Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 149

Thread: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    The leaked emails appear to contain evidence of this type of collusion. Read them if you wish. They're all here...
    Suckerrrrrr!

    Good rule of thumb: if Glen Beck, Bill O'Riley and the Daily Mail agree on something, all people who can think are on the other side.

    In all the hoo-hah about these emails, two - count them, two - have been accused of being the equivalent of a smoking gun. An additional email is agreed to have shown a startling lack of judgment on the part of a senior academic.

    If you believe the climate change deniers, you are in the same position as the evolution nay-sayers. Oo, look - Piltdown man. Oo, look - evidence birds aren't closely related to dinosaurs. Oo, look - a revolving molecule in a cell wall - too complicated to arise by chance. Oo, look - EBNS violates the second law of thermodynamics...

    This is tantamount to donning a set of blinkers, walking into a football stadium full of fans, focussing on two empty seats in the front row and announcing that the logical conclusion is that the stadium's empty. Hey! Cloth ears! Can't you hear them? Can't you smell them? Quit it with the blinkers and look around. Doh!

  2. #22
    Dickie Davies' love-child Cruella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rugby
    Posts
    6,159
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    You can see this in operation in Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
    I fell asleep about a third of the way through this film! How does it end?

  3. #23
    Registered User Whitebeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheltenham, Glouce
    Posts
    2,307
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    ......... Oo, look - evidence birds aren't closely related to dinosaurs. ........
    But Freddie Hoyle wrote a book about that with his chum Chiandra Thingamummyjig. It's there in black and white. It must be true. The fossil's a ('n elaborate) fake !!

    I suppose he made a pretty penny or two out of that. (And ruined his remaining scientific reputation, to whit.)

    The maverick scientist: either he's a true visionary, a self-deluding ignoramus, or a cynical opportunist. We have the unenviable task of, in our relative ignorance, judging, choosing, guessing, which.
    Last edited by Whitebeard; 9th-December-2009 at 12:53 AM. Reason: Spelling, what-ho.

  4. #24
    Registered User knightengale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    aberdeen
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Floating ice will not affect sea level much when it melts. However there is a lot of ice on land masses that will. There will probably be a lot of earth quakes an perhaps volcanic activity too as the enormous weight is removed.
    Good point never thought about the ice on the land

  5. #25
    Registered User knightengale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    aberdeen
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    If you believe the climate change deniers, you are in the same position as the evolution nay-sayers. Oo, look - Piltdown man. Oo, look - evidence birds aren't closely related to dinosaurs. Oo, look - a revolving molecule in a cell wall - too complicated to arise by chance. Oo, look - EBNS violates the second law of thermodynamics...
    Actually the theory of evolution is still very much a theory as it doesn't provide all the facts. It does work for the big things to some level (birds and dinosaurs etc). But there is a lot of holes in it as well.

    Perfect example is the brain development of the Neanderthal to homosapien.
    If evolution was the only explanation then brain cell development would have been one of two ways

    1) a steady 10,000 (ish) additional cells every generation. which when you look at the findings this doesn't work out.
    2) a sudden development of millions of additional cells. which would then have to suddenly be able to function and collectly and fit into the head of a Neanderthal and then be able to be passed on to the next generation.

    Then you also have the current evidence that there has been no brain changes in the last 50,000 years for the homspaien, which doesnt work if evolution is the only answer. Granted it's part of the answer to where we came from but again isn't all the facts.

    It's the very reason it's called "the theory of evolution" and not the "fact of evolution"

    (this is def off the topic though so I'll end there)

    The reason i say questioning is the only way to get to the facts. This takes years to millions of years to get real answers.

    Perfect example is that science still doesn't know for sure how taste works, they have ideas but not 100% sure on it. They guess it's something to do with the atoms in the food connecting to the sensors in our nose and tongue. but aren't sure how lol.
    Last edited by knightengale; 9th-December-2009 at 10:41 AM.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Right.

    ->Rolls up sleeves<-
    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    Actually the theory of evolution is still very much a theory as it doesn't provide all the facts.
    First error - and a schoolboy one at that. You are using the wrong version of the word 'theory'. EBNS is a theory in the same way that 'gravity' is a theory or 'quantum mechanics' is a theory or that germs (viz. bacteria, fungus, viruses) are responsible for infectious and contagious diseases is a 'theory'. You are using theory in the following sense: 'I have a theory that good dancers are good in bed'. {NB I am open to suggestions as to experimental methodologies in respect of that theory. Anyone know if I can get a grant?}
    It does work for the big things to some level (birds and dinosaurs etc). But there is a lot of holes in it as well.
    The weird thing about EBNS is that it either works, or it doesn't. As a loose re-statement of the theory for the purposes of this discussion, it would be something like 'the biological organised complexity that we observe around us has been produced by selection pressure, operating on population variations and mutations, leading to adaptations which over time may result in speciation'. If there are any proved exceptions (as opposed to - hmm, I can't work out how that happened...) then then the theory is wholly wrong.
    Perfect example is the brain development of the Neanderthal to homosapien.
    If evolution was the only explanation then brain cell development would have been one of two ways
    1) a steady 10,000 (ish) additional cells every generation. which when you look at the findings this doesn't work out.
    2) a sudden development of millions of additional cells. which would then have to suddenly be able to function and collectly and fit into the head of a Neanderthal and then be able to be passed on to the next generation.
    Er... that's complete rubbish. Please cite some research, or give some - any - rationale for your assertions a) that Neanderthals evolved into homo sapiens in the first place and b) that the two options you have given are the only options.
    Then you also have the current evidence that there has been no brain changes in the last 50,000 years for the homspaien, which doesnt work if evolution is the only answer. Granted it's part of the answer to where we came from but again isn't all the facts.
    See above for why evolution is wholly correct or wholly wrong.
    It's the very reason it's called "the theory of evolution" and not the "fact of evolution"
    See above under 'schoolboy error'.
    The reason i say questioning is the only way to get to the facts. This takes years to millions of years to get real answers.

    Perfect example is that science still doesn't know for sure how taste works, they have ideas but not 100% sure on it. They guess it's something to do with the atoms in the food connecting to the sensors in our nose and tongue. but aren't sure how.
    So...you're saying because science declares that is uncertain in respect of some things, it must be considered uncertain about everything else? Ummm - no.

    The passage in The blind watchmaker which made me realise I was reading the work of a great writer was this. Dawkins quoted a Bishop, who in a book challenging evolution as the explanation for modern biological complexity, claimed that as the polar bear has no predators, there is no reason that evolution should have 'made' it white.

    Dawkins characterised this as 'the argument from personal incredulity'. He paraphrased it thus: "I, being an upper class Englishman sitting in my study, never having visited the Arctic or studied the polar bear, have been unable so far to think of an explanation for why it should be white."

    He went on to say "I suspect if the Bishop tries to imagine a black or grizzly bear trying to sneak up on a seal over the Arctic whiteness, he will rapidly have his answer."

    Michael Behe is the current champion of the 'argument from personal incredulity'. He wrote Darwin's Black Box, among others. He dresses his perplexity up in different forms, appealing to 'information theory', e.g., and he has invented 'irreducible complexity'. He says 'this particular [usually cellular] feature is complex such that, if any one of its elements was removed, it cannot function; this means the feature cannot have had an ‘evolutionary precursor’ from which it might have evolved as the most recent step in a gradual process, since that precursor would have had no function; since evolution says something with no function will be ‘selected against’ and die out in the population, therefore the feature cannot have arisen by variation within the population. Obviously it cannot have arisen by chance mutation because the probability of all the elements coming together in one go is effectively zero'. (He used the human clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum as early examples.)

    His argument (which I may have summarised very badly; I have no more intention of reading his books that I do of reading The revelation of St John) fails on two points. First of all, the theory of EBNS does not forbid useless developments; it simply says that the probability of a non-functional feature remaining in the organism over generations is inversely proportional to the 'biological cost' of retaining the feature. (Something that 'costs a lot to run', like a peacock's tail, will die out if it does not confer a selection advantage on males that have bigger and brighter tails.) Secondly, removing an element from a feature does not necessarily reveal a non-functional precursor; it could equally mean that the precursor will have a different function. Over the course of time since he wrote the book, Behe has been proved wrong by research gradually showing how, e.g., the bacterial flagellum is closely related chemically and genetically to (and therefore potentially evolvable from) much less spectacular cellular mechanics.

    In conclusion therefore - be aware that most people who say 'Oh, it's impossible to imagine how this or that phenomenon could be explained by evolution' are saying much more about failures in their thought processes than they are about failures in the theory of evolution by natural selection.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    In all the hoo-hah about these emails, two - count them, two - have been accused of being the equivalent of a smoking gun. An additional email is agreed to have shown a startling lack of judgment on the part of a senior academic.
    The Times online website lists six emails that could be regarded as evidence of foul play. There are thousands of emails to trawl through, many more will almost certainly be added to those six over the coming weeks and months. The comments section beneath the article suggests that interested persons are doing that right now.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6940803.ece

    This extract of an email from one scientist to another gives a taster of the arrogance, unscientific, and unprofessional attitude of some of the scientists involved.

    "We have 25 years or so
    >invested in the work. Why should I make the data
    >available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

    Are these the sort of people we want influencing global policies? If the scientific analysis and arguments are robust then why the extreme defensive attitude? If they are aware that there could be problems with previously published work they need to do the right thing instead of sweeping it under the carpet. Reputations and careers could be badly affected, but hey, that's the only way to make progress.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    This is tantamount to donning a set of blinkers, walking into a football stadium full of fans, focussing on two empty seats in the front row and announcing that the logical conclusion is that the stadium's empty. Hey! Cloth ears! Can't you hear them? Can't you smell them? Quit it with the blinkers and look around. Doh!
    Well, I'm not sure what prompted that!
    Firstly, I'm not an out-and-out climate change denier, I just don't think there is enough reliable data yet. Secondly, if climate change is occurring I am concerned that we are not misled over the true cause of it (man-made versus natural cycles). I still have an open mind on both of those counts. Looking at the variety of posts on this thread so far it would appear that quite a few consider the science of climate change to be an open-and-shut-case, yourself included. Surely if I am keeping an open mind that makes me less blinkered than you and others.


    Lastly, I predict that this argument will not go away easily. The drip feed of revelations will do far more damage to the reputation of climate scientists than if those at the centre just came out and answered important questions. Surely it's only a matter of time before one of the major documentary makers employs a huge research team to trawl through all the leaked data.

  8. #28
    Registered User knightengale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    aberdeen
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Right.
    ....
    Simple answer please read what i wrote.

    So my 'school boy' error Is therefore the same 'error' that Stephen hawkin and alot of others are making then. As they are currently looking at wave theory to explain the currently theory of 'gravity'
    As gravity is known to exist but the actual source is unknown.

    See the current milti million Euro project to find the 'god particle' to try and explain mass

    I also think you are missing my point completely. I never said evolution
    isn't happneing.
    It's that it's the 100% fact / answer to it all that I disagree with.

    Scientsts still don't understand the how it worked or how it took place or alot of the small details. I.e why life started in the first place etc.


    See this as an example http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_statusofevolution.htm
    (Granted it's not the best link but the best i can find through work that isn't blocked)

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    In conclusion therefore - be aware that most people who say 'Oh, it's impossible to imagine how this or that phenomenon could be explained by evolution' are saying much more about failures in their thought processes than they are about failures in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
    In conclusion therefore - anyone that doesn't question and read everything as fact is saying alot more about failure in their throught processes than someone that is open to questioning himself and the information put across to them.

    Scientist don't know everything yet and nether did darwin then. So again yes evolution is happening and has happened for millions of years, but there is questions on teh small details that are still not answered and therefore evoltion is not the be all of the topic.

    - End of the evolution topic as this is not the point of this thread.

  9. #29
    Registered User knightengale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    aberdeen
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    Firstly, I'm not an out-and-out climate change denier, I just don't think there is enough reliable data yet. Secondly, if climate change is occurring I am concerned that we are not misled over the true cause of it (man-made versus natural cycles). I still have an open mind on both of those counts. Looking at the variety of posts on this thread so far it would appear that quite a few consider the science of climate change to be an open-and-shut-case, yourself included. Surely if I am keeping an open mind that makes me less blinkered than you and others.


  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post
    Surely it's only a matter of time before one of the major documentary makers employs a huge research team to trawl through all the leaked data.
    Not really. It's a matter of funding. FoxTV will probably do it, give it a hint...

    However, leaving that to one side for a minute. Here's my prediction.

    If anyone DOES trawl through it all, they will find nothing which offers a substantive challenge to the general theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    I base that prediction on the generality of evidence available to all of us.

    Even if all the scientists at the CRU turn out to be a bunch of amoral, unethical self-aggrandising jobsworths, there are thousands of scientists in dozens of disciplines in countries throughout the world who are all converging on agreement as to the degree of warming, the degree to which it is anthropogenic, the probable timescales and the likely effects.

    To suggest that all these scientists are doctoring results, designing self-fulfilling tests and experiments, concealing contradictory evidence, ignoring the enormous difficulties societies and countries must go through in order to emasculate their industrial capacity in order to reduce the speed and damage of (an allegedly non-existent) AGW, and the dangers to which individuals will be exposed as part of that same process - it's just more one of that woo-woo foolishness to which lazy thinkers are prone.

    There are two rational responses to the current scientific consensus, and one irrational one: a) "scientists and techologists will sort it out before it gets too painful"; b) "what can I do to start changing things"; c) "don't worry, God will provide".

    And there is the stupid response: "it's not really happening, it's just scaremongering scientists chasing research grants".

  11. #31
    Registered User MarkW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cheltenham
    Posts
    792
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    We've wandered into new areas from the original post. But I think I started it by responding more generally than the scope of the first post.

    We've got into discussions on what science is and critiques on how the climate change research is being carried out.

    I had thought we were talking about what, if anything, we should do and was explaining why taking steps needed to address climate change as if the mainstream theory is true made sense anyway. And I think that, on balance, the man made CO2 theory stands up well. CO2 is accepted to be a greenhouse gas, the disputes are about how significant this is in the scheme of things.

    Rocky's post says that, if an alternative theoretical view is correct (and this alternative view is also a theory subject to criticism and that may not be the answer to what is really happening) then temperatures will rise by 1% rather than 3-4% under the same environmental conditions. So this new approach is not entirely contradictory but proposes that a different mechanism is more significant and the mainstream theory is overestimating the significance of CO2.

    [techie note: When quoting temperature changes as a % it helps to say which temperature scale is being used as different scales have different zeroes. e.g. A 1% change in temperature on the Kelvin scale (which starts from absolute zero) is much greater in absolute terms than a 1% change in Celsius (which starts close to the temperature water freezes at). A 1% change from 20C is 0.2C. A 1% change from 293K is 2.93K = 2.93C.]

    From what I can see the whole research process is proceeding normally with the addition that it is much more public than most research because of the impact climate change could have on our lives. There are also commercial and political interests at stake which always makes getting at the truth more difficult. I researched measuring techniques and results on the hardness of metals many years ago. This was not as important as global warming but did have the advantage of being free from political processes.

    It is often hard for scientists to get funding. Scienctific research exists as part of the world and needs money to keep going. I googled the CLOUD project at CERN and found it was first proposed in April 2000. Things at CERN take a long time because the equipment is very advanced and very expensive. CERN is a flagship of the European scientific establishment and is funded by the EU member states. So what is happening is that an alternative theory on climate change is being researched at quite a high cost and funded, at least in part maybe in full, by EU governments in this instance.

