So this is what passes for news these days? Global warming content

Heartfeltdawn · December 2015

hugbot said:
The argument that climate change is a conspiracy is so bizarre to me, because it relies on the assumption that a vast conspiracy of evil "scientists" are out to hoax everyone, and its only those plucky underdog business owners tied to the multi billion oil industry who know the real truth.

And that these business owners are actually activists and truthers and anarchists.

ICBM · December 2015

Chalky said:

Ah well if its scientific fact it must be true. Cos scientists never get it wrong or change their views, do they?

Scientists change their views all the time when new evidence comes to light.

The question is whether it's *all* man-made or only *partially* man-made. The problem is that climate change deniers don't seem to be able to separate the idea that some of it may not be man-made from the erroneous conclusion that none of it is.

TheCount · December 2015

Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

Chalky · December 2015

Claiming to be able to predict what the world will like in 85 years time is arrogant fiction.

Megii · December 2015

We've been pumping tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 every year into the the atmosphere for decades, during which time atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from around 300ppm to 400ppm. That's just a coincidence?

UnclePsychosis · December 2015

People are fucking weird.

If 97% of the world's doctors told you if you didn't change your diet you were going to die you'd do something about it pretty damn quick.

97% of the world's climate scientists tell you that if you don't change your ways the whole human race could die and people bury their head in the sand and invent utter bullshit reasons not to believe it.

The amount of people who are proud to display their own scientific illiteracy when it comes to this topic is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed to see it. No one would ever be happy to admit to being unable to read or write, but are seemingly quite happy to shout loudly about their utter ignorance when it comes to science. Most bizarre.

Heartfeltdawn · December 2015

UnclePsychosis said:

People are fucking weird.

If 97% of the world's doctors told you if you didn't change your diet you were going to die you'd do something about it pretty damn quick.

97% of the world's climate scientists tell you that if you don't change your ways the whole human race could die and people bury their head in the sand and invent utter bullshit reasons not to believe it.

The amount of people who are proud to display their own scientific illiteracy when it comes to this topic is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed to see it. No one would ever be happy to admit to being unable to read or write, but are seemingly quite happy to shout loudly about their utter ignorance when it comes to science. Most bizarre.

So would you trust the advice of 97% of the world's economists?

UnclePsychosis · December 2015

Heartfeltdawn;894314" said:
UnclePsychosis said:

People are fucking weird.

If 97% of the world's doctors told you if you didn't change your diet you were going to die you'd do something about it pretty damn quick.

97% of the world's climate scientists tell you that if you don't change your ways the whole human race could die and people bury their head in the sand and invent utter bullshit reasons not to believe it.

The amount of people who are proud to display their own scientific illiteracy when it comes to this topic is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed to see it. No one would ever be happy to admit to being unable to read or write, but are seemingly quite happy to shout loudly about their utter ignorance when it comes to science. Most bizarre.

So would you trust the advice of 97% of the world's economists?

You wouldn't be able to get 97% of the world's economists to agree on what day it was, never mind anything else...

hugbot · December 2015

TheCount said:

Scientists accept their computers may have exaggerated

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html

There were a lot of these articles about a reputed "pause" going on around 2013, rest assured things are still going according to schedule

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused/

"Both Santer and Trenberth agreed that models could probably improve their representation of natural variability, solar cycles, and cooling factors like volcanic eruptions and aerosols.

But picking a period of a decade or so where one part of the Earth's climate system fails to warm and using it to discredit all of climate science is a fallacious argument, and one driven by those with an agenda to discredit climate scientists, the researchers say.

Especially when over longer periods of time, as Mann's hockey stick graph demonstrates, the warming signal is so clear.

"Cherry-picking isn't allowed. You can't look at one highly unusual 15-year period and say, 'This is my yardstick for measuring climate models,'" Santer said."

WezV · December 2015

Population growth will kill our ways of life more.

It links into climate change because we could probably afford to be dirty polluting bastards if there were less of us.

We have an exponential growth of people all wanting the same basic resources to live.

paul_backskin · December 2015

Pumping millions of tonnes of CO2 into the air over a few hundred years, that was stored in the ground over millions of years, and would otherwise have remained there had it not been for the intervention of humans.

If you don't think that it might affect our climate then I despair.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

WezV · December 2015

Grumpyrocker;894028" said:
Crikey this place is still like a UKIP rally at times.

The science is clear. Man made climate change is real. Fine if you don't want to believe it, but your opinions don't change the real scientific facts.

I totally agree with you

Except for the use of the term "scientific facts". These do not exist.

There are only hypotheses which are backed up with evidence.

Its what I like about science. It can admit when its wrong, it can change its mind if new evidence comes along, it can adapt to new ideas

Dinosaurs were all giant lizards untill evidence of feathers began to emerge ...

Scientific conclusions or predictions are only ever our best guess based on the available evidence.

Chalky · December 2015

That's a novel view @UnclePsychosis. 97%% of a category of people think that something is fact, and that validates it as fact? When exactly did fact become democratic?

