Shelagh

I am not a denier. The topic title of this thread is: "Who here is a global warming skeptic?" I am sceptical about AGW. A list of deniers, of which I am not one, can be found here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Change_Deniers Yes, and as of now the data are inconclusive. The mountain of research to date only suggests a link between climate change and human activity. Many scientists believe that the overwhelming evidence is sufficient to make predictions, but those predictions are not happening. A case, maybe, of the more we know, the more aware we become of how little we know.

I see that the book was made into the documentary, Cool It. I've added the book to my TBR list!

If you don't care what the average person thinks, why do you care what I think?

Evolutionists do not attempt to convert creationists; medical practices even accomodate homeopathy. Conversely, AGW advocates are very scathing about doubters. Read the comments on this blog and take on board what the average person on the street thinks: http://iceagenow.info/complete-turn-around-now-nasa-says-burning-fossil-fuels-cools-planet/#comments

I don't have a top three, iNow. Here are three statements on climate scientist (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. Kate Marvel's blog: "Climate models are highly misunderstood." "In the simple model, the recent history of the climate looks a lot like the sum of its parts." "In the more complex model, this isnt true anymore, especially for precipitation, because different kinds of emissions are interacting with each other. This complicates the whole business of attribution. It may be possible to attribute observed climate changes to specific phenomena: ozone depletion, for example, or increased aerosol concentrations. But when we go one step further and try to attribute these changes to the emissions that caused them, things get a bit harder. ... ... we have to be careful in selecting the models we use, and to ensure that theyre fit for purpose. Climate models are not perfect representations of reality, nor are they intended to be. ... They are simplifications, and useful ones at that. The trick is deciding what to leave behind." http://marvelclimate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/the-whole-sum-and-parts.html?view=classic By her own admission, the models climatologists are using are incomplete, which is the main reason for my scepticism.

Wrong conclusion. I have researched the science of climate change; I am sceptical about AGW.

Well, we seem to agree on the important issues. ... which reflects badly on human beaviour.

... and Scotland has nine months of winter followed by three months of bad weather. Why can't you be content with being smugly superior about global warming and allow me to remain sceptical? I'm not trying to convert anyone. It's only those in positions of power who need to be convinced, and they seem to be buying into the whole AGW thing. Cleaner energy, less dependence on fossil fuels supplied by the Middle East, and stricter regulations on pollutants are things we should be pursuing irrespective of climate change.

The spacewalk to repair ISS can be viewed here on NBC news: http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/nasa-astronauts-make-unscheduled-spacewalk-to-repair-iss-589713475638

LOL! No one has ever accused me of trying to fit in! Oh well, since you insist on some kind of explanation, I'll make an attempt to explain my scepticism. Take NASA for starters. On their website concerning consensus among scientists, the most recent research papers cited were published in 2013. To me, that is just not good enough: References​ J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (June 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-cause, Global Warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. W. R. L. Anderegg, Expert Credibility in Climate Change, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107. P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002. N. Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009) AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006) ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013) Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013) Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013) Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012) APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007) GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010) Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005) Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007) IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007) http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ By their own admission, there is still much to learn: Well, isn't that just like the weather to be unpredictable? Just altogether too many unknowns for my liking. But then again, I'm a disappointment, so I'm not expected to make sense of the avalanche of data spewing out of NASA.

Tar, Christian religions account for 1/3rd of the world's population, and Muslims make up 1/5th of the world's population. According to predictions, the gap between the two will narrow over the coming decades.

Is there such a wide-spread assumption? It would be difficult to democratise Syria without peace. The coming peace talks in January will find that democracy on the agenda will be the biggest stumbling block. Peace might be brokered at the expense of democracy rather than to bring it about.

Science did not come into being to disprove God or religion. The Greeks and Romans studied science to a high level, but did not concern themselves about the veracity of their many gods. That came later when a new religion declared that there was only one God, and thus began the arguments about His existence.

You have given an excellent summation of the problem facing the Syrian people. When the Kurds in Iraq asked for help, it was given. Not so for the Sunni Syrians when they first sought help. As a consequence, they have suffered five years of brutal, bloody war that has torn the country apart. Of course you have no answer. If you did, the Syrians would be busy establishing democracy in Syria instead of fighting for their lives or fleeing their country.

Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody likes a smart alec, so I like to throw in the odd, dumb comment every now and again.

Let's consider this scenario: someone asks for advice on a forum. Several people offer sound advice, which if followed would solve the problem to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the amount of effort put in by the sufferer. Unfortunately, the advice falls on deaf ears and is rejected for one reason or another. Some of those who offered good advice are annoyed now, and their comments turn from positive to negative. The person asking for advice feels he is under attack for being honest about his feelings of hopelessness, and his inability to "pull himself together". He lashes out and goes from guy who needs help to guy with an attitude. Well give yourselves a pat on the back; you really know how to help someone who has a problem.

?

I agree. How long is a piece of string? Predicting the future is impossible; we cannot know what the future holds in terms of complete understanding.

My view of the present situation is irrelevant, I am powerless to affect the plight of the Syrian people, who feel that western powers are not doing enough, including the peace talks:

Maybe you should explain that to Aristotle. I don't have his email address, so I can't help you to contact him.

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2014/10/causes-war-peace/

I didn't blame the President; I said that he isn't doing enough. You might not agree with me, but what we think is of no consequence because we are powerless to bring about a peaceful solution. As for being unaware of the facts, maybe this BBC summing up of the complex situation is insuffucient information to really understand the problem: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26116868

This 3d art is fascinating: John Edmark is an inventor, designer and artist who teaches design at Stanford University in Palo Alto, CA. One of his latest creations is a series of 3D-printed sculptures designed with proportions corresponding to the Fibonacci Sequence. When Edmark's sculptures are spun at just the right frequency under a strobe light, a rather magical effect occurs: the sculptures seem to be animated or alive! The rotation speed is set to match the strobe flashes such that every time the sculpture rotates 137.5º, there is one corresponding flash from the strobe light. Check out this video to see the moving sculptures: http://artstyle.sfglobe.com/2015/01/14/3d-printed-sculptures-look-alive-when-spun-under-a-strobe-light/?src=share_fb_new_32233&sv=3&xas=o32233__1450553379

Okay, I'll go along with that. Maybe President Obama should increase his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between Middle Eastern countries. His present day efforts fall woefully short.

Wasn't President Obama awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for trying to bring peace to the Middle East? I vote we let him sort out the mess that is destroying Syria and displacing hundreds of thousands of refugees around the globe to countries that don't really want to take them, but feel obliged to do so.