It's global cooling, not warming!

Damn it.

Please can this all stop now? Think of the planet.

Hainey I see you have given up on any point whatsoever and are going into ever more puerile insults. What a lovely picture you are painting of yourself on here.

Ratty – I now see why Ernie call you this BTW. You missed my point entirely re cancer – a repetition of a point I made pages ago. It is that I can just deny your science/data completely no matter what you say/do. I mean did you really do experiments on animals and then think that it would be the same as humans? Well animals are not human are they – can’t deny that can you. Can’t deny that we had cancer before smoking can you? Cannot deny that non smokers get lung cancer can you …like I said just a natural cycle. Well prove it etc It is to show that your and Hainey's arguments can be used equally "well" against any point, argumnent, model. No matter what you say I will be able to deny it with your arguments. Claearly the science behind the point is robust that is my point as you ably demonstrated.

You are correct re methodology that it would be more robust/rigorous to isolate variables etc and do actual experiments/observations. However with only one world that is impossible to do. What do you suggest we do when we try and predict the future from current trends? It is not like we used astrology ,runes or sheep entrails to make the predictions is it.

We reached 1000 – I bid you farewell and Happy trails

It is not like we used astrology ,runes or sheep entrails to make the predictions is it.

are you sure? That could be why they are withholding the data. We'll never know!

hainey,

what data is being withheld? and by whom?

Well animals are not human are they – can’t deny that can you.

Indeed, its a model! The differing species models replicates the human body in a fundamentally similar manner that you extrapolate across to humans, and search for the similarity in the result – nobody claims its identical, and nobody claims that they have definitive proof, they recognise a level of uncertainty – this is often missing from the claims of the pro AGW "scientists"

Can’t deny that we had cancer before smoking can you? Cannot deny that non smokers get lung cancer can you …like I said just a natural cycle.

No, as you use a single known, quantifiable and evidenced variable – you can quantify the difference between the control group with its unknown and poorly understood natural cycles, and the dose groups with the introduction of the variable – this is how you remove the problem of correlation and causality.

you cannot do this with the Earth, therefore you cannot claim the same level of certainty in your results – due to the fact that there are an unknown number of unquantifiable variables you cannot claim any level of certainty, and therefore it is very, very unreliable to make any form of extrapolation, let alone predict forward with any level of reliability.

The comparison you are making with climate research is that you look ONLY at the cancer data, ie. before and after smoking became commonplace, and look for trends in that data showing that smoking causes cancer – yes, it does, but a whole variety of other things are causing various increases in assorted cancer levels during the same period of time – your method of data analysis would have never identified that asbestosis causes mesothelioma, which was happening at the same time, but with your method of data analysis would have been grouped in with the smoking/passive smoking effects.
Smoking is one of the known increased risk factors in mesothelioma, but the causation is down mainly to the asbestos

only looking at trends within the cancer data would have showed correlation, not causation.

Trouble with you Z11, is you only have one tool in your toolbox, and it's a hammer.

You seem to think that because you only understand one type of procedure for tackling one type of problem, that that is the only way to do it.

Which is fine, until you come across a problem that can't be solved that way.

Then there are 2 possible responses.

Your response, which is to say that nothing can be done.

And my (well not just mine, mine and the IPCCs) response, which is to ask what is the most plausible way to solve it, then proceed down that route.

You've chosen your response.

I've chosen my response.

Your response involves doing nothing. In which case, why don't you do that and stop trying to undermine the efforts of others who are trying to do something. No scientist in climate science pretends to have all the answers. They are all trying to improve their understanding and make more accurate predictions. You make no positive suggestions as to how this might practicably be done, only negative comments.

Given that we do have only the one world available to us, maybe you'd like to make some practical suggestions as to how we should go about predicting any future climate changes.

No, I said quite clearly that the immediate response should be go go back and QA then reanalyse the data, and follow a data led approach without forming preconceptions on where it should lead you.

This quite clearly is not the current procedure being applied by either side of the debate, which is form a hypothesis, and then find the data to back it up.

I think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably worthless.

I think the biggest problem with your approach RPRT, is that you fall into the trap of "it doesn't matter what we do, as long as we do something" – which at best is mere gesture politics, and at worst detracts from things that are real, tangible know, proven and immediate problems, as demonstrated with the raiding of the DFID budget, and malaria/famine/vitamin deficiency blindness

We got to 1000. Can we stop now?

