This description of the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs is a bit sobering.

[Burney]

The non-linearity and highly unpredictable nature of natural systems should even be within the grasp of an arty farty literary type like you b.

My question to any climate change denialist is what do you actually think the net affect of a few millions extra tons of CO2 in an atmosphere will do - nothing?

As you rightly point out, h, I am a words man. I'm awfully good at analysing and decoding language to extract its deeper - often unintended - meanings. For this reason, when I espy words and phrases such as 'non-linearity', 'highly unpredictable', 'could', 'can', 'may' and 'are likely to', I'm forced to conclude that the writer is bullshítting wildly and has no more clue of the likely outcomes than do I.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

As you rightly point out, h, I am a words man. I'm awfully good at analysing and decoding language to extract its deeper - often unintended - meanings. For this reason, when I espy words and phrases such as 'non-linearity', 'highly unpredictable', 'could', 'can', 'may' and 'are likely to', I'm forced to conclude that the writer is bullshítting wildly and has no more clue of the likely outcomes than do I.

Allow me to elucidate. In mathematics, a linear equation is one that describes a straight line. It is simple to see the precise relationship between the given values of the x and y plane (staying in the two dimensional domain) with each other. Non-linearity is just a way of asserting that the relationship is far more complex and difficult to quantify accurately.

The problem is that literary types have purloined the term non-linear for descriptive rather than definitive purposes. They will even describe a piece of music or art as non-linear, bóllocks as you rightly say. I use the term purely in its mathematical sense.

If someone can look even briefly and myopically at this world and not conclude that we are in the process of doing grave and perilous damage to our ecology then they would have to be an imbecile.

[WES]

Allow me to elucidate. In mathematics, a linear equation is one that describes a straight line. It is simple to see the precise relationship between the given values of the x and y plane (staying in the two dimensional domain) with each other. Non-linearity is just a way of asserting that the relationship is far more complex and difficult to quantify accurately.

The problem is that literary types have purloined the term non-linear for descriptive rather than definitive purposes. They will even describe a piece of music or art as non-linear, bóllocks as you rightly say. I use the term purely in its mathematical sense.

If someone can look even briefly and myopically at this world and not conclude that we are in the process of doing grave and perilous damage to our ecology then they would have to be an imbecile.

I'm loving the idea of non-linearity implying that the scientists are making it all up. I can imagine what Burney's mind would do if someone attempted to explain quantum mechanics to him, that would be the quantum mechanics that deals entirely with probability.

It would, of course, also be the quantum mechanics that led to the development of the nuclear bomb. Imagine that, when all those scientists gathered in New Mexico all those years ago they were guessing at the outcome. Oppenheimer and the rest were all stood there with their fingers crossed hoping it would work because the absence of a linear equation meant they didn't really know.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Little japanese plumber in a Hiroshima greasy spoon in '45 at 8:15 saying to his mate "E = MC2 - load a bollócks more like!"

[Burney]

Allow me to elucidate. In mathematics, a linear equation is one that describes a straight line. It is simple to see the precise relationship between the given values of the x and y plane (staying in the two dimensional domain) with each other. Non-linearity is just a way of asserting that the relationship is far more complex and difficult to quantify accurately.

The problem is that literary types have purloined the term non-linear for descriptive rather than definitive purposes. They will even describe a piece of music or art as non-linear, bóllocks as you rightly say. I use the term purely in its mathematical sense.

If someone can look even briefly and myopically at this world and not conclude that we are in the process of doing grave and perilous damage to our ecology then they would have to be an imbecile.

What you've done there is employed the cheap rhetorical trick of saying that anyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile. You're better than that, h.

Regardless, I remain unaligned on the topic. I have drawn no conclusion either way, since I freely admit that I quite simply do not know enough to draw one.

This means I have to fall back on that which I can see and understand. And what I do see is a highly aggressive lobby that has effectively sought to outlaw dissent from peers; that claimed consensus early (which has of course become a self-fulfilling prophecy, since it becomes impossible to get a job if you question the orthodoxy and meant that those who did and had tenure could be marginalised); and been careful to infiltrate all layers of government and media so as to ensure that its conclusions become unquestionable.

This in turn has created and nurtured a host of rent-seeking industries that harvest huge public subsidies whilst its lobbyists ensure that their opposition is taxed to a position of disadvantage.

I also see a lobby that, whilst asserting the incontrovertible nature of its data, makes a point of persecuting those who disagree to a quite remarkable extent. As someone who has always understood that the great thing about empiricism is that it allows nonsense to be dismissed easily through the sheer weight of evidence, I find myself asking why people who are that certain of their ground should feel this need? I also see a lobby that has been proven to have fiddled its figures. Again, I find myself asking why, if your evidence is so overwhelming, you would feel the need to fiddle your figures?

So as I say, no conclusion either way. Just some suspicion, some questions and a healthy scepticism of authoritarian tactics and vested interest.