"97% of Climate scientists" believe something. I note you used the word Climate as the categoric. As @heartfeltdawn alluded, other catergories would give you similar meaningless results - 97% of cancer doctors would say cancer requires more funding, 97% of Financial Directors would argue that CEOs should be qualified accountants, 97% of marine biologists would say something about the cleanup of coastal waters, 97% of any group of professionals would claim their advice must be listened to if the world is going to improve.

Back in the 70s, 97% of climate scientists believed we were heading into an ice age and many were convinced that we would be able to not only predict the weather for weeks in advance but also start to control it within this century. Utter bollocks. Were they wrong? Or are we going to slide into the age old cliche - "Well we didnt have the evidence we do now". Study the history of science and you'll see they never get it wrong. Somehow, unique among the human race, scientists are always right. Arrogance is their natural state of mind.

Now I wouldn't mind if climate scientists maintained their illogical approach to truth (that it is not absolute but is evidence dependent) and kept it to themselves. But, there will be policies that will severely affect the lives of Billions, predominantly those who have the least money, the least power, the least freedom, and the least recourse to justice. So I'd like to see some realism in the debate before the blethering climate scientists demand policies that will cause such widespread extra pain amongst those in the world population who already put up with the worst lives.

Sibelius · December 2015

Genuine question, are you religious @chalky

UnclePsychosis · December 2015

Jesus fucking wept.

menamestom · December 2015

Even if you believe that climate change is a hoax, it's hard to argue against the benefits

TheCount said:

It's a new way to scam us and take away our freedom

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/australia-pms-adviser-climate-change-is-un-hoax-to-create-new-world-order

Does that mean you've read the prominent scientific papers which have been published and using your own scientific knowledge found holes in the methodology or conclusions? Are you a meteorologist?

Chalky · December 2015

@Sibelius - No, I am not. Until I was approaching 40, all my academic and reading time was spent on science. I was understandably fascinated by it. I still am.

But I happened to look at the history of science as part of an OU course. That led to more reading in that area and the philosophy of science. That widened my perspective and led into the politics of science. By then I saw that science is not the pure unadulterated search for truth that I'd previously thought. Especially today when there is such a battle for funding truly scientific research, as opposed to funding from vested interests.

What I see from @UnclePsychosis is the usual rubbish statement of "scientists say it so it must be true". That is actually detrimental to science as it stifles debate and thereby inhibits development of wise policy. The vast majority of policy-formers are non-scientists. So its eerily similar to saying "priests say it so it must be true" - denying the input from the rest of the population.

I also despise those who hate the human race and say the world would be better off without it. Whenever anyone says that something is more important than humanity, they are paraphrasing every evil dictator who preceded them.

menamestom · December 2015

Thing is, even if it was a hoax, the other side of the issue is that air quality is so poor in some cities it is killing people, so there's still a good reason to move away from polluting fuels. The problem with doing so is because the energy companies/suppliers etc have so much power it's not really in their interests (or the governments they are in bed with) to use cleaner energy which could be generated outside their control.

Energy in any format equals power, the more you have the richer and more powerful you are. The issue is nobody want to make decisions that would relinquish this power, it's like nuclear disarming.

hugbot · December 2015

The whole point of science is that any time someone makes a claim, they next try to prove it false, or someone else does. As soon as a claim is made there's a huge rush of attempts to prove it wrong with the most accepted claims being the ones that have stood up to the most scrutiny. I'd point out again that fossil fuels are one of the biggest economies on earth. If a scientist finds ANY credible evidence that burning fossil fuels doesent lead to climate change he would not want for attention or funding.

Sibelius · December 2015

Chalky said:

@Sibelius - No, I am not. Until I was approaching 40, all my academic and reading time was spent on science. I was understandably fascinated by it. I still am.

But I happened to look at the history of science as part of an OU course. That led to more reading in that area and the philosophy of science. That widened my perspective and led into the politics of science. By then I saw that science is not the pure unadulterated search for truth that I'd previously thought. Especially today when there is such a battle for funding truly scientific research, as opposed to funding from vested interests.

What I see from @UnclePsychosis is the usual rubbish statement of "scientists say it so it must be true". That is actually detrimental to science as it stifles debate and thereby inhibits development of wise policy. The vast majority of policy-formers are non-scientists. So its eerily similar to saying "priests say it so it must be true" - denying the input from the rest of the population.

I also despise those who hate the human race and say the world would be better off without it. Whenever anyone says that something is more important than humanity, they are paraphrasing every evil dictator who preceded them.

I agree, but when 97% of the people on the planet who study this are in agreement; that's significant. Yes they may be wrong, but science will prove if they are or not. To argue that they (scientists) could be wrong because they have been wrong in the past is a straw-man argument.

I remember reading that most of the sceptics (the 3%) out there are linked to energy companies in some way and then there are these types:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

So this is what passes for news these days? Global warming content

Comments

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming