[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]There's no 'debate' about the magnetic pole reversal - because no-one knows what effect it will have, and even if they did there's f***-all we can do about it. Not much point having a 'debate' about that - it's like 'debating' whether or not we should be concerned about gravity.
Phew, that's a relief then.
So what can we do about Global Warming - other than piss into the wind?
I think this thread is done to death and new posters joining with old arguments will just bring back more snide comments. Neither side is going to change their views and it just ends up in a slanging match, so let's drop this and concentrate on the takeover thread.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]I think this thread is done to death and new posters joining with old arguments will just bring back more snide comments. Neither side is going to change their views and it just ends up in a slanging match, so let's drop this and concentrate on the takeover thread.
LOL - what, cos that thread's less pointless than this one? )
I make you right though - no amount of discussion on this will change the views of 99% of those who read the thread. It might be argued that just the 1% whose opinion might be altered make it worth the mud-slinging, but personally, I think its a waste of time.
So none of you really know what will happen with this alleged climate change
the world wont end so all those protesting should give up get a job and stop flipping whinging and moaning whatever next
a protest for vegans because we are stealing eggs from chickens and who the hell do we think we are they are not our eggs they belong to the chickens ;-)
[cite]Posted By: nth london addick[/cite]the world wont end so all those protesting should give up get a job and stop flipping whinging and moaning whatever next
Be interested to hear the views of climate change supporters on the disclosures of the university of east Anglia professors emails in the last week. You know the ones I mean, the ones where he tells peer review chums how he is pulling the wool over the eyes of the climate change sceptics by fiddling the data on global temperatures etc. It now seems in response to FOI requests for the data to back the figures used to support global warming theories, that all the data has been lost, having been mislaid or destroyed to save space. Very convenient, they obviously took the information very seriously then. Said professor has stood down from his post as head scare monger on behalf of climate change while an investigation is carried out to clear him and return to the original agenda. Strange that this is not mentioned much in the press, what with their climate change departments and editors being employed on the basis of the facts, you have to google it to find any mention at all. I doubt the BBC will mention it on any mainstream news channels in the near future either, despite numerous programmes based on said Profs articles in the past. Good old peer review eh! Any comments Ste marra or hoping this all goes away?
Plenty about "Climategate" and related matters here and yes the BBC and newspapers (except the Daily Express I believe) are conspicuous by their non-coverage of this issue.
When i was doing Third World Developement and Environement with the Open Uni i was lucky enough to have two summer schools at The Uni of East Anglia, Loved it.
They have actually ignored some 60 requests for info under the freedom of Info Act to date , and not alot being said that CO2 emissions have fallen for the last two years ? . It could be that world industry has scaled back re the world economic climate---------but still strange very little being said.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Be interested to hear the views of climate change supporters on the disclosures of the university of east Anglia professors emails in the last week. You know the ones I mean, the ones where he tells peer review chums how he is pulling the wool over the eyes of the climate change sceptics by fiddling the data on global temperatures etc. It now seems in response to FOI requests for the data to back the figures used to support global warming theories, that all the data has been lost, having been mislaid or destroyed to save space. Very convenient, they obviously took the information very seriously then. Said professor has stood down from his post as head scare monger on behalf of climate change while an investigation is carried out to clear him and return to the original agenda. Strange that this is not mentioned much in the press, what with their climate change departments and editors being employed on the basis of the facts, you have to google it to find any mention at all. I doubt the BBC will mention it on any mainstream news channels in the near future either, despite numerous programmes based on said Profs articles in the past. Good old peer review eh! Any comments Ste marra or hoping this all goes away?
It was covered quite extensively in the 'trade' press, including an editorial in New Scientist. A quick google referenced articles in the Times, Mail, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Scotsman, This Is London. And no doubt there are others I didn't find in the first 30 seconds.
A few of these hacked emails were ill-considered, in the same way that 99% of us have sent ill-considered emails when we think third partied won't read them. That doesn't excuse it but it certainly doesn't prove a conspiracy. Rightly or wrongly, the emails that have raised such concern were from scientists who are exasperated with wasting time. Wasting time, that is, by engaging in a dialogue with people who want a rhetorical debate rather than a scientific review of the evidence.
Nothing is certain in science - the essence of all scientific enquiry is probability. The evidence for climate change is complicated but entirely comprehensible in essence if you have the time and will, and it demonstrates the probability that the way we live, if unchanged, will affect the climate sufficiently to have extremely serious consequences for us, and all life, over the next 50-100 years. If however you don't have the time or will to do your own background reading on the subject (entirely understandable) then you could look at it this way -
Either the above statement about climate change is true, or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are involved in a vast and complicated conspiracy for unknown reasons.
Which of these options is more likely?
I don't like it either - I have a flat screen TV, I like long haul flights, etc etc. But there it is.
Steve it was one of the main segments on Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman gave one of the guy's colleagues a massive grilling. To be fair as someone alluded it was two emails in tens of thousands of emails. It appears what the guy did was perfectly acceptable statistically. I really can't be bothered to check out the validity of his approach or not.
Everyone has their vested interest in how they approach and present statistics, I believe climate change is occurring just that the best fit curves that show a wonderful beautifully perfect curve and correlation between Carbon Dioxide emissions increasing and temp increasing is leap of faith science. It appears to be the most accurate explanation, and is something we can understand and we all know we have to change our carbon fuel habits. Just it'll be you and me bearing the brunt whilst twat Zac Goldsmith will be banging on about it whilst he's paying for a tree on his estate, via his business, whilst flying over it on his Lear jet. I'm not against changing our habits but all this bollox by massive carbon consumers by big time bands and businessmen, are the real peddlers of unsustainable lifestyles and bullshit myths.
I'm sure it is all true red 24. But that's an absolutely bollox arguement about the weight of scientists believing in it, so it must be true. Throughout every generation there's a body of learned men who collectively believe in something to be an absolute truth. Just because the geniuses of the 19th century thought there was an ether that carried elcetricity, doesn't mean they were stupid or mean they had to be right. Everything appears to make climate change a fact, but all too often people go Messianic about it. For years Greens go against Nuclear power, then the next a big think-tank of Greens change their messianic charge against Nuclear power and say go for it. We need Nuclear power end of if we are to hit targets. Next we have to listen to every politico Green banging on about wind power, when any analysis of it renders it utterly irrellevant and inefficent as it needs massive subsidies and is so irregular in it's working time. Just another bunch of fascists manipulating information to impose their ideas. Utopia anyone?
The majority of scientists turn out to be wrong on pretty much all their statistical predicitions on hugely complex problems, because they just don't have enough stats and understanding of those stats. If brainy proffessors can't securitise mortgages, due to counter party risk or whatever reasons, how the hell do they epect us to believe they can accurately predict complex climate change? I subscribe to the cock up theory where brainy people, or people in power get most things wrong because no one's that brainy. I suspect we'll all be here in forty years time without a nice little moat round our garden fence.
If we're not I'll be happy that I use crappy energy saving light bulbs, cycle a lot, have a small engined efficent car and usually travel by car or train to France. All the politico's, and movers and shakers can fuck off and enjoy their billions of subsidies in their Mayfair and LA homes whether it happens or not; I suppose if it happens they'll be getting a suntan in Alaska during summer, and a suntan in S New Zealand during summer.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]I'm sure it is all true red 24. But that's an absolutely bollox arguement about the weight of scientists believing in it, so it must be true. Throughout every generation there's a body of learned men who collectively believe in something to be an absolute truth. Just because the geniuses of the 19th century thought there was an ether that carried elcetricity, doesn't mean they were stupid or mean they had to be right.
The majority of scientists turn out to be wrong on pretty much all their statistical predicitions on hugely complex problems, because they just don't have enough stats and understanding of those stats. If brainy proffessors can't securitise mortgages, due to counter party risk or whatever reasons, how the hell do they epect us to believe they can accurately predict complex climate change? I subscribe to the cock up theory where brainy people, or people in power get most things wrong because no one's that brainy. I suspect we'll all be here in forty years time without a nice little moat round our garden fence.
It's a fair point in a way, but science (scientists if you want to personalise it) has also revealed pretty much all we know to be true about the world. It discovered, for example, that electricity does not run through ether, and lots more about electricity as well, thereby providing us with all the comforts of modern life.
All I'm saying is if you are going to look to science for the answer to whether global warming is real, then it makes sense to pay more attention to what the majority of scientists are saying. Alternatively you could ignore the lot of them and seek other, non-scientific views; there are plenty of dubious people ready and willing to have their say.
And in a way I agree with you. A considered body of people should certainly be respected for it's opinion, but people should also be wary and open to new interpretations. It does seem many of the anti-climate change people, such as in the Neo Con camp, are more crankish in their selection of data than the mainstream.
I will have to accept the majority of scientists opinions as it's not an area wholesale I've researched, doesn't mean I won't doubt particular presentations especially when presented as Al Gore did it. For it to change it'll have to make money for someone, but I can't abide it's shiny salesmen like Al Gore and Richard Branson. Fly them to the moon.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Plenty about "Climategate" and related matters here and yes the BBC and newspapers (except the Daily Express I believe) are conspicuous by their non-coverage of this issue.
[/url]
That's simply false. The Guardian for example have been covering it extensively for days.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]I'm sure it is all true red 24. But that's an absolutely bollox arguement about the weight of scientists believing in it, so it must be true. Throughout every generation there's a body of learned men who collectively believe in something to be an absolute truth.
The problem is, this can be used to doubt anything. I think 'believing' in it is a slightly misleading choice of word, as modern science bases theories on observation and noting down whether something happens, not simply what scientists believe. If the thing doesn't happen, or something happens that isn't explained by the theory then it is re-scrutinised. Most of our crazy ideas of the past were made when this wasn't established practice, and we effectively guessed. Sure, we used to believe that the body was made up of 4 liquids that had to be in perfect balance in order for us to healthy, but that doesn't mean we're now wrong about blood and haemoglobin and cells.
I think at the end of the day there's a limit to doubting science as it does ultimately work: we might not have got all the details exactly right but people do get better, structures do stay up, certain chemicals do mix.
Personally, I see no reason to suddenly doubt science now, I can only assume people do so because it's telling them something they don't want to hear. I often hear arguments about 'greenies jumping on the bandwagon' or 'government control' etc. as somehow arguments against the science of climate change. If they want to argue about misuse of the threat then fine whatever, but don't pretend that that somehow means the threat itself doesn't exist - it's been established by the scientific consensus of every major scientific body in the world.
[cite]Posted By: 24 Red[/cite]
Either the above statement about climate change is true, or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are involved in a vast and complicated conspiracy for unknown reasons.
Which of these options is more likely?
I don't like it either - I have a flat screen TV, I like long haul flights, etc etc. But there it is.
This is my exact position. As yet, I've never seen anyone explain in rational and detailed terms why it's a conspiracy. I haven't even seen any justification why the 'elite' would want the conspiracy. For example, climate change is disastrous for the oil companies, who are pretty much as elite as you can get and have huge sway on global policy. The fact that the Republicans and Fox news oppose it vehemently is almost an argument for it in itself - since when were they not tied to the 'elite'?
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]And in a way I agree with you. A considered body of people should certainly be respected for it's opinion, but people should also be wary and open to new interpretations. It does seem many of the anti-climate change people, such as in the Neo Con camp, are more crankish in their selection of data than the mainstream.
I will have to accept the majority of scientists opinions as it's not an area wholesale I've researched, doesn't mean I won't doubt particular presentations especially when presented as Al Gore did it. For it to change it'll have to make money for someone, but I can't abide it's shiny salesmen like Al Gore and Richard Branson. Fly them to the moon.
Scientists do have a vested interest in making predictions in order to maintain funding. Just an old cynics view perhaps but the 1970 stuff made quite interesting reading don`t you think ?
I wondered whether this would come again but didn't want to instigate it myself as the last topic on this I got involved in got sunk and I respect the wishes of AFKA et al. However it's now back so here's my take.
Interestingly enough, and I haven't gone back and tired to find it, but the essence of the discussion I was trying to have with Bigsterra, BFR, Leroy, etc was around the motives and self interest of the scientists involved. As a result I actually came in for some personal abuse (another reason I drew a line under that thread).
Their argument being that those involved in studying Climate Change would never dream of manipulating/cherry picking the figures to support their point of view and agenda and they are only ever interested in publishing peer reviewed, unbiased, statistically sustainable evidence. Hmmm...
My biggest issue is not that this organisation have subsequently been shown to conduct themselves in an extremely unprofessional, unethical way but that, as a result of this, Governments around the world are taking huge decisions based on their research. You may not know it but the CCU is hugely influential and their work forms much of the basis for IPCC policy. Personally, I think we'd all be better off without Prof Jones being in a position of such influence.
Their argument being that those involved in studying Climate Change would never dream of manipulating/cherry picking the figures to support their point of view and agenda and they are only ever interested in publishing peer reviewed, unbiased, statistically sustainable evidence. Hmmm...
...........
Don't cry foul...
You assert that AGW isn't happening, that the science for it is flawed, but won't accept that Exxon (amongst others) have been funding the denialist cause, why would they do that? And why do you choose to ignore it, while making the tired assumption that pro-AGW are baised in their research?
The researchers at East Anglia's Uni CRU have done a great deal of harm to scientific truth - not just global warming research and that has been seized upon with glee by those whi have an axe to grind, but I don't see any evidence that glaciers have stopped melting, that sea levels are falling, or that arctic/antartic ice shelves are growing thicker.
Scientists do have a vested interest in making predictions in order to maintain funding. Just an old cynics view perhaps but the 1970 stuff made quite interesting reading don`t you think ?
Have you looked at that web site? I mean, really....
Selective quoting is tedious, unhelpful and typical of people on any side of an argument who prefer rhetoric to reason. I would agree that anyone who makes predictions as specific as these is/was asking for it, although several of them are not that far from the truth if you take out the foolish specifics.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the subject I think, with proper references and notes:
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]Their argument being that those involved in studying Climate Change wouldneverdream of manipulating/cherry picking the figures to support their point of view and agenda and they are only ever interested in publishing peer reviewed, unbiased, statistically sustainable evidence. Hmmm...
All sorts of people including scientists are biased and manipulative. The great thing about science is that it progresses despite those all-too-human biases and agendas. Mainly that is because science is based on proving things are wrong. If one scientist's theory can be proved wrong then other scientists will keep at it until they have done just that - it is a highly competitive field. A theory that cannot in principle be proved wrong isn't a scientific theory at all.
At its best, all this is sometimes exemplified by the climate change debate. Unfortunately for the most part it has become - inevitably - highly politicised. To suggest however that scientists collectively have a vested interest in perpetuating a lie is just wrong. Absurdly so.
Comments
Phew, that's a relief then.
So what can we do about Global Warming - other than piss into the wind?
The myth is that it's a man made phenomenum.
Cow flatulence to you...
I make you right though - no amount of discussion on this will change the views of 99% of those who read the thread. It might be argued that just the 1% whose opinion might be altered make it worth the mud-slinging, but personally, I think its a waste of time.
When the Spanners or Palace win the FA Cup.
the world wont end so all those protesting should give up get a job and stop flipping whinging and moaning whatever next
a protest for vegans because we are stealing eggs from chickens and who the hell do we think we are they are not our eggs they belong to the chickens ;-)
that's just what the dinosaurs said
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/romp-in-msm.html
They have actually ignored some 60 requests for info under the freedom of Info Act to date , and not alot being said that CO2 emissions have fallen for the last two years ? . It could be that world industry has scaled back re the world economic climate---------but still strange very little being said.
It was covered quite extensively in the 'trade' press, including an editorial in New Scientist. A quick google referenced articles in the Times, Mail, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Scotsman, This Is London. And no doubt there are others I didn't find in the first 30 seconds.
A few of these hacked emails were ill-considered, in the same way that 99% of us have sent ill-considered emails when we think third partied won't read them. That doesn't excuse it but it certainly doesn't prove a conspiracy. Rightly or wrongly, the emails that have raised such concern were from scientists who are exasperated with wasting time. Wasting time, that is, by engaging in a dialogue with people who want a rhetorical debate rather than a scientific review of the evidence.
Nothing is certain in science - the essence of all scientific enquiry is probability. The evidence for climate change is complicated but entirely comprehensible in essence if you have the time and will, and it demonstrates the probability that the way we live, if unchanged, will affect the climate sufficiently to have extremely serious consequences for us, and all life, over the next 50-100 years. If however you don't have the time or will to do your own background reading on the subject (entirely understandable) then you could look at it this way -
Either the above statement about climate change is true, or the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are involved in a vast and complicated conspiracy for unknown reasons.
Which of these options is more likely?
I don't like it either - I have a flat screen TV, I like long haul flights, etc etc. But there it is.
Everyone has their vested interest in how they approach and present statistics, I believe climate change is occurring just that the best fit curves that show a wonderful beautifully perfect curve and correlation between Carbon Dioxide emissions increasing and temp increasing is leap of faith science. It appears to be the most accurate explanation, and is something we can understand and we all know we have to change our carbon fuel habits. Just it'll be you and me bearing the brunt whilst twat Zac Goldsmith will be banging on about it whilst he's paying for a tree on his estate, via his business, whilst flying over it on his Lear jet. I'm not against changing our habits but all this bollox by massive carbon consumers by big time bands and businessmen, are the real peddlers of unsustainable lifestyles and bullshit myths.
I'm sure it is all true red 24. But that's an absolutely bollox arguement about the weight of scientists believing in it, so it must be true. Throughout every generation there's a body of learned men who collectively believe in something to be an absolute truth. Just because the geniuses of the 19th century thought there was an ether that carried elcetricity, doesn't mean they were stupid or mean they had to be right. Everything appears to make climate change a fact, but all too often people go Messianic about it. For years Greens go against Nuclear power, then the next a big think-tank of Greens change their messianic charge against Nuclear power and say go for it. We need Nuclear power end of if we are to hit targets. Next we have to listen to every politico Green banging on about wind power, when any analysis of it renders it utterly irrellevant and inefficent as it needs massive subsidies and is so irregular in it's working time. Just another bunch of fascists manipulating information to impose their ideas. Utopia anyone?
The majority of scientists turn out to be wrong on pretty much all their statistical predicitions on hugely complex problems, because they just don't have enough stats and understanding of those stats. If brainy proffessors can't securitise mortgages, due to counter party risk or whatever reasons, how the hell do they epect us to believe they can accurately predict complex climate change? I subscribe to the cock up theory where brainy people, or people in power get most things wrong because no one's that brainy. I suspect we'll all be here in forty years time without a nice little moat round our garden fence.
If we're not I'll be happy that I use crappy energy saving light bulbs, cycle a lot, have a small engined efficent car and usually travel by car or train to France. All the politico's, and movers and shakers can fuck off and enjoy their billions of subsidies in their Mayfair and LA homes whether it happens or not; I suppose if it happens they'll be getting a suntan in Alaska during summer, and a suntan in S New Zealand during summer.
It's a fair point in a way, but science (scientists if you want to personalise it) has also revealed pretty much all we know to be true about the world. It discovered, for example, that electricity does not run through ether, and lots more about electricity as well, thereby providing us with all the comforts of modern life.
All I'm saying is if you are going to look to science for the answer to whether global warming is real, then it makes sense to pay more attention to what the majority of scientists are saying. Alternatively you could ignore the lot of them and seek other, non-scientific views; there are plenty of dubious people ready and willing to have their say.
I will have to accept the majority of scientists opinions as it's not an area wholesale I've researched, doesn't mean I won't doubt particular presentations especially when presented as Al Gore did it. For it to change it'll have to make money for someone, but I can't abide it's shiny salesmen like Al Gore and Richard Branson. Fly them to the moon.
That's simply false. The Guardian for example have been covering it extensively for days.
The problem is, this can be used to doubt anything. I think 'believing' in it is a slightly misleading choice of word, as modern science bases theories on observation and noting down whether something happens, not simply what scientists believe. If the thing doesn't happen, or something happens that isn't explained by the theory then it is re-scrutinised. Most of our crazy ideas of the past were made when this wasn't established practice, and we effectively guessed. Sure, we used to believe that the body was made up of 4 liquids that had to be in perfect balance in order for us to healthy, but that doesn't mean we're now wrong about blood and haemoglobin and cells.
I think at the end of the day there's a limit to doubting science as it does ultimately work: we might not have got all the details exactly right but people do get better, structures do stay up, certain chemicals do mix.
Personally, I see no reason to suddenly doubt science now, I can only assume people do so because it's telling them something they don't want to hear. I often hear arguments about 'greenies jumping on the bandwagon' or 'government control' etc. as somehow arguments against the science of climate change. If they want to argue about misuse of the threat then fine whatever, but don't pretend that that somehow means the threat itself doesn't exist - it's been established by the scientific consensus of every major scientific body in the world.
This is my exact position. As yet, I've never seen anyone explain in rational and detailed terms why it's a conspiracy. I haven't even seen any justification why the 'elite' would want the conspiracy. For example, climate change is disastrous for the oil companies, who are pretty much as elite as you can get and have huge sway on global policy. The fact that the Republicans and Fox news oppose it vehemently is almost an argument for it in itself - since when were they not tied to the 'elite'?
Fair comment.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009
make of it what you will.
Exxon funding climate change denial groups...
Scientists do have a vested interest in making predictions in order to maintain funding. Just an old cynics view perhaps but the 1970 stuff made quite interesting reading don`t you think ?
Interestingly enough, and I haven't gone back and tired to find it, but the essence of the discussion I was trying to have with Bigsterra, BFR, Leroy, etc was around the motives and self interest of the scientists involved. As a result I actually came in for some personal abuse (another reason I drew a line under that thread).
Their argument being that those involved in studying Climate Change would never dream of manipulating/cherry picking the figures to support their point of view and agenda and they are only ever interested in publishing peer reviewed, unbiased, statistically sustainable evidence. Hmmm...
My biggest issue is not that this organisation have subsequently been shown to conduct themselves in an extremely unprofessional, unethical way but that, as a result of this, Governments around the world are taking huge decisions based on their research. You may not know it but the CCU is hugely influential and their work forms much of the basis for IPCC policy. Personally, I think we'd all be better off without Prof Jones being in a position of such influence.
...........
Don't cry foul...
You assert that AGW isn't happening, that the science for it is flawed, but won't accept that Exxon (amongst others) have been funding the denialist cause, why would they do that? And why do you choose to ignore it, while making the tired assumption that pro-AGW are baised in their research?
The researchers at East Anglia's Uni CRU have done a great deal of harm to scientific truth - not just global warming research and that has been seized upon with glee by those whi have an axe to grind, but I don't see any evidence that glaciers have stopped melting, that sea levels are falling, or that arctic/antartic ice shelves are growing thicker.
Have you looked at that web site? I mean, really....
Selective quoting is tedious, unhelpful and typical of people on any side of an argument who prefer rhetoric to reason. I would agree that anyone who makes predictions as specific as these is/was asking for it, although several of them are not that far from the truth if you take out the foolish specifics.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the subject I think, with proper references and notes:
Wiki link
It also includes a useful section on 'debate and skepticism' and the discussion page has further debate if anyone is intereted.
All sorts of people including scientists are biased and manipulative. The great thing about science is that it progresses despite those all-too-human biases and agendas. Mainly that is because science is based on proving things are wrong. If one scientist's theory can be proved wrong then other scientists will keep at it until they have done just that - it is a highly competitive field. A theory that cannot in principle be proved wrong isn't a scientific theory at all.
At its best, all this is sometimes exemplified by the climate change debate. Unfortunately for the most part it has become - inevitably - highly politicised. To suggest however that scientists collectively have a vested interest in perpetuating a lie is just wrong. Absurdly so.