Viewing 23 posts - 121 through 143 (of 143 total)
  • Horizon last night climate sceptic pwned – anyone else see it
  • ooOOoo
    Free Member

    As it stands, traditional energy generation and use remain firmly entrenched with little (financial) incentive to move away from this status-quo

    Exactly, the conspiracy is making no change at all. The conspiracy is doing exactly what we’ve always done. Except before we could claim ignorance of any possible repercussions.

    How much proof do people need anyway before action is taken? Will some people not be satisfied until we have computer modelled every molecule on the planet?

    I get so frustrated with people who say we should do nothing until it is fully understood. They think cutting back on CO2 output is unnatural.

    No, cars are unnatural, getting ancient reserves of oil & coal from under the ground is unnatural. Travelling a hundred miles a day in a 2 ton box is unnatural. The onus should be on supporters of these technologies to prove 100% that they have no bad side-effects. Or is there perhaps a consipracy?

    Tallpaul
    Full Member

    I used one degree as an example, the truth is we don’t know what level of resolution the thermometers which have been used carry, since often there are no records – we do know that some places used very, very accurate ones, and some less so – however there are little or no continuing calibration records, so a thermometer that was accurate when new, may well have been significantly out five years later. again, this all goes in the unknown pile.

    So global warming could be worse than we originally feared?

    poppa
    Free Member

    I don’t understand this subject and I don’t want to have to put any effort into understanding it, so I’ll just believe what I want to.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    fourbanger
    Free Member

    There’s enough evidence of seemingly intelligent, well reasoned people, on this thread, suggesting that the science isn’t beyond doubt, being shot down and flamed by name calling poster who appear to be incapable of rational debate, to reassure me that I’m not a conspiracist and that there are people out there with an open mind who are prepared to question what they read. I’m waiting to be flamed and called a denier by those jumping to conclusion over what mine and other peoples views are. I knew this wasn’t the debating society when I signed up, but seriously, some people.

    grumm
    Free Member

    I don’t think the science is beyond doubt, but I think the general consensus is more likely to be accurate than any alternative, and a lot of the reason people get branded ‘deniers’ is they are trotting out the same discredited arguments they have copied from a spurious source.

    And once again, most of the measures are a good idea anyway, even if GW turns out to be not what we thought. People seem to keep ignoring this point.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    There’s enough evidence of seemingly intelligent, well reasoned people, on this thread, suggesting that the science isn’t beyond doubt,

    really? all i see is z11 saying that thermometers arent very accurate

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    Ah so you’re going for the “changing the goal posts technique”. You asked a question and I answered it so you ignore that then start to argue about some other detail.

    But if you measure a million places once each with a precision of +/- 1 C you can NOT say if things have warmed or cooled by 1/100 C based on the average

    Now I’ll admit that I haven’t read any of the data pertaining to climate change, however I would be amazed if that is what has happened. I would assume (and I consider this assumption to be reasonable) that there would be “a million” measurements in “a million” places all of which can be used to generate an average. Do you have access to information that supports your statement that they only used a single measurement at lots of places (proxy measurements excepted)?

    I’m not even going to start on the points you raised on the relative accuracy of the insturmentation as it is all complete suppostion on your part.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    but I’d expect he knows more about it than both you and I do.

    Do all childrens tv presenters know more about it than me or just him ? he was a bad example to pick as he ha sno formal scientific training . I have some O level’s some A level’s and a degree so are you sure?. Everyone thinks they know something about this when in reality an expert would just laugh at our child like grasp of the subject whether it be me you or the genius Johnny Ball..
    The rest is still a very skewed view of the Chairs history snd you are still cherry picking what you report on his qualifications whilst complaining about this

    So long as you can keep from attacking me by accusing me of lying etc anyway, I’m neither lying nor intentionally distorting anything

    Poor really poor as you are being deliberatley selective about what you post to paint a picture of him that is not entirely accurate .He is not a train driver [you have now changed this to railway engineer] that is a lie and your view is clearly an attempted distortion of his qualifications . Stop doing it and I will stop saying you are simple

    toys19
    Free Member

    There’s enough evidence of seemingly intelligent, well reasoned people, on this thread, suggesting that the science isn’t beyond doubt, being shot down and flamed by name calling poster who appear to be incapable of rational debate, to reassure me that I’m not a conspiracist and that there are people out there with an open mind who are prepared to question what they read. I’m waiting to be flamed and called a denier by those jumping to conclusion over what mine and other peoples views are. I knew this wasn’t the debating society when I signed up, but seriously, some people.

    ah yes the fallacy of “argumentum ad temperantiam” you seem to be assuming that because 50% of people on here are raving conspiracy loonies and 50% are well balanced scientists that the real answer is somewhere in the middle? Piffle.

    It’s like saying that “the world is full of sense and nonsense, I like to find a happy medium!”

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Gonefishin – I’ll refer you back to this

    GISS manipulates climate data in Mackay (3rd Edition)

    Now, thats ONE site.

    then have a look at this

    Due to the clustering and homogonisation procedure, one poor site can pollute the record from many, many others.

    The scientifically minded amongst you should that poor data is worthless – however are too stuck in “defend AGW” mode to accept that a full data audit is the only way to tackle it.

    Despite repeated ad hominem attacks here, I’ve not seen a single argument that tackles the root of my problems with data integrity!

    eth3er
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Zulu – do you have any worthwhile evidence for your ideas? So far I have not seen a single credible piece of evidence to back your assertions.

    A blog V peer reviewed data published in respected journals. 🙄

    Poor data is not worthless – it remains data. it may have less value but it remains data

    AdamW
    Free Member

    A blog V peer reviewed data published in respected journals

    Unfortunately this supports the discussion on the program. Someone shouting from his keyboard versus peer-reviewed data.

    Surely the oil companies by now (or their supporters, of which there are a number) have presented a ‘killer’ paper that debunks the entire thing if it is fallacious? Or are we into Scooby Doo conspiracy where no papers ever ‘dissenting’ get published?

    toys19
    Free Member

    eth3er thats very good

    Cougar
    Full Member

    Do all childrens tv presenters know more about it than me or just him ? he was a bad example to pick as he ha sno formal scientific training

    Alright, maybe it was a bad example. However (and I said this before) having no formal qualifications does not automatically imply that you’re talking out of the top of your head. Being a childrens TV presenter does not automatically make you Timmy Mallet. Laboring the kids’ TV angle is just ad hominem, it has no bearing on what he does or does not know or understand. He may be wrong because his theories are wrong, but he’s not wrong simply because he used to be on telly.

    Everyone thinks they know something about this when in reality an expert would just laugh at our child like grasp of the subject

    This is kind of the crux of what I was getting at in another post, yes. It’s science all over though; dumbing down is commonplace because very few people outside of the “experts” would understand it otherwise. Do you remember your school science well enough to tell me how a wing generates lift?

    The rest is still a very skewed view of the Chairs history snd you are still cherry picking what you report on his qualifications whilst complaining about this

    I’m sorry, no offence and I don’t know if you’re dyslexic or on a mobile keyboard, but I didn’t fully understand this sentence. I’m not ‘cherry picking’ anything, I wasn’t the one that brought up qualifications in the first place.

    Poor really poor as you are being deliberatley selective about what you post to paint a picture of him that is not entirely accurate

    I’m posting what I know about him, which isn’t a great deal, but seemingly more than you because:

    He is not a train driver [you have now changed this to railway engineer] that is a lie and your view is clearly an attempted distortion of his qualifications

    I did say “train driver” was from memory, and when I checked I corrected myself. I do try to express when I’m not sure; I don’t see how I can be any more transparent than I am without making 50% of every post into disclaimer text.

    He doesn’t have any scientific qualifications -whatsoever- other than the unrelated PhD I mentioned. If I were skewing facts, I’d perhaps have been better served by not mentioning his PhD at all, or questioning the motives of a man with an Economics degree. But ok then, what are his qualifications? Rather than just yelling how wrong I am, why don’t you correct me?

    Stop doing it and I will stop saying you are simple

    I wasn’t aware that you were saying I was simple, but if that’s the best you can do then I’ll simply bow out of the conversation and you can talk to yourself. I’ve been on the Internet for way too long to put up with people incapable of holding a civil discussion without resorting to abuse, especially when it’s people I’d previously held in fairly high regard.

    crankboy
    Free Member

    Z 11 are the pictures you and others have have posted of apparent weather monitoring stations the same ones as were used to gather the data or just random examples of badly sited weather monitors ?

    drain
    Full Member

    Nice distinction between sceptics and denialists here if anyone’s interested:-

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.000-living-in-denial-when-a-sceptic-isnt-a-sceptic.html

    And real world examples (HIV/AIDS; vaccines/autism) expressing some of the thread so far in a very balanced way:-

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html

    A lot of it, as that second link implies, comes down to scientists being, as a group, pretty poor at communicating.

    For the avoidance of doubt, my view (as a scientist) is that the climate is changing – like rob2, I have to help plan to keep water coming to you and shit being taken away from you, in assets that need to be maintained and built with customers’ money, and the uncertainties are large.

    Uncertainty makes most people uncomfortable (civil engineers and accountants in the water industry are not immune 😉 ) which is why the media have to sell copy by presenting things as ‘crisp’ facts not a balance of probabilities. A good proportion of the population doesn’t seem to understand the concept even of ‘average’, let alone confidence intervals, given the number of drivers who slow down at average speed cameras only to speed up between them… 🙄

    What we expect is climate, what we see out of the window is weather. Humans have evolved (uh-oh, now I’ve done it) to deal with the here and now, and really struggle with cause/effect beyond very short timescales. It’s up to scientists to clearly communicate these inter-generational issues to non-specialist sceptics (cf. denialists) and we’d better learn how to do that, fast.

    I_did_dab
    Free Member

    Sir Paul Nurse could start by taking some academic colleagues to task in arts subjects. Writing a well-balanced essay that considers all the evidence and comes to a reasoned conclusion is a sure fire route to a 2i mark at Oxbridge (or equivalent Uni) in an arts subject. On the otherhand, a radically controvertial essay drawing on little used sources which is strongly argued is likely to get a 1st class mark (and the author a job as a science blogger for a broadsheet).
    I still don’t know how he managed to get all the way through without saying ‘postmodernism’.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Cougar

    😳 i rarely pounctuate on here due to lazyiness I am not dyslexic – i am fully qualified to teach english to adults 😯
    My lack of punctuation has left me with egg on my face – should have been

    Stop doing it and I will stop saying you are, simple.

    I apologise it was not my intention to say you were simple at all. I am happy to correct this error. I have learnt a lesson on my pathetic use of punctuation today.
    Again Sorry – i also enjoy discussions with you and have no beef [ get it ] with you . I was not saying you are simple but it clearly reads as if I was. My error can I stop apologising now…sorry

    drain
    Full Member

    Writing a well-balanced essay that considers all the evidence and comes to a reasoned conclusion is a sure fire route to a 2i mark at Oxbridge (or equivalent Uni) in an arts subject. On the otherhand, a radically controvertial essay drawing on little used sources which is strongly argued is likely to get a 1st class mark (and the author a job as a science blogger for a broadsheet).
    I still don’t know how he managed to get all the way through without saying ‘postmodernism’.

    😆

    But then again I was quite happy with my humble 2i in Marine and Environmental Biology 😉

    toys19
    Free Member

    I_did_dab – Member

    Sir Paul Nurse could start by taking some academic colleagues to task in arts subjects. Writing a well-balanced essay that considers all the evidence and comes to a reasoned conclusion is a sure fire route to a 2i mark at Oxbridge (or equivalent Uni) in an arts subject. On the otherhand, a radically controvertial essay drawing on little used sources which is strongly argued is likely to get a 1st class mark (and the author a job as a science blogger for a broadsheet).
    I still don’t know how he managed to get all the way through without saying ‘postmodernism’.

    V good. It is probably the root cause of all this. (I mean that with all seriousness, postmodernism = piffle)

    Cougar
    Full Member

    (replied to junkmail via email; we’re good)

    bigjim
    Full Member

    This leads the lay person to expect no snow. However, as well as this year, 2009 had much snow too. One winter maybe but two winters in a row makes comments like this seem like scaremongering.

    I love it when people say things like this. “Its snowed two winters in a row – ergo global warming can’t be happening”… 😆

Viewing 23 posts - 121 through 143 (of 143 total)

The topic ‘Horizon last night climate sceptic pwned – anyone else see it’ is closed to new replies.