    I'm not sure why the idea that governments will raise taxes based on the evironment is seen as a conspiracy. Governments change taxes on different things all the time. They take a view on where the economy is, what the tax takes might be, how much public sector borrowing is OK if needed etc and set taxes accordingly. I think that they also use taxes to influence behaviour, e.g. on petrol and cigarettes. All the tax in the UK goes into one pot. National insurance is not put aside and spent only on health, unemployment benefits and pensions for example. Tax on petrol does not all go into environmental research either. When tax increases are deemed necessary then economics and politics both come into play. If one tax increase is deemed more politically acceptable than another then the government is very likely to take the more politically acceptable route so its chances of being re-elected are greater.

    My view is: let's reduce the rate of polluting the planet as much as possible in general, let's conserve fossil fuels as a valuable resource we only have in finite quantities and which are used not just for fuel but other areas as well, let's continue understanding how the earth's climate changes over time and what drives that, let's not get bogged down in conspiracy theories that seem designed to do no more than distract us and stop us taking sensible action at a global level.

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Sigh. Oh very well.
    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    Simple answer please read what i wrote.
    Sounds fair. Can't read what you didn't write, right?
    So my 'school boy' error Is therefore the same 'error' that Stephen hawkin and alot of others are making then. As they are currently looking at wave theory to explain the currently theory of 'gravity'
    As gravity is known to exist but the actual source is unknown.
    Um...no. No schoolboy error as to the difference between the scientific usage of the word 'theory' and the everyday layman's use of the word; not on my part, nor on the part of Stephen Hawking. The theory of gravity is not a simple untested hypothesis; it has been understood since Newton, refined by Einstein. The problem with gravity is not a problem with the theory it is the problem of incorporating it into other theories, in particular quantum mechanics. It is part of the current model that the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force, are manifested by an exchange of particles - the gluon, for instance. However, attempts to detect the 'graviton' have been unsuccessful. That is an inconsistency which troubles physicists.
    See the current milti million Euro project to find the 'god particle' to try and explain mass.
    Well, nearly, but not quite. Finding evidence of the Higgs boson will offer some additional evidence in favour of the theory that different sub-atomic particles obtain all their characteristics (rather than just some of them) from the even smaller particles - bosons, quarks and leptons - of which they are made. The particular characteristic the Higgs boson is thought to impart is mass.
    I also think you are missing my point completely. I never said evolution
    isn't happneing.
    It's that it's the 100% fact / answer to it all that I disagree with.
    And my point is that if EBNS is the answer to some of the questions, it is the answer to all of them. If there are any questions (within its place in science) that it cannot answer then the whole thing fails.
    Scientsts still don't understand the how it worked or how it took place or a lot of the small details.
    Which details do you say scientists don't understand?
    I.e why life started in the first place etc.
    Er...that isn't one of evolution's questions. From the outset of the theory, the question of origins is left outside evolution; it's within biology, perhaps, certainly within biochemistry, but it isn't an evolution question.

    Other things which aren't evolution questions: what's the specific gravity of beer, is there such a thing as a perpetual motion machine, can you really talk to people who died last week, and how long is a piece of string.
    See this as an example http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/qirn_...fevolution.htm
    (Granted it's not the best link but the best i can find through work that isn't blocked)
    Access Research Network? Are you KIDDING? Scientifically speaking, those people couldn't find their arse with both hands and a flashlight.

    Still, at least I know now that you are contaminated. I have to be careful now because, like with zombies, if you can't get a clean shot through the head the creature might live to infect someone else...
    In conclusion therefore - anyone that doesn't question and read everything as fact is saying al ot more about failure in their throught processes than someone that is open to questioning himself and the information put across to them.
    Er...OK.

    No doubt you intended that sentence to be more - intelligible - than it is.
    Scientist don't know everything yet and nether did darwin then. So again yes evolution is happening and has happened for millions of years, but there is questions on teh small details that are still not answered and therefore evoltion is not the be all of the topic.
    We dealt with this. Science's strength is its acknowledgement of the areas of ignorance. That doesn't mean the whole of science is thrown into doubt by the areas of ignorance. They are simply signposts to the fruitful areas to investigate.