Trouble with you Z11, is you only have one tool in your toolbox

And i would suggest that you only have a pair of ear-defenders.

Like with all scientific studies it is essential to know when logic is required and to seek logical clarity. It is also essential to remain emotionally detached when analysing the data. Quickly commiting to simple trends and conclusions can be more damaging than searching for flaws in arguments.

Hainey is anyone going to listen to you on logic and science are you really that misguided?. I really did laugh out loud at that.

remain emotionally detached when analysing the data

like you were with this you mean?

. An organisation [Noble prize winning IPCC] which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves, declares themselves as the world experts, then tells the world that they are correct

Is that the kind of clarity we should be seeking?

Like with all scientific studies it is essential to know when logic is required and to seek logical clarity.

Your profundity knows no bounds.

I thought you'd left?

Junkyard i am referring to your quite frightening ability to not see anything outside the following equation running around your head

Man Made CO2 = Climate Change.

Whether you believe it or not, its just not that simple i'm afraid.

Your profundity knows no bounds.

Why thank you! 😉

Z11 said,

I think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably worthless.

Just to be absolutely clear – you are saying that it is not worth trying to understand and predict changes in the climate?

sorry rprt – I should have worded that better

"I think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably impossible, and therefore any predictions are probably no better than flipping a coin"

Just to be absolutely clear – you are saying that it is not worth trying to understand and predict changes in the climate?

No more useful than trying to make a long term weather prediction! (nb. I realise that weather is not climate)

Z11 said:

think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably impossible, and therefore any predictions are probably no better than flipping a coin

Just to be absolutely clear – you are saying that that is likely to be the case until the end of time?

No RPRT, I'd never say never.

However to model climate reliably, we'd need to produce a computer model with the complexity and processing power to remove all variables, to do that we'd have to be able to crack chaos theory – so mathematically, your model would have to have infinite processing power and/or infinite time to produce a result! 😆

Or of course you could just see if the model you produced could be used to predict actual events?

A glimmer of hope to help us along our way…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm

don't be silly rprt, predicting future events?! – that's impossible, you're talking witchcraft! it's against god!

Mr11 – modern climate models are not claiming to be able to predict how much rain will fall over rotherham on july 28th 2146.

they are attempting to predict how/if rainfall patterns (etc.) might be altered by a warming world.

putting aside the Anthropogenic argument for a moment, there is lots and lots of evidence to suggest the world is warming, it would be helpfull if we had some idea as to how that might affect us.

for example; it might be a good idea for Australia to invest in more drought mitigation projects, the best long term predictions aren't looking too rosy.

or hang on, it turns out they can cancel those Damns they're building, some bloke on the internet doesn't think computer models are all that reliable, he thinks they might just as well spend all their money on wellies and raincoats…

X

Zulu-Eleven – Member

No, I said quite clearly that the immediate response should be go go back and QA then reanalyse the data, and follow a data led approach without forming preconceptions on where it should lead you.

which is exactly how the realisation that climate change is occurring happened. People looked at the data and found a phenomenon
Really – for someone who is supposed to be a scientist you do post the most utter tripe.

and animal studies are known to be a limited way of establishing what happens in a human population and even worse some believe that that are effectively useless.

Perhaps you should

follow a data led approach without forming preconceptions

rather than deciding that climate change is bunkum and twisting facts to fit

Mr Kettle – the pot just called you black.

What we need is a fusion thread, then I can be the skeptic and rubbish hainey's links.

Right, here's my take.

1) I don't trust this government not to put growth ahead of dealing with climate change.

2) Petrol and diesel (and ergo transport) is far too expensive because it is subject to a great deal of tax.

3) The electricity generating capacity of this country won't stretch to charging electric powered vehicles.

4) This government is too addicted to the receipts from fuel tax to invest in viably cheap public transport. This is part of the reason why public transport fares are allowed to increase by an amount beyond the rate of inflation.

5) I don't think the above is fair. If public transport was cheap enough I'd get rid of my car in a second.

6) Most of the people reading this own a bike built out of aluminium manufactured on the other side of the world.

We're all hypocrites, willingly or unwillingly.

TJ said:

When 100 say white and 10 say black and the 100 have rigorous reliable and valid research and the ten do not its easy to see where the truth lies

.
TJ also said:

and animal studies are known to be a limited way of establishing what happens in a human population and even worse some believe that that are effectively useless.

Science FAIL – pot vs kettle racial harassment claim thrown out of court…

Replies:
1 Trust a government?

2 Petrol and diesel are far to cheap. That's the problem.

3 Insulate buildings to a reasonable standard and we will have an electricity surplus.

4 Doubling fuel tax would not halve revenue as it would not halve consumption, demand is not that elastic. Petrol consumtion dropped only 15% when the price topped €1.50/l

5 I use public transport when possible, that means for over half the kms I travel that aren't on a bike, I'd like to be able to use public transport more.

6 The energy cost of producing that bike and getting it to you is tiny compared with what is used to manufacture a car. You can make everbody on the planet a bicycle using sustainable resources.

Being hypocritical involves saying one thing and doing another. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting sustainable development and buying a bicycle made in Taiwan as they are compatible.

2) Petrol and diesel (and ergo transport) is far too expensive because it is subject to a great deal of tax.

Actually compared to average incomes its cheaper now than at any time since the oil crises of the 70s – part of the issue is transport is too cheap hence people use a lot of energy transporting themselves and goods far more than needed

Zulu – oooooooooooooooooh the ironing

1) What are they there for then?

2) Fine. Give me an alternative. What am I supposed to do?

3) Partly true. What would have helped was a comprehensive review of electricity generation back in the 1990s.

4) The treasury netted £30bn a year in fuel duty in 2002. In 2008 is was £50bn. Supply and demand is inelastic, a fact the government exploits cynically.

5) Agreed.

6) Surely then it's better to keep an older car on the road and not encourage consumers to buy a new car every few years? The CO2 generated in producing a new car outweighs the CO2 emitted from an older car.

You're right about being sustainable, but processing Bauxite and welding aluminium is an environmentally unfriendly business. I love biking hence I'm prepared to make this choice, but then I keep my car usage to a minimum and avoid travelling by air unless absolutely necessary. I wonder how many posters here are aware of that.

@TandemJeremy

1993 – price per litre of petrol was £0.33. In 2010 it's £1.11

Has household income trebled?

It takes about 80 000kms worth of fuel to make a car and I don't know how much to recycle it. So if you do a low mileage (less than 10 000km a year) you are indeed wise to keep your car as long as possible as you'll never save the fuel used to build the new one.

Now compare with early 1982 TJ.

@Edukator

Thank you.

Z11, Before we go off in another direction again, how about you respond to my last post?

PJM1974, not having a go at you (honest) as you seem to have a relatively sound attitude, but I want to pick up on something you said to illustrate a point. You said

I keep my car usage to a minimum and avoid travelling by air unless absolutely necessary.

And the point is, it's very interesting how different people define "absolutely necessary" One of the problems with addressing climate change is that even people who claim to understand the argument don't actually do anything about it, or think that doing something in one part of their life frees them of responsibility in another.

And BTW I'm not hoping to start a "what have you done" type discussion, just to cause pause for thought.

Its not just the cost of the fuel – its the total cost of motoring. And I can't be bothered checking my facts – I thought this was the thread for baseless assertions?

I'm not going to live as a hermit in a cave and scavenge which would eliminate all but "absolutely necessary" consumption. A reasonable goal is a sustainable level of energy/esource consumption. You can do that and still live very well. It's striking a balance between the selfish "what I do won't make a jot of difference" and the community spirited "if everyone does what I do there won't be a problem".

climate change science 'sound' according to chief UK scientist

Of course he does, he's on the take from the Government 😉

And in the wise words of Junkyards et al, he's not exactly qualified in cllimatology!!

you cannot pluralise my log in name and say et al – et al means you have cited the study before and it is has more than one author – your science creditentials are superb.
As a qualified and respected scientist he is in a good position to speak about the soundness/legitiamacy/robustness of the science, which he did, he is not publishing his own research on the area is he? Subtle difference lost on you.
Also in your previous dig at me when you said I had an

abillity not to

you really should have said inability….another schoolboy error
Shall we meet at the bike sheds after school and see whose dad is the biggest after that?
If you want to expound on your argument do so but continually having digs at me is pretty pointless and makes you look petty.

As a qualified and respected scientist he is in a good position

😆

You contradict yourself so much i don't think you know where you stand. What about all the other scientists out there who are qualified and respected but disagree with climate change theories that you were so quick to dismiss?

Petty digs? I'm sorry, I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter. 😉

Oh, and et al mean and others. 🙄