Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 12th Jun 2011, 16:07
  #8061 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
AGW is essentially unprovable. It is a case of 'it could be this, it could be that,' really.

It is sort of interesting that Wikipedia, for just one, does say that most scientists, about 98% of them, agree with the AGW hypothesis (Anthropogenic Global Warming, put loosely, the notion that human activities are causing the earth's climate to become warmer, mainly by generating carbon dioxide) , so that what is presented here is very much a minority view.

When you read the posts here then you get very much the opposite picture, that only the cranks, crooks and fakers go with the idea of AGW. This is a They Were All Out of Step but Jim! sort of tune being played, amusing but essentially wrong-headed, if you simply go by what most scientists who work in this field are saying.

Yes, you can come up with people who say that the opposite view is correct, that there is really no such thing as AGW, with this all being down to faked or misinterpreted data, that there is no cause for alarm, but this view is not the commonly accepted one. Well, that fact is pure catnip to some of the people who haunt the internet, or so it seems to me. What with the Moon landings having been pretty conclusively shown to have occurred, thanks to recent images, and '9/11 was a fake' having been done to death, there must be some hobbyhorse to ride, and AGW is 'it' for now, for many.

What, most of the people doing climate science are not just wrong but 'evil, corrupt,' and what-not? Last time I checked, most people who got into science did have some sort of ethics; it seems to be an essential part of the whole! People do not choose that line of work planning to get rich, do they?

That said, it might well be that even if the science is right, the current political response is wrong, so that the trend of this thread might be partially correct. Certainly we have seen the Kyoto Agreement seem to have run its course.

You guys keep working on this one. Me, there is no hope; those CIA mind-control beams seem to have me locked into believing what I am s'posed to.
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 16:12
  #8062 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Well, that fact is pure catnip to some of the people who haunt the internet, or so it seems to me. What with the Moon landings having been pretty conclusively shown to have occurred, thanks to recent images, and '9/11 was a fake' having been done to death, there must be some hobbyhorse to ride, and AGW is 'it' for now, for many.
Are you accusing me of being one of these "conspiracy theorists" with a peanut butter and tinfoil hat because I do not agree with the flawed "science" that is AGW? The above comment, sir, is now WAY over the line of decency and says everything if that is the only "argument" you can come out with.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 16:29
  #8063 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Are you a scientist, then?

If not, how do you form the opinion that AGW is flawed? I guess you must read stuff and make your mind up from that. Well, given that most of what is available to be read says that AGW is not flawed... Hey, there is something wrong with this picture!

I cannot prove the unprovable, sorry! It may be so that AGW is an incorrect hypothesis, but it seems reasonable to me to go with what most (almost all, really) of the specialists in this field say, that AGW is a valid hypothesis.

Logically, then, if going with the AGW hypothesis is reasonable, then rejecting it is, to me, unreasonable. I suppose it should be unreasonable to most people working in that field, since they also seem to find AGW a reasonable hypothesis.

If you choose to define being in that happy state of unreason as wearing a tinfoil hat lined with peanut butter, should that be my problem? Wear whatever you like, really; I won't mind. Just don't ask me to go against my logical beliefs to regard you, and your brethren here, as reasonable. That would be unreasonable, wouldn't it?

I have other arguments but this one seems to fit the situation as I see it. I am sorry if it displeases you (all of you) and you may feel free to dismiss it from your minds (probably rather crowded, cobwebby places in any case).
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 16:35
  #8064 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,623
People do not choose that line of work planning to get rich, do they?.
For many academic research workers, it is not a case of getting rich. It is a case of having a job. University research is funded from outside, often by industry or government establishments. To attract funding and maintain their existence, most universities put pressure on their scientists to get their names into print as often as possible. This ensures that they get included in the bibliography of other research papers and so the incestuous relationships build up, everyone toeing the line in order to build up the façade of technical progress and understanding.

I spent 20 years sponsoring PhD students at various university and saw only too well how the system works. Did I ever meet any rich academics? NO.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 17:37
  #8065 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Tell me about it...

We have this one person who is working on a Ph.D. but meanwhile has to keep body and soul together with low-paid work at a small, liberal-arts college, when it is pretty obviously an unhappy situation.

There are lots of people chasing not very many chairs in academia, with things getting worse instead of better. Of course there must be a lot of pressure to come up with results, preferably results acceptable to most other academics!

Even so, do you see the sort of charlatanism some here seem to say is widespread in the AGW field? I just do not find that to be a reasonable interpretation of what I have read. Of course there can be incorrect results, invalid hypotheses, data left out or else overemphasized... all these things are flaws in the scientific process, but is there a sort of Lysenkoism being carried out on a massive scale, as here alleged by some?

You tell us, please, 'pulse 1,' since you are must know a lot more about that than most of us.
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 17:47
  #8066 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,623
As I understand it Lysenkoism describes the deliberate distortion of results for ideological reasons.

What I am saying is that, as you have said, "there must be a lot of pressure to come up with results, preferably results acceptable to most other academics!" and therefore, secure their future employment.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 18:06
  #8067 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
It is sort of interesting that Wikipedia, for just one, does say that most scientists, about 98% of them, agree with the AGW hypothesis (Anthropogenic Global Warming, put loosely, the notion that human activities are causing the earth's climate to become warmer, mainly by generating carbon dioxide) ,


chuks first of all be very careful about believing what wiki tells you, as it's editable by anybody it's open to slanting and misinformation. from an article By Chelsea Schilling: (History of climate gets 'erased' online)

The RealClimate.org team consisted of Schmidt, Mike Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Ray Bradley, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad and Caspar Ammann.

Solomon revealed that Connolley, one man in the nine-member team who is a U.K. scientist, a software engineer and Green Party activist, took control of Wikipedia's entries to see that any trace of the true climate history would be erased.

Beginning in February 2003, Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart.

"He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band," Solomon explains. "Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period."


Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.

"When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand," Solomon wrote. "When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions."


Meanwhile, followers who adhered to Connolley's climate views "were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings," Solomon contends.

Through his control of the Wikipedia pages, Connolley is said to have "turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia's pages.

"With the release of the Climategate e-mails, the disappearing trick has been exposed," Solomon declared. "The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear."

A Wikipedia arbitration committee has stated in the past: "William M. Connolley has, on a number of occasions, misused his administrator tools by acting while involved."

A July 31, 2006, article in the New Yorker described Connolley as a "victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed."

"After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration," the report states.

"User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV [point of view] with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own," his accuser charged in a written deposition. "His views on climate science are singular and narrow."

Connolley said Wikipedia "gives no privilege to those who know what they're talking about."

But the real point is about this 98% of scientists bit, I can't find the reference at the moment but the survey only asked a small number of people, only just enough to be