    Next time you sit down to watch telly you aren't going to tell yourself that scientists don't know what electromagnetic radiation is and how to exploit it merely because no-one has yet observed Hawking radiation in action.
    - End of the evolution topic as this is not the point of this thread.
    Eh? Who died and made you moderator?
    Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 9th-December-2009 at 02:31 PM. Reason: Curses. several boo-boos - shouldn't eat and type...

  13. #33
    Registered User knightengale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    aberdeen
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    I am leaving this thread as Barry Shnikov is starting to be rather arrogant & pointless and completely off topic. I will no longer contiune adding a view when we have someone that is closed to any views that disagrees with them..

  14. #34
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    I am leaving this thread as Barry Shnikov is starting to be rather arrogant & pointless and completely off topic. I will no longer contiune adding a view when we have someone that is closed to any views that disagrees with them..
    Don't worry, it's well accepted that Barry is always the first to bleat that others are 'blinkered' when he's the one with his head buried in the sand up to his ars$!

    His 'facts' are wrong and when I've got a little time later on I'll take them apart for you..

  15. #35
    Dickie Davies' love-child Cruella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rugby
    Posts
    6,159
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    His 'facts' are wrong and when I've got a little time later on I'll take them apart for you..
    You know that Knightingale's a fella, right?

  16. #36
    Registered User Jhutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Balham, S. London
    Posts
    855
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bubble View Post

    "We have 25 years or so
    >invested in the work. Why should I make the data
    >available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
    Depends on how you look at it. If you had spent 25 years working on something and you thought that someone was going to try their best to misrepresent it in the media then would you really want to hand it over?

    Not saying that's what he was thinking but that email doesnt mean that he is worried that people would actually find things wrong

    It seems it was addressed to a Warwick Hughes. Never heard of him before but judging by his website below he and Jones have some previous

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/

  17. #37
    Registered User Jhutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Balham, S. London
    Posts
    855
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    I agree a bit , as the CO2 in the ice layers does give some information. but doesn't give all the facts of the planet at these times. ice from 1 million years ago will give you the CO2 level, but not a full weather pattern of the time. Grant it's worth taking into account, but not enough to be used as fact. Actual daily weather records are only 200 years worth anything after that is very patchy
    We dont have accurate weather charts from hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of years ago, but we can only work with the data that we have. Proxy (yes there is an 'r' in there!) data can extend back the record further although this isnt directly measured. What are we supposed to do, just ignore everything because we dont have full data for hundreds of thousands of years??

    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    Also Ice layers are great for the 1 million years to 3 billion years (ish) level of information. Anything before of after this time is ether too early for the ice layers to be thick enough or to far back for
    Have you any links there? Most of the ice layers are less than one million years old - ice tends to flow towards the sea so a lot is destroyed before a million years is up. As for it going back billions of years.... continental drift means that the climatic conditions across continents varies as they drift north and south. Antarctica for instance had a tropical to subtropical climate 65 millions years ago. I think that having one ice cap (let alone two!) is quite unusual in earth's history.

    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    I agree very with that global warming / climent change is happening, although that we are the cause i very much disagree with.
    It's like saying there was zero change before humans came along. The planet has been changing for alot longer than humans have been on teh planet and will continue to change with or without us here.
    Just because it has changed in the past, it doesnt mean that we cant be affecting it at the moment.

    As most siencets actually disagree with the conclusions.. i.e Sicentest still work in theories and possible outcomes with differnent level of possible outcomes being writing. It's then the media that the worstcase as to be facts to sell papers etc
    [/quote]

    I agree here. For instance, a range may be 1 to 6C with a most probable outcome of 2.5. This sometimes gets transmitted as 'scientists forecast warming could be 6C,' or 'scientists forecast 6C warming,' which gives a misleading impression of the actual forecast.
    Quote Originally Posted by knightengale View Post
    I agree in part that evidence does fall in teh part that the climate is changing but not on the part that proves 100% that we are the main cause or a cause at all. There is alot more information we as a race do not have and will not be able to have for sure.

