not just because im a fuzzy green global warming scientist type but because that delingpole was a complete plank

saw some comment about him griping on about it.

from what I read of stuff he does for the Telegraph he deserves everything he gets, tbh.

some comments on here are most amusing

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/25/horizon-science-under-attack-review

yep it was a funny moment. Total “pwnage” as they say

I “recommended” your comment over there…assuming it was you…seems like a safe assumption!

cheers ive found a new hobby – baiting telegraph readers

it is a bit easy though

Funny, there seems to be a bit of a backlash on already formulated ideas at the moment. In fact i think it was Horizon a few months ago that was putting forward the idea that the Big Bang Theory is flawed.

There is a woman at my work who has a microbiology degree and admitted herself that science is all basically theory, until another theory comes along.

There is a woman at my work who has a microbiology degree and admitted herself that science is all basically theory, until another theory comes along.

Think of it as a logical and rational way to look at everyday things around you.

That’s the trouble – when you’re actually working in a subject area you know that all you’ve got is a ‘best fit theory’ and half the challenge is to prove that wrong and come up with a new one. But by the time things reach the media they’re reported as facts, so Mr Average understandably gets confused when all the facts he’d been told (by scientists) get changed (by scientists).

Love the way on his blog he mentions a couple of harsh winters as evidence there is no such thing as climate change.

Is that all Delingpole had to offer? Jesus, they should have just sent along any first year undergraduate studying climate science to show him up.

I loved his baffled silence as the cancer analogy was put up he looked like a fish out of water.

So manmade global warming is a foregone conclusion on STW?

dunno about that 4banger but it is the overall consensus within the scientific community, but as the programme was pointing out last night scientists have failed to get this accross to the public and a few very vocal opponents (clarckson, foxnews, the oil industry, the telegraph, the daily mail etc) mean that the public dont accept this

Nope, just the general scientific concensus.

There’s a massive difference between weather and climate as any fule kno.

We’re staring down the barrel (no pun intended) of Peak Oil over the next few years, surely carbon emissions are going to fall as a result anyway?

Not at all I’m still open minded about it. There are so many factors that influence GW however I think that polluting less and being more efficient are probably good things to aim for. It’s always good to see a **** from the shit sheets getting his nuts handed to him on a plate. I especially liked “my job is to interpet the interpreter” shyster, that’s all he is.

Nah, I was picking holes in that program all over the place last night[*], but I thought it was using GW as a vehicle for the argument about ‘why people don’t trust science’ rather than being explicitly about ‘why people don’t trust climate science’.

[*] for instance the wonderfully predictive cloud model – ‘looking right’ and ‘being right’ are two very different things.

thepurist – Member
That’s the trouble – when you’re actually working in a subject area you know that all you’ve got is a ‘best fit theory’ and half the challenge is to prove that wrong and come up with a new one. But by the time things reach the media they’re reported as facts, so Mr Average understandably gets confused when all the facts he’d been told (by scientists) get changed (by scientists).

The problem is also giving correct weighting to different theories. E.G. theory X may have may have one paper on a small sample size and theory Y might have 10 years and 100s of papers e.t.c.

The suggestion at the end of the horizon program about scientist talking to the press more wouldn’t really solve the problem IMO. The press will take a statement out of context and twist it e.t.c to show what they want. The problem is that day to day journalism is never going to report any science that has the possibility to be used for political gain in fair and balanced manor. It’s at odds with what they are trying to achieve; which is of course anger, fear, hysteria, all things which sell papers.

PJM1974 – Member

We’re staring down the barrel (no pun intended) of Peak Oil over the next few years, surely carbon emissions are going to fall as a result anyway?

there’s plenty of coal that we’ll be very happy to burn the moment it looks like peak oil is biting.

deforestation is a major source of CO2, watch how quickly the worlds forests get burned once 7billion people starting running out of heating/cooking fuel.

CO2 emissions aren’t coming down any time soon.

So manmade global warming is a foregone conclusion on STW?

No it’s just the most likely interpretation of all the current information available, as agreed by most scientists.

Still, Clarkson knows best eh?

Nope, just the general scientific concensus.

Talking with friends about this over dinner Saturday night. He (phd in stats, UCL stats lecturer, doing research on the climate change models) says the models are largely verified on a global scale despite their incredible complexity and that the trends are apparent. I think he said ‘it’s just thermodynamics’. It’s at smaller, more local scales that the effects are still impossible to predict due to lack of understanding of how factors interact. He also said climate scientists haven’t done themselves too many favours, but thinks that the manipulation of data while wrong was still within allowable tolerances.
HIs wife (phd in stats, works in industry) disputes climate change. The stoniness in her face during the discussion was a picture, with her comments limited to things along the lines of ‘Are you sure about that?’. I’d bet they’ve had some nice ‘discussions’ about this. Unity in the scientific community?

* A lot of the above may be incorrect- I have no understanding of the subject, and it was over a few bottles of wine.

We’re staring down the barrel (no pun intended) of Peak Oil over the next few years

Naaaaaaaa, I’ll be long dead before oil is used up, we might find something better to replace it with, but I dont think we’ll leave it behind just becasue theres none left.

Look at history, we had an oil ‘crisis’ in the 70’s, 40 years later we’re still building bigger and bigger refineries like there’s no tomorrow.

Pwned

Christ he got hammered in it, 2:40 to 3:20 is classic

Talking with friends about this over dinner Saturday night.

I reckon that’s one of those dinner party subjects that’s probably best avoided!

best estimates put the world’s oil reserves at around 3,000,000,000,000 barrels.

we’re using around 80,000,000 barrels per day.

that’s…

about 100 years left, if we can continue to extract it at the current rate (80,000,000 barrels per day)

we, can’t, it’s getting harder and harder to extract.

assuming a roughly linear fall in oil-consumption until it’s exhausted, we’ve got 200 years before the oil is gone – but the last few decades will see next to zero oil-use by today’s standards.

in 100 years’ we’ll still be using about 40,000,000 barrels per day.

in other words, we’ve got 100 years to get used to using half the amount we do today.

we’d be fine if it wasn’t for all the pesky CO2…

(and the catastrophic environmental damage incurred from extracting oil from tar-sands etc.)

Wow he really comes across as an idiot in that interview!

No it’s just the most likely interpretation of all the current information available, as agreed by most scientists.

Still, Clarkson knows best eh?

A lot of people will make a lot of money off the back of climate change. I could be viewed as a bit of a fence sitter but I think a healthy degree of skepticism is a good thing. I don’t really see what Clarkson has to do with anything though.

A lot of people will make a lot of money off the back of climate change.

Undoubtedly. Just like a lot of people make a lot of money off the back of suggesting it is a myth. James Delingpole probably does ok out of it despite seemingly being a complete moron.

Skepticism is good.

skeptics ask good questions like; ‘are you sure?’ – ‘have you double checked that?’ – ‘let me have a look at that’

skeptics make good scientists, as long as they don’t fall from; ‘are you sure?’ to ‘i don’t care about the facts’

It’s not how much oil is left, it is how much it costs to extract. We are nearing the end of cheap oil. The theory about peak oil is that our world economy depends on cheap oil, and so we will soon start to see the problems begin, as opposed to having to wait until the oil runs out.

After saying that, Brazil has recently made some more discoveries which has increased the totals, but hey, I guess that means we can soon expect to see Al Qaeda in action here and the US invade 🙁

And Peter Sissons has written a good account of his time at the BBC and their attitude to Climate Change:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

For me, I want to be able to consider the possibility that we are entering a period of climate instability, and that this may have a number of causes, e.g. sun spots etc as well as man made causes, but I resent the fact that I am cynically being branded a “denier”, a deliberately emotive word, just for wanting to question the science and not be duped by scientists faking results because of the money involved.

ahwiles – Member
best estimates put the world’s oil reserves at around 3,000,000,000,000 barrels.

we’re using around 80,000,000 barrels per day.

