John Cuthber

I'm not sure how old thye idea is, but it's old enough that they were making tv shows about it some years back http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01f893x The weather is a heat engine, trapping more power into it will make it do more of the things it does. More extreme weather follows from that.

I know there's more to knowledge than the stuff in books but... http://what-if.xkcd.com/76/

I can't readily find a paper on that, but lets take this (fairly widely reported) figure as an starting point http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/361382/20-000-pensioners-died-from-the-cold-last-winter Since the predicted effect of raised global temperatures is that British Winters will get colder and the Summers will get hotter, what point did you think you were raising?

It's true that France is generally warmer than the UK And, during heat waves more people die there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave So if global warming makes the UK more like France it will raise the number of deaths. What worries me most is that Tim and Wild Cobra think that these deaths are funny.

Pascal's wager is dross. It fails on a number of counts.* That has been known for ages. Once again: Why would science want to join religion? * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Criticism

At the risk of seeming smug, have a look at my post-count and status as a resident expert then think about why I asked the why it goes dark at night and why I linked it to a steady state universe/ You are answering the wrong question. Why does it go dark: ever?

Obviously I know that. But why does it go dark at night?

"Ultimately, there can be no conflict between science and religion because we have only one reality. " And, in that reality the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So when religion stops lying about it that will help remove the conflict. In the mean time perhaps you can answer my question. Why would science want to join religion?

If we live in a steady state universe, how come it goes dark at night?

Well, it does exist- but not for long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triatomic_hydrogen As far as anyone would be able to measure it, it will have three times the mass of a single hydrogen. There would be a relativistic contribution from the bond energy, but it is tiny- too small to measure. The questions about nuclear forces are in the wrong forum: they are not chemistry.

What Goedel showed is that in any sufficiently complex system of axioms there are theorems that can neither be proven true nor proven false. However those unprovable systems may not be ones with a physical meaning. It's possible that a finite set of axioms may provide a basis for proving all the things that matter, even though there will still be unprovable theorems. So Goedel's work does not rule out the idea of a "Theory of Everything". It doesn't matter if the ToE can't tell us what colour unicorns are. It's also fair to say that most scientists who are seriously working on a ToE are aware of the incompleteness theorem; yet they carry on. Does the OP somehow think he knows more about it than they do?

Pumping the water out of a mine shaft (an ongoing cost) might take more effort than building a tower.

OK, here's the word in context "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." Now I have said that you could replace the word with other word like "troublesome" or even "serious" and not change the meaning of the sentence. Because the meaning stays pretty much the same, I'm clearly not trying to change the definition of words. Also, I cited a definition- lets see what happens if we substitute that definition into the sentence in question. "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." OK, it's clumsy English but the meaning (i.e. If we don't take mitigating actions we will have problems which are worthy of attention.) hasn't changed. So your saying ""Significant" does not allow someone to change the intent to "mostly" or "largely."" just doesn't make sense because nobody had said anything like that. Nobody suggested they meant "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant "mostly" disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." because it simply doesn't make sense. It's one of those bizarre things that happened in your head, but not in real life; like the request to email us a library.

Presumably the first time I realised my ignorance would have been the first time I asked a question. I'm guessing I'd have been about 2 years old.

You seem to assume that their use of the word "significant" is the technical one- otherwise it wouldn't matter if it were replaced by some other word like "troublesome" or even "serious". you said "My complaint voiced here about the word significant is when people change the word to another one, or use a word that likely leads to a wrong impression." That change only matters if you think they are using the word "significant" in a sense other than the ordinary way- meaning "important". No, I'm not psychic. I explained why I think they are using it in the everyday sense. Did you not read it, or didn't you understand it? "Are you not open to the possibility that those writing that sentance purposely used it in that manner to sugest something that in reality is unlikely to matter?" Well, it's certainly possible; but not when you look at the context. Did you consider that the tone of the sentence is that they have calculated that there will be a difference which is both statistically significant and socially significant? Here it is in context "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now. Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases." from here http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm (And, incidentally, it only took a few seconds to find it.) That's not "weasel wording" it'as pretty clear. It's not talking about some technically statistically significant, but unimportant change is it? And re. "Consider this. What if significant disruptions are likely to occur anyway?" Making it worse does not look like a good idea. And, if you tell people to check dictionaries, you should do it yourself first. you say " why use "significant" which only means it can be seen or measured?" And that's not the only thing it means If you ask Google (one dictionary among many) it says "significant sɪɡˈnɪfɪk(ə)nt/ adjective 1. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy." So did you consider the idea that when they said the effect on climate would be "significant", why have you ignored the idea that they simply meant that the effect was important?

OK, so I realise you think people dying is funny (presumably it's OK because they have pre- existing health problems), but are you really so detached from reality that you expect the scientific data and statistical analysis to be printed in a newspaper article?

Well, what happens if the majority don't agree with the religious dogma?

Most scientific reports are, of necessity, full of what you would call "weasel words" because there are not many certainties in science. You are leaping to the unjustified conclusion that the author is using "significant" in the technical sense used in mathematics and experimental design. To me the context suggests otherwise. When they say "If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur." they mean that those changes will matter to people. Of course, since you claim to know about the technical use of the word "significant", you would understand that where it's used in that sense, it should be accompanied by a statistical significance level (95% is popular) and there isn't one. And it's not applicable to the case in point is it? They haven't given a numerical value so they plainly are not talking maths or stats. So, why have you precedented that they are?

So, because of a choice of word, you are ignoring a lot of people's deaths. That's nice. However the answer is that it depends, among other things, on who is doing the attribution. What do you attribute the excess deaths to? BTW this bit seems not to mean anything "Hottest day 90 F. OK...."

Going from "One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support." to "Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?" isn't a deduction is it? No So, that's another of your rather pointless strawman attacks. Also, you may find it helps to read all of a sentence, that way you might avoid saying things like this "There could be several reasons" as a reply to "There's a second, albeit less robust, reason not to trust ..." as if it means anything Also re. "I though we were speaking of 2 degrees in England. Not Alabama, New York, Texas, etc." we were. The heat related deaths in the UK are well documented in this thread (among other places of course) but it seems you are too sure of yourself to bother to read them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10187140/Heatwave-deaths-760-lives-claimed-by-hot-weather-as-high-temperatures-continue.html Again, you are preaching, not discussing.

It's not too difficult to find out. Get a few identical cups- cheap plastic or paper ones like you use for parties are probably a good bet but if you have some identical glasses that might be even better. Just before you change the filter fill half the glasses with water then change the filter and fill the rest of the cups. Then ask a friend to put the numbers 1 to 6 (or whatever) randomly on the cups and record which numbers are on "old" water and which ones on "new". Make sure you are out of the room while they do this. Then ask them to leave the room (so they can't influence your choice- even by accident) and see if you can decide which glasses are "old filter" and which ones \are "new". Make a note of which ones you think are which. Then check to see if you were right about which ones were which. If you can tell whether a glass is from the old filter or the new one reliably then there's a difference- if not you can probably save money on the filters. Having said that, in most places filtering the water is a waste of money- the tap water is OK to drink and there's a potential risk with using the filters for a long time- they may start to grow bacteria which are harmful in themselves or which produce toxic materials.

The reason that vanity publishing sites are dodgy is that, in essence, they will publish anything if you pay them to. There's no valid editorial review and no meaningful peer review. So there's no good reason to trust anything they publish. That's not a logical fallacy, it's a deduction. There's a second, albeit less robust, reason not to trust papers published; why wasn't it published in a "better" journal?

Re "Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?" No. A logical fallacy is a matter of logic, not of opinion. In respect of your plainly pejorative point "I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why." I said "Either would do, but please don't make up facts- those have to be from a reputable source." And I made the observation that "You have, thus far, provided precisely one "citation" to support your assertion and it seems from a vanity publisher" I have already explained (In fact I did it in the same post) why I think your citation is from a vanity publisher (or something close to it) And you replied "I agree I have not supported everything I said." and asked "Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more?" I commented "No, you haven't supported anything which you have said." And explained that "One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support." And suddenly you leapt to "Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?" which is nothing to do with anything which had been said before. Now there is no way to get from what had been said to the idea of emailing a library. You were not asked by anyone to email a library. So your introduction of that idea as if it was in response to something for which you had been asked is (at best) a straw man. That's a logical fallacy. Not a "subjective" but a failure of logic. Show us how you came to the notion that someone had asked you to email a library when, at the time, you were being asked to provide a single decent paper, or accept that you launched a straw man attack. it's part of the story of the emperor's new clothes that, even after the child points out that the clothes don't exist, the procession carries on. They ignore reality; that's part of the point of the tale. It's not clear that anything has changed on that score. It's probably true that you won't convince me that hot weather doesn't kill people. That's because the evidence- the death toll- says otherwise. Do you think you should be able to convince me of something that doesn't agree with reality?

Nobody should ever fill tyres with oxygen. Air is fine, that's what the tyres are designed for. Nitrogen is also fine (but more expensive, and I have yet to see any real evidence of any advantage).

"What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?" No. Posting a single decent paper would do. But you didn't. Why is that? Nobody asked you to do anything like post a library did they? No. So, what you did there is launch a straw man attack. If you have to resort to logical fallacies to back up your point, not only does it put you in breach of the forum's rules, but it makes it clear that you don't have a valid argument to put. I explained why it's dodgy- they are a "pay to publish" site- vanity publishing or, at least, very close to it. However, even if we accept the paper at face value, what it says is that the effect of CO2 on warming is 70% of what the IPCC says. So the paper you are citing as evidence that AGW doesn't exist says that it does- but it's a smaller effect that the IPCC figures. That's not the same as saying it doesn't exist is it?