    You then have the fact if the world really wanted to change peoples habits, then they would / could have given each person in the uk some cash help to change tehre car etc. Rather than make money out of it. If it was such and 'end is near' time thing then why make money out of it rather than change it. The goverments of the world were very fast in handing out money to the banks and that wasn't really that important compaired to 'end is near' type events....

    Granted all this is my view on what i have heard and read (excluding news sites / TV programs as they are always going to side with the 'popular' / 'allow' view.
    Where do you get your information from then?

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    His 'facts' are wrong and when I've got a little time later on I'll take them apart for you..
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruella View Post
    You know that Knightingale's a fella, right?
    You're thinking maybe Rocky missed the final 'e', reading it as Nightengal?

    @Rocky: doubtless that will be entertaining for those of us who don't have you on ignore...

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    290
    Rep Power
    8

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    I'm not sure why the idea that governments will raise taxes based on the evironment is seen as a conspiracy. Governments change taxes on different things all the time. They take a view on where the economy is, what the tax takes might be, how much public sector borrowing is OK if needed etc and set taxes accordingly. I think that they also use taxes to influence behaviour, e.g. on petrol and cigarettes. All the tax in the UK goes into one pot. National insurance is not put aside and spent only on health, unemployment benefits and pensions for example. Tax on petrol does not all go into environmental research either. When tax increases are deemed necessary then economics and politics both come into play. If one tax increase is deemed more politically acceptable than another then the government is very likely to take the more politically acceptable route so its chances of being re-elected are greater.
    There never needed to be a conspiracy at all. Our government told us we were having higher taxes on petrol and new taxes on air travel. They could've left it at that; but they didn't. For years they've also been telling us that the reason we must pay higher taxes in these areas is to reduce our carbon footprint. They have made the link, and as soon as the link is made there needs to be a sound scientific basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    My view is: let's reduce the rate of polluting the planet as much as possible in general, let's conserve fossil fuels as a valuable resource we only have in finite quantities and which are used not just for fuel but other areas as well, let's continue understanding how the earth's climate changes over time and what drives that, let's not get bogged down in conspiracy theories that seem designed to do no more than distract us and stop us taking sensible action at a global level.
    I agree, energy efficiency savings make sound economic and business sense, we also have a moral obligation to future generations to keep the planet clean. However, that doesn't mean that scientists and politicians are absolved from being straight with us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jhutch View Post
    Depends on how you look at it. If you had spent 25 years working on something and you thought that someone was going to try their best to misrepresent it in the media then would you really want to hand it over?

    Not saying that's what he was thinking but that email doesnt mean that he is worried that people would actually find things wrong

    It seems it was addressed to a Warwick Hughes. Never heard of him before but judging by his website below he and Jones have some previous

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/
    As I said before, if the scientific analysis and arguments are sound and robust let them stand up to repeated scrutiny over time. As for the media, let's face it, the mainstream media is always going to present all kinds of distortions or be selective in what they publish. What really matters is the proper peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately, in this case the leaked emails seem to contain evidence of collusion to suppress undesirable findings from other researchers and even requests to delete all correspondence relating to certain areas of research. I'm not suggesting that climate change scientists are the only academics to have acted in this way, however, if they have influence on global policies it's important that we are not being misled.

  20. #40
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Have the climate change camp had their fun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    If you believe the climate change deniers, you are in the same position as the evolution nay-sayers...
    ....Quit it with the blinkers and look around. Doh!
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    ..Here's my prediction.

    If anyone DOES trawl through it all, they will find nothing which offers a substantive challenge to the general theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    ...And there is the stupid response: "it's not really happening, it's just scaremongering scientists chasing research grants".
    Doh! Now that is STUPID!