Use is increasing though, that makes a big difference.

scientists faking results because of the money involved.

Ha!

Scientist don’t make money out of this.

not be duped by scientists faking results

There have been well documented cases of faked scientific results in the last few years. Those involved, when discovered, lose their jobs, reputations and any chance of future employment whether they are a lab head or a PhD student.
To suggest that all climate change science is based on a conspiracy is a leap of faith that I can’t take, especially as the money is with the oil/coal men. It is the deniers and controversialists that I suspect are in it for the money. It has happened before, big tobacco had a coordinated campaign to confuse the public about the risks of smoking. It worked.

A lot of people will make a lot of money off the back of climate change. I could be viewed as a bit of a fence sitter but I think a healthy degree of skepticism is a good thing. I don’t really see what Clarkson has to do with anything though

skeptisimis a good thing but ignoring the videnc eis not being a skeptic it is being ignorant

It is a really poor argument to suggest the world scientists made up this theory – with all the supporting divergent evidence – just to make money – it is just mud throwing as you haveno actual data whilst ebing an open minded fence sitting skeptic. They could all probably earn much more by leaving their current jobs anyway – say by being apopulist journalist with a poor grasp of the subject you write on for example. Scientists genreally do it for a thirts for knowledge not money

I want to be able to consider the possibility that we are entering a period of climate instability, and that this may have a number of causes, e.g. sun spots etc as well as man made causes, but I resent the fact that I am cynically being branded a “denier”, a deliberately emotive word, just for wanting to question the science and not be duped by scientists faking results because of the money involved

But the scientists and the programme explained how sun spots cannot account for the change and it it is just cherry picking the data to use it alone. You can question evolution if you want but dont think we cant point and laugh at you whilst you do Simon. I beleive the deniers do much mor emud slinging than scientist but basically you do deny the shared scientific consensus agreed by all credible scientific institutions. What would you prefer as a label ?

not be duped by scientists faking results because of the money involved

it is when you stay stuff like that this that peole thinlk you are atad hysterical ar eyou really accusing all the owlrds scientists if duping the evidence from ice cores, to geology , to C02 readings to temperatures measures by land, sea, air amd satelites [ by a variety of independent agencies] in order to make money …. it is like saying we did not land on the moon but needs more people in the conspiracy except for non scientists who seem to have discovered the truth.

We were fairly shocked at Delingpole – first of all he says he’s not got a scientific background, and then he says its not his job to look at the scientific literature to back up his writing. So what the heck is his job? Does he not feel any responsibility towards his readership? Surely journalists are taught to follow up more on their story – check the facts – speak to people on both sides. But oh.. hold on a minute… that would spoil the story… I do hope that many many people were able to see just how inadequate mr bellendpoles responses were. I’m sure he’ll claim the program was biased… not that his viewpoint is biased – oh no.

I do agree that part of the responsibility lies with climate scientists (like me) and that we must work harder at discussing our science with the general public. But I also think journalists should work harder at understanding the science before publishing about a ‘scandal’ that doesn’t actually exist. There has to be a bit of give and effort on both sides if we are to make progress in educating the public about what we do, how we do it, and why it is important… As it is, scientists are constantly on the back foot because of over-reactions like that one. Now we have to meet the challenge square on rather than complaining about it (which I just did – oops).

from john sissons

It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time[global warming] that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.

SO sod the peer review literature and the dedication of the scientists on this subject I will just head straight ot Google and read what non scientists think scientists are wrong. I bet I can find some ace stuf on cures for cancers via Google should I now ignore oncologists – after all they are just in it for the money?

Whether climate change is man-made or not, these poor sods are facing a bleak future

and that we must work harder at discussing our science with the general public

Problem is they do not undeastand scientific doubt as it is eithe rmand made or it is not man made so why cant you just sya yes or no – this is not an easy thing to explain to the lay person in a simple manner.

Quote of the night from Bellendpole*:

“My job is to be an interpreter of interpretations”

*I like that S-The-S 🙂