Forum menu
rightpalcerightime- "pier review" LOL, sheer genius 😀
Let's take another tack.
Assuming global warming is true, why are we concentrating purely on its negative attributes?
There are many potential benefits for this country.
I have lived in warmer climates - it's better. Really! Less old folk die from hypothermia each year.
The sea level may rise a bit, but we have time to prepare for that, and the resulting engineering projects would provide an incredible economic stimulus for this country. Even if it rose a lot, there is more than sufficient land for the population.
Our climate would become Mediterranean, so think of the CO2 no longer emitted by Brits heading overseas for a bit of sun cancer.
You might need to consider the effect of the removal of the gulf stream/mid atlantic drift and get your head round the fact that global warming will more likely make our wonderful isle cooler...its why it is more acurately termed climate change.
Keep digging 😆
1. Who are the mysterious people/organisatiom that have persuaded the world scientists in a number of divergent fields to manipulate their divergent data to suggests the world is heating up ?
2. how have themanaged to contirl all this data nd make it look like it is heating up when it is not?
3. What exactly is their purpose for doing this?
As I said in my post, it's not a conspiracy, it's part of the madness of crowds and a function of unintended consequences.
Not for you it does not. You are world famous, a Noble winner able to work where you want and command money for reseach just by your name, you would be intelectually and academically without equal ...yeah why would any scientist want that eh?
But in the current scientific climate that wouldn't happen, you'd be ridiculed and castigated, and your funding would dry up. You'd have to be exceptionally powerful to be able to survive that.
The same thing happens to particle physicists who propose working on something other than 'M' theory (or whatever the latest iteration is).
You have an answer for everything but it has no weight, meaning or evidence.
Madness of crowds - wishy washy specious phrase
Unintended consequences - not even a law or principle
It would have to be a conspiracy by definition as it clearly involves a
decieving the world for some ill defined aim. I suggest you google what one is*huge industry
A cabal of powerful scientist who cannot be swayed with evidence and they can make your funding dry up if you voice opinions counter to theirs. I think you could get some support from the carbon heavy industries [oil, motor, construction]to help with funding.
Just more unsubstantiated assertions to support your view.
Each to their own.
*Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
Keramer - the "no global warming" side of the debate has plenty of funding from the oil companies and if anyone gets good evidence teh oil companies will fall over themselves to fund them
For example a very quick google gave http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science
Unintended consequences are a well described phenomenon in economics, which is when an action has unforeseen consequences.
The Madness of Crowds is a little vaguer I admit, but it refers to the situation where a large group of people act in a way that would be illogical on an individual basis, mostly because they are going with what everyone else is doing - again a well described behavioural phenomenon in economics.
Once again, just because I'm arguing against your position, if you don't understand what I'm trying to say, please ask for me to simplify it for you, and I will happily do so, rather than trying to claim that it has no meaning - poor debating tactics do neither you, nor yourself any favours.
Tandem Jeremy - I agree, and because of their association with the oil companies, their opinions are rightly regarded as tainted, but it doesn't automatically follow that there is no truth to what they're saying.
Junkyard - was the recent sub-prime bubble a conspiracy then?
I do understand what you are saying so please do not patronise me or suggest your argument is beyond my grasp i just think it has no relevance.
I think we have reached the point of arguing for the sake of it so I am out.
At least we did not insult each other we ae really letting STW down 😉
Junkyard, Reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy does not indicate a conspiracy, it simply indicates a fundamental limitation with how observational science is applied, ie. that we form a theory then look for evidence to support it, rather than looking at the evidence then drawing a conclusion.
There are many areas where we prop up the scientific orthodox, a good example being vivisection, its very difficult to validate a replacement, due to the complexity of the model, along with the sheer amount of established experience, knowledge and data formed within the orthodox, which means that the benchmark for reliable validation is remarkably high.
In just the same way as in the era of Galileo, anyone who questions Anthropogenic warming is labelled a heretic, the mails released from CRU prove that there was a deliberate effort to undermine and remove "problematic" opponents of the established science - to restrict their access to data, to remove them from the peer review process, and even to remove them from their positions within universities.
That, quite simply, is not the process of a robust and valid scientific process.
In just the same way as in the era of Galileo, anyone who questions Anthropogenic warming is labelled a heretic
Yeah anyone who questions Anthropogenic warming is arrested for heresy. Like that Telegraph blogger.
Also in science, it's quite normal for just about everyone to be in agreement, until one of the outsiders comes up with something that changes the status quo.
One of the problems with science in general these days is the system of patronage that exists in academia, and the way that this is the method for allocating funding to up and coming trainees.
Junkyard, apologies for the patronising, would have been better to use the word clarify rather than simplify. In my defence it's been a long day, and my brain isn't working too well.
grumm - that's not what he was saying.
Kramer again we are letting the STW side down with intelligent unabusive debate - no offence taken.
I do have some sympathy with your/z-11 general position in terms of the limits of scientific methodology, the nature of change and your general view of science/funding.
Clearly something we all take as gospel at the minute will be proved to be nonsense - possibly lots of it even. I am just not convinced that that issue is global warming.