'No such thing as climate change'

Home Forum Chat Forum 'No such thing as climate change'

Viewing 40 posts - 201 through 240 (of 277 total)
  • 'No such thing as climate change'
  • Premier Icon teamhurtmore
    Subscriber

    There is no sensible debate on climate change.

    That’s a bit harsh. Our understanding is starting to get better these days. We’ll even understand the oceans one day.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    There is no sensible debate on climate change.

    Not really, there is a huge amount of credible, peer reviewed and accepted science on one side, the other side seems to still use maps that have sea monsters on it and would probable not go on a round the world cruise for fear of falling off the edge.

    TooTall
    Member

    You went to see 100 doctors about a very nasty cough you had. 98 of them said ‘lung cancer – we need to treat you’ and 2 of them said ‘nasty cough – just chew this gum and ignore it because it might not be cancer’, what would you do?

    I don’t see how anyone can object to reducing pollution and trying not to burn up everything we can in our own lifetimes. I don’t see how ‘reducing the damage humans do’ would be a bad thing no matter what the motivation.

    zokes
    Member

    That’s a bit harsh.

    Harsh, but true. See the medical science analogy above.

    CountZero
    Member

    I don’t see how anyone can object to reducing pollution and trying not to burn up everything we can in our own lifetimes. I don’t see how ‘reducing the damage humans do’ would be a bad thing no matter what the motivation.

    Now that I have no argument with. Good point, well made.

    retro83
    Member

    zokes – Member

    Harsh, but true. See the medical science analogy above.

    That analogy rather falls down in that is relatively easy to directly observe cancer in the lab. The climate of the Earth is vastly complex and the timescales upon which it operates are enormous.

    There is nothing wrong with taking a view on the balance of probabilities and saying ‘yes the likelihood is that mankind is affecting the climate let’s look at what we can do to reduce the impact’. Our confidence in the theories strengthening as time goes on.

    However that does not mean that this should be a closed book- already decided and set in stone. And anyone who questions anything related to it derided as a ‘denier’.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Very true Retro83 but we also need to be careful when we differentiate between Climate Scientists, Scientists and people making comments and speculation.

    Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

    Source http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

    There are a large number on the “denial” side that are not working in the climate area. The point raised earlier is a very valid one – if you don’t agree with the theory do some research and come up with a credible alternative. Shouting it’s not happening is not a valid counter argument.

    wolfenstein
    Member

    We are the only living thing in this planet that destroys our own habitat… I am beginning to think we do not come from this planet afterall πŸ™

    big_n_daft
    Member

    You went to see 100 doctors about a very nasty cough you had. 98 of them said ‘lung cancer – we need to treat you’ and 2 of them said ‘nasty cough – just chew this gum and ignore it because it might not be cancer’, what would you do?

    speaking from personal experience I got packed off to a consultant who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn’t lung cancer. With climate science there isn’t a definitive test

    I don’t see how anyone can object to reducing pollution and trying not to burn up everything we can in our own lifetimes. I don’t see how ‘reducing the damage humans do’ would be a bad thing no matter what the motivation.

    whilst I am a cynic I actually have quite strong views that chucking lots of nasties into the environment (air or water) is actually quite stupid. But pollution and long term public health issues aren’t sexy, climate science is and it attracts lots of valuable grants hence the current science fashion

    Not really, there is a huge amount of credible, peer reviewed and accepted science on one side, the other side seems to still use maps that have sea monsters on it and would probable not go on a round the world cruise for fear of falling off the edge

    what was Charles Darwin’s experience when he published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ❓

    this is further reinforced in regard to climate science) when scrutinised:
    http://order-order.com/2014/02/11/sketch-peter-lilley-v-tim-yeo/#more-160667

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    You mean when Darwin published a theory based on a large amount of information he had collected and put it up against the idea that the world was created in 7 days and everything no is as it was at the beginning of time?

    I got packed off to a consultant who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn’t lung cancer. With climate science there isn’t a definitive test

    I love the idea of fairly definitive testing, still yes/no/maybe then πŸ˜‰

    big_n_daft
    Member

    I love the idea of fairly definitive testing, still yes/no/maybe then

    best you will ever get from a Dr πŸ˜‰

    zokes
    Member

    speaking from personal experience I got packed off to a consultant who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn’t lung cancer. With climate science there isn’t a definitive test

    It’s a ‘fairly definitive test’ because there is scientific consensus that the majority of the time it gives the correct diagnosis. Pretty much like there is scientific consensus that climate change is strongly influenced by anthropogenic emissions, which is a ‘fairly definitive conclusion’.

    DrJ
    Member

    Yep, the way I see it if the US government is starting to talk about not letting the large corporations get in the way of pushing forward with environmental issues then its probably time to start breaking out the man nappies

    I’ll be keeping my diapers dry until they actually DO something. They’re good at talking – closing Guantanamo Bay, cleaning up Wall Street, making peace in the Middle East; meantime they’re looking the other way on Gitmo, employing Goldman Sachs alumni as economic advisers, and sucking Netayahu’s cock.

    Junkyard
    Member

    who did a fairly definitive test and he said whatever is causing the problem it isn’t lung cancer. With climate science there isn’t a definitive test

    Nor is there for Alzehemiers until post mortem….I assume you think we should stop diagnosing it then and ignore the fact that all the symptoms match and just stick to our guns that their is no definitive test

    that is relatively easy to directly observe cancer in the lab

    Indeed and it is realtively easy to observe AGW as the data shows

    Your right we cannot predict every single event or what will happen exactly. Then again we cannot with cancer. if 100 million folk start smoking we will have more cancer. i cannot tell you who, where, when, how it clusters, when they die etc. Apparently this means there is no definitive proof it causes cancer

    the point is no other area of science has this very high set bar where if we cannot give complete information then we must assume it is not true.

    Lots of things in life dont have this we are 100% sure it cannot be anything else – FFS even gravity may be magic fairies.

    However you cannot just deny you must explain what is happening with the additional stored energy cause dby the greenhouse effect and explain why this additional input of energy does not lead to warming

    There is nothing credible here as a counter explanation that matches the know science or the observation hence they just deny and shrug – the fact they are a long way from experts on the subject further diminishes this dreadfully weak starting point..

    big_n_daft
    Member

    Indeed and it is realtively easy to observe AGW as the data shows

    The problem is that some of the data doesn’t match the script, hence the exchange in the select committee

    The question should always be “cui bono ” which should apply to both sides of the discussion

    retro83
    Member

    Junkyard – lazarus
    Nor is there for Alzehemiers until post mortem….I assume you think we should stop diagnosing it then and ignore the fact that all the symptoms match and just stick to our guns that their is no definitive test

    The symptoms present readily and are relatively easily tested for. Modelling the climate of a planet is orders of magnitude more complex, if even possible at all. Alzheimer’s disease has also had over 100 years of study.

    Indeed and it is realtively easy to observe AGW as the data shows

    No, that’s the point. It isn’t. We are looking at the output of a very complex system which we do not fully understand and of which man’s contribution is but one of the inputs. Look at how accurate the models are. Hint: Not 100% accurate.

    the point is no other area of science has this very high set bar where if we cannot give complete information then we must assume it is not true.

    Yes it does, bio-science/medicine springs immediately to mind, materials engineering, some areas of computer science. Many more, I’m sure.

    Who is to say that the current obsession with co2 is not diverting attention from other more critical issues. NOx, methane, water vapour etc. NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.

    As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.

    Premier Icon veedubba
    Subscriber

    I’ve missed a couple of pages, so apologies if this has already been posted.

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ[/video]

    I suppose the (poor) analogy is that one of the reasons you get your car serviced each year is to stop things catastrophically falling off at speed on the motorway, or when you’re driving in a built up area. It might not happen, but it’s nice to be prepared if it does, eh.

    zokes
    Member

    Alzheimer’s disease has also had over 100 years of study.

    So has climate science.

    As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.

    That’s fine. But the questions should be intelligent, well thought out, and backed by evidence. As was said in one of the Guardian articles linked above, if there really is a strong scientific basis that is a credible counterpoint to current theory, then lets hear it. Let’s have a conference or a summit to communicate these important data and their implications. You’d have thought with all the oil money the denier camp has they’d be able to organise something suitable, surely? Get it published in Nature or Science, with press releases communicating these new exciting data in a form the general public can understand. We could have documentaries, perhaps even a film!

    Oh? That is unless they don’t have a credible argument to discuss, of course…

    The question should always be “cui bono ” which should apply to both sides of the discussion

    No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world’s qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity. On the other side of the argument there are a few qualified skeptics, often funded by fossil fuel companies, and a whole lot of loud denialists funded by big business to obfuscate and make it appear like it’s a 50-50 discussion.

    As for who benefits? We clean up our act: some rich people become poorer, we stop destroying the planet, a lot fewer people die, and our children and grandchildren might have somewhere worth living. Or, we carry on BAU: A few rich people get richer, the rest of us get poorer, and the most vulnerable die from starvation and disease as a result of failed harvests, whilst hundreds of millions of people become homeless due to inundation.

    Unless you’re one of the rich few (who could easily make money from renewable energy if they had the gumption), nobody benefits from carrying on as we are.

    Cui bono is quite easy to demonstrate here.

    AdamW
    Member

    Yes it does, bio-science/medicine springs immediately to mind, materials engineering, some areas of computer science. Many more, I’m sure.

    This is so incredibly not true. There is only one ‘science’ that can be 100% proven and that is mathematics, because it is pure abstract.

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    That’s fine. But the questions should be intelligent, well thought out, and backed by evidence. As was said in one of the Guardian articles linked above, if there really is a strong scientific basis that is a credible counterpoint to current theory, then lets hear it. Let’s have a conference or a summit to communicate these important data and their implications. You’d have thought with all the oil money the denier camp has they’d be able to organise something suitable, surely? Get it published in Nature or Science, with press releases communicating these new exciting data in a form the general public can understand. We could have documentaries, perhaps even a film!

    Oh? That is unless they don’t have a credible argument to discuss, of course…

    :mrgreen:

    I read this in Stewies voice….

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTSGp4UdEvQ[/video]

    Premier Icon ahwiles
    Subscriber

    Yes it does, bio-science/medicine springs immediately to mind, materials engineering, some areas of computer science. Many more, I’m sure.

    i can assure you that there’s loads still to learn about the world of ‘materials engineering’.

    and bio-science…

    etc.

    we know our computer models of ‘residual stress in forged components’ are far from perfect.

    but they’re good enough to build a jet engine that doesn’t explode on take off.

    (imperfect/incomplete science is in use all around us)

    retro83
    Member

    AdamW – Member
    This is so incredibly not true. There is only one ‘science’ that can be 100% proven and that is mathematics, because it is pure abstract.

    ahwiles – Member

    i can assure you that there’s loads still to learn about the world of ‘materials engineering’.

    and bio-science…

    etc.

    we know our computer models of ‘residual stress in forged components’ are far from perfect.

    but they’re good enough to build a jet engine that doesn’t explode on take off.

    (imperfect/incomplete science is in use all around us)

    I obviously didn’t explain my point very well though because your counter examples illustrate what I meant.

    We can say with close to reasonable certainty that used within these parameters, this material will take loadings A,B & C and not fail. In drug creation, we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.

    What we don’t do is say, here you go, I’ve made a model of this compound and it looks okay. Chug this down your neck and let’s hope it doesn’t paralyse you or cause birth defects in your child.

    We absolutely cannot do this at the moment with the climate, it is far too complex to model accurately. I’m not saying that this means we should not try though. It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.

    zokes – Member
    No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world’s qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity. On the other side of the argument there are a few qualified skeptics, often funded by fossil fuel companies, and a whole lot of loud denialists funded by big business to obfuscate and make it appear like it’s a 50-50 discussion.

    I assume you mean MMGW as opposed to climate change, but in any case the consensus doesn’t matter in a way. The consensus was the Aether theory was correct before Einstein came along. Just because a lot of people stand behind it, does not make it certain, and this is why we must remain open but skeptical.

    Junkyard
    Member

    We are looking at the output of a very complex system which we do not fully understand

    As opposed to the human brain which we understand in every single detail?
    We dont fully understand the human brain either

    . Look at how accurate the models are. Hint: Not 100% accurate.

    the point was on observe and you mention how we cannot predict πŸ™„
    this is the level of debate with deniers

    If 100 million people start smoking I cannot accurately model who gets cancer, where they cluster, when they get it so therefore I can safely assume smoking does not cause cancer

    Who is to say that the current obsession with co2 is not diverting attention from other more critical issues. NOx, methane, water vapour etc. NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.

    If only the IPCC had thought to look at these issues and say write about them.

    As I posted before, we should take sensible precautions based on what the current information says, but not take this as a blinding beacon of unquestionable truth.

    No one says it is as you paint it [ all scientists will be swayed by evidence and date its only the journos/polemics who think and speak like this]but if you wish to counter it it is not unreasonable to ask for
    1. Theoretical explanation of why increade C02 and forcing does not lead to a temperature increase
    2. that this observation [ and temp is rising] matches observed data and makes predictions

    We have neither not even close just a denial without an explanation

    we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.

    Sometimes despite all this the real human trial results in actual real side effects we neither predicted not knew. Occasionally these are fatal occasionally just birth defects like thalidomide. Its not the perfect ly well understood science you claim it to be and again clearly the human body is an very complicated thing that no one fully understands – would you really like to claim otherwise?

    If you must use this “principle” apply it equally to all areas but you will have to dump lots of areas of knowledge by setting the bar this high including areas you keep citing as examples of it.

    It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.

    We always remain open to this – have you any evidence top support it ? Ps remember to remain open about the areas you are using to defend this view as this statement is just as true when applied to them.

    Just because a lot of people stand behind it, does not make it certain,

    Again true and true of all science but this fact does not make it wrong

    In an evidence based discussion of science if all you can do is make weak philosophical points about the limits of science /and/or a consensus* and you cannot cite any evidence its probably because you are wrong and you have no data to support an alternative view..Almost all areas of science has a consensus, evolution, gravity, maths , cancer and smoking….should we distrust all of these or just the one you dont like

    * Only in this debate is everyone agrees with you used as some sort of weakness. No one doe sit over cancer, or gravity , or momentum etc because it would be stupid

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    What we don’t do is say, here you go, I’ve made a model of this compound and it looks okay

    Is that what you think they do? No wonder you have such a low opinion of climate scients.

    NOx increases in fact a direct result of promoting low co2 (diesel) cars via beneficial taxation.

    What you’re doing there is confusing ill-informed popular thinking with actual science.

    big_n_daft
    Member

    No, it should not. On one side of the argument, there is the consensus of 97% of the world’s qualified scientists agree that climate change is happening, and its primary cause is anthropogenic activity.

    So we never question the scientists who are supporting the consensus?

    We don’t question why their models don’t match recorded data?

    We keep pumping them with more money to do more work that doesn’t match the data recorded? Do we allow them to continue to make stuff up for UN reports?

    Do we continue to use their data to justify technology that actually produces more carbon than it saves?

    Sorry but “cui bono” always applies to both sides

    retro83
    Member

    molgrips – Member
    What you’re doing there is confusing ill-informed popular thinking with actual science.

    Sorry, can you please explain that? Diesel cars have been heavily encouraged via taxation based on co2. Diesel cars produce more NOx than petrol equivalents.

    retro83
    Member

    Junkyard – lazarus

    I can’t be bothered to split the post up into individual quotes, but I did read it.

    I think you are under the misapprehension that I am a ‘denier’ (I really hate that term). Not the case.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Sorry, can you please explain that? … Diesel cars produce more NOx than petrol equivalents.

    That’s perfectly correct, I didn’t mean to say that you were wrong. It was a more rhetorical point agreeing with you*.

    Scientists are not advising us to drive diesel cars. They have warned us about the likely consequences of high CO2 emissions – science.

    The car manufacturers and have jumped on this to get us to buy new cars, and the media have told us to buy diesel cars to save the environment – popular thinking.

    * sort of.. it’s quite well known what CO2 and NOx do, and whilst NOx is very bad in close quarters ie air quality, CO2 has likely a much worse long term effect. Having said that, it can cost a lot of CO2 to actually make diesel in the first place.. TINAS to the thread please…

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    So we never question the scientists who are supporting the consensus?

    Because as soon as people stop believing what the experts tell them, then we will regress back to the dark ages. You can’t possibly have the knowledge and experience to question people who who have spent their whole lives studying 90% of .00000000000010% of human knownledge, you leave it to a number of experts in the field and if almost all of them agree with one another… you run with what they are saying.

    We don’t question why their models don’t match recorded data?

    We keep pumping them with more money to do more work that doesn’t match the data recorded? Do we allow them to continue to make stuff up for UN reports?

    Link please. All the models I’ve seen have pretty accurately matched recorded data and I havn’t seen any cases of fraud in UN reports on climate change.

    TooTall
    Member

    Regardless of whether you agree with the science or not, the proposed path it highlights is ‘humans making less of an impact upon the planet’, with a possible leap towards ‘humans making a positive impact upon the planet’.

    So you crack on with your myopic and very ill-informed war with science. Your alternative of ‘keep doing what we’re doing until you prove it, then we’ll change’ is short-sighted, very silly and utterly indefensible when compared to ‘not taking every natural resource for ourselves and leaving something nice for the kids’.

    This is like those who smoked in the 50s, only far worse. The science said smoking killed you, yet that was shouted down by those funded by smoking. By the time it was accepted, it was far too late for a lot of people. yet ‘not smoking’ wasn’t a detrimental path to follow before the non-believers were forced to accept the evidence.

    Get over your petty fight and see that the actions it recommends are good no matter what happens. Not doing anything is not a valid option.

    Tom_W1987
    Member

    We can say with close to reasonable certainty that used within these parameters, this material will take loadings A,B & C and not fail. In drug creation, we run many many trials before we even get close to trying a particular drug on a human patient so that we can say with reasonable confidence that it is safe.

    What we don’t do is say, here you go, I’ve made a model of this compound and it looks okay. Chug this down your neck and let’s hope it doesn’t paralyse you or cause birth defects in your child.

    We absolutely cannot do this at the moment with the climate, it is far too complex to model accurately. I’m not saying that this means we should not try though. It just means we must remain open to the possibility that our understanding is wrong.

    Medicine isn’t physics, they don’t have phase I through to III trials and never will. They develop models and then try to match it to observable reality, so far these models have been pretty accurate.

    Unless of course you are suggesting that we wait 100 years to check to see if our models are correct before we make a decision, which of course would be completely **** idiotic.

    Seriously hope you’re not a doctor, or worse a biologist. I could deal with a doctor having a low intellect….

    big_n_daft
    Member

    I havn’t seen any cases of fraud in UN reports on climate change.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers

    . All the models I’ve seen have pretty accurately matched recorded data

    SKETCH: Peter Lilley v Tim Yeo

    Peter Lilley asked: β€œSince 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”

    Based on the models what is your answer?

    Premier Icon ahwiles
    Subscriber

    not this 1997 shite again.

    this is the global temperature record from 1977ish, to 2012ish.

    picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.

    picking a fluke year, extrememly unusual in it’s warmth, as your benchmark is at best really really really bad science, at worst it’s consciously dishonest.

    anyone trotting out this ‘no warming since 1997’ shite, automatically gets one of these:

    AdamW
    Member

    That’s a non-sequitur. Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time? Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid Β£70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where’s his evidence for this? Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?

    This is the “what-about-ary” that climate deniers do. “Yeah but…” For everything but never answer any questions themselves.

    I always find it amazing that when scientists design new materials to make lighter bikes but everyone appears to have a PhD when it comes to climate science.

    Premier Icon 19ninety
    Subscriber

    Humans live in years, Earth lives in 100’s of millions of years.
    I believe there is climate change… Just not the same way Hollywood and the news presents it.
    God knows why… People feed of drama drama drama…

    Premier Icon irc
    Subscriber

    There is a few deniers on this thread. Denying the pause/halt in global warming over the last 15 years. Even the MET Office say it has happened.

    July 2013 – Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

    It was discussed by the IPCC

    IPCC’s pause ‘logic’

Viewing 40 posts - 201 through 240 (of 277 total)

The topic ‘'No such thing as climate change'’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top