    If anthropegenic CO2 is the cause of current Global warming and there is a proven link, explain to us all Barry why:

    Since 1998 there has been a documented fall in Global tempreatures of 0.4° C despite a documented increase in anthropegenic CO2?
    Documented temperatures in Europe between 1945 and 1970 cooled by 0.3-0.4° C despite it being a period of intense post war industrial activity with obvious increases in anthropegenic CO2?
    Why there was a marked increase in Global tempreatures during the Medieval period of 1100-1400 AD followed by 'The Little Ice Age' in the 16th and 17th Century despite there being no known documented anthropogenic event to trigger them?
    Why despite the fact that CO2 levels are fairly uniform globally why this has not resulted in uniform Global temperature changes?
    Why despite the fact that some scientists claim a link to anthropegenic CO2 causing Global temperature increases that many areas report experiences of having endured extremely cold winters with snow in Buenois Aires, Johannesburg, Athens, the US and Shanghai and with NE Australia reporting the coldest winter on record?


    And while you're at it also explain to us all why:

    CO2 levels that were 100 times higher than they are today led to the coolest period in our planets history over 600 million years ago and not the warmest?
    And why Global temperature changes more closely follow solar activity than CO2 production?

    Actually you needn’t bother because I can tell you why these things cannot be explained. Firstly, it’s because the instrumentation to take accurate measurements of Global atmospheric changes have only be available for 50 years or so. This means that there is no way of making accurate predictions based on historical data and instead what climologists are doing are making ‘weight adjusted’ predictions (and for ‘weight adjusted’ you can read – they are making data fit their hypothesis..) And secondly, it’s because it’s virtually impossible to fully separate, measure and account for the true effects of water vapour, cloud formation and solar activity on Global atmospheric changes. So what we’re left with is an unproven theory on anthropegenic CO2 that has no real basis in historical fact and that cannot, and does not, take account of the other effects that impact Global temperatures – and not only that, it is also a theory that is fundamentally flawed as it is an absolute fact that Global temperatures have DECREASED over the last 10 years in direct contradiction to the evidence of an increased level of anthropegenic CO2....

    This is a corker though…

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Even if all the scientists at the CRU turn out to be a bunch of amoral, unethical self-aggrandising jobsworths, there are thousands of scientists in dozens of disciplines in countries throughout the world who are all converging on agreement as to the degree of warming, the degree to which it is anthropogenic, the probable timescales and the likely effects.


    My goodness you really have been suckered in by the media hype haven’t you? To suggest that there are thousands of scientists that agree with hypothesis maybe true, but what you’re forgetting to mention is that there are 10’s of 1,000’s of scientist from across the World who don’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Suckerrrrrr!


    When the IPPC (4AR WG 1) presented its report in 2007 on Global warming it was presented as the ‘bible’ of climate change science and was widely reported by the media and political institutions as absolute proof of the effects of anthropogenic CO2… But as soon as it was published many scientists started to realize that the scope of the report was flawed. The most consistent comments were that it implied a degree of certainty that was not supported by evidence. Special criticism was made of the panel’s reliance on predictions from mathematical models whose accuracy was disputed even by the modellers who worked on them! The late Fred Seitz a physicist of Oregon University organized an online petition questioning the link between Global Warming and CO2 and this petition received 33,000 signatures from US scientists alone…

    Later in 2007, some 400 hundred climate scientists and astrophysicists from around the World, some of whom were on this or other IPCC panels, (four times the number than who drew up the initial IPCC report), produced a second document (US Senate report: ‘400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Global Man-Made Global Warming Claims) condemning the conclusions of the report as unproven, alarmist and wrong.

    So… Umm what this report was saying is that the concept of anthropegenic CO2 is just scaremongering scientists chasing research grants’. (what a ‘stupid response..’) and guess what? it is also a substantive challenge to the general theory of anthropogenic global warming.’

    But those 400 eminent scientists and the 33,000 US scientists who signed the petition questioning the link between Global Warming and CO2 are obviously not as bright as you, are they Barry..

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Change of username request
    By Kathleen in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26th-May-2008, 09:28 PM
  2. how do I change my user name
    By ray.ferreday@talk in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 24th-April-2008, 02:11 PM
  3. SUNDAY HERALD - Change Your Life in 80 Ways
    By Sandy in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 22nd-January-2003, 12:29 AM
  4. Swing Sunday Xmas Party - change of venue
    By Lindsay in forum Social events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16th-December-2002, 09:27 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •