I vented somewhat.

then I got accused of knowing nothing about it. I suspect that the accuser is an exeter uni student however, which means they were almost certainly rejected from Oxford or Cambridge, come from Guildford, wear a "popped" collar and are called Rupert.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:11, closed)

Oh sorry
I didn't notice his comment there.

I just jumped straight into the middle of your post.

Ignore him. Sounds like a tit.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:12, closed)

that's ok
I've discussed this stuff with you before I think, and you do have some interesting stuff to say.

But I don't appreciate some tosser telling me to shut up because I don't know anything about a subject based on a (flawed) assumption.

as we know, assumption is the brother of all fuck-ups
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:18, closed)

You're slightly right.
I am an Exeter Uni student, though I'm not called Rupert, not from Guildford, don't wear collars, and never applied to Oxbridge. But fuck you for that, anyway.

And the point of the accusation of "knowing nothing about it" is that you made a blanket statement of "no evidence". There blatantly is, you may disagree with the interpretation, but there's LOADS of evidence, starting from basic physics suggesting a mechanism for an effect, to various graphs strongly suggesting a link. The details get complicated and I'll grant you a lot of the graphs that get rolled out on a popular science level of understanding are somewhat debatable or could be interpreted either way, but to say there's "NO evidence" does sound stunningly ignorant.
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:31, closed)

do you at least agree that the majority of exeter uni students are as I described?
you will find that I said I have seen or heard of no evidence that comes close to proving the CO2 link.

there is a big difference between that and saying there is no evidence.

That comes down to interpretation of what I wrote though, so I'm willing to forgive it.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:37, closed)

Hah, I try to avoid the popped-collar Ruperts.
OK, I'll grant your point was a bit more subtle. I still think we should leave the judgment of how good the evidence is to those who really know their stuff. In the same way that I'm quite happy leaving health (beyond a superficial eat-your-greens approach) to my doctor, and the car to my mechanic, and the boiler to my CORGI registered gas installer. While I focus on understanding in-depth my own research, and maybe a few things I have a private interest in.

The questioning-of-experts aspect is something that annoys (but also interests) me more than it should - the way I see it, it's quite similar to what, say, the creationists are doing. Preferably with added "the scientists lie to keep their funding" conspiracy theory...
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:59, closed)

you do have a point about leaving it to the experts
but I don't get the news or people in the street, or even some of my mates, telling me that there is something wrong with my car or my boiler!

if CO2 left me alone, then I'd leave it alone too!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:06, closed)

Indeed.
Blaming climate scientists for the lack of good climate change reporting (or even calling climate change into doubt because of the shoddy reporting) strikes me as a bit backwards. Are we blaming doctors for the lack of good health reporting? Physicists for all the "Oh Noes! LHC is going to destroy the world!" bollocks? True, most of these groups probably should be trying harder, but *some* of them certainly are - Ben Goldacre in the case of medicine, Brian Cox for physics, and e.g. James Hansen and Stefan Rahmstorf for climate change. All legitimate experts in their fields that are doing a lot of public media work.

By the way Vipros, I sort of agree (or at least sympathize) with your point about CO2 being over-emphasized, at least as far as energy and transport policy goes. There are plenty of reasons to burn less coal and oil, climate change being only one of them (albeit quite an important one).
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:26, closed)

I totally agree with what you are saying here
and the media are responsible for the reporting of this stuff, and let's face it, we know they aren't that bright.

look at the people you were at school with who did media studies....

you have arrived at my original point, in at least semi-agreement, so the slandering can cease!

Intelligent debate, ACTIVATE!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:44, closed)

I think we can leave it at that.
Pub time!
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:03, closed)

yeah, bit late for debate...
I've got band practice to get to....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:06, closed)