This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Thanks again David,for a very interesting read.I liked your "science Taleban".Maybe a bit much but the sheer palpable hatred expressed on some these sites does bring suchlike to mind.There is so much mayhem,murder and suffering in the world that I can understand hatred-but I fail to credit that which results seemingly just from a difference of opinion.
To me,and I maybe wrong of course, a proper scientific attitude is to "think it possible that you may be mistaken" not-the debate is over-we have the knowledge -respect the facts,etc
We can thank the "greenies" anti-nuclear stance for the present Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you think about it, they are responsible for most of the industrialised world existing on fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere instead of using nuclear energy. If we had nuclear energy, fossil fuels would have become too expensive and we'd have bio-fuels.
Of course, even the "Greenies" (some of them) don't like most of the renewable energy options because wind turbines are killing birds of prey and bats and hydroelectric is destoying river habitats and so on.
The industrialised world is hostage to the middle east and Hugo Chavez for its energy needs and now has to exchange fossil fuels for palm oil and sugar cane for bio fuels and where does that get grown?
But bio-fules are no good either. Greenpoeace is saying "not all bio fuels are good" Not all? probably very few. It isn;t just going to be the orang utang and the asian elephant that will get wiped out and Indonesia will probably not be seen for smoke from the slash and burn to clear forest for palm plantations for the next decade.
Then of course, we are already looking forward to second generation bio-fuel crops which means genetic engineering and who will get access to the GE crops? Another blow to third world economies?
Pretty well everything could be laid at the doors of the Greenies... the law of unintended consequences, perhaps, but do you get the feeling these people will never be happy or ever take the responsibility for any of their actions?
Of course, there is no such thing as AGW but the if there were it would be down to the Greenies. But don't expect them to explain themselves over the next 50 years while we wait for the vacillation to end and a new nuclear program to begin.
These are the people who oppose incinerators in the UK (where they will be better regulated then in some other countries who will low bid the job)and then wonder why barrels of toxic waste get washed overboard and end up on West African beaches? Not their fault, it is always some one else's.
If you look at the Number Watch links page you will see the remark that Bad Science is wrong on the greenhouse effect. In my opinion it perpetuates two linked fallacies. First, there is the fallacy of the partial balance sheet, talking of heat going to earth without mentioning flow in the opposite direction. If it were true, the earth would continue to heat up forever, rather than being in equilibrium. Second, there is the treatment of the gaseous, liquid and solid parts of the planet as though they were separable bodies. They are inextricably thermally linked not only by radiation, conduction and convection, but also by changes of state and the significant latent heats of water, i.e. evaporation, condensation and precipitation. In my explanation of the greenhouse effect I treat the planet as a single body.
So true John, the Body is Earth. We should re-christen 'Junk Science' to read 'Anti Earth Science'.
Certainly, I consider that the Earth is the most complex 'Body' in our Solar System, wherein the rule of Thermo-Dynamic Law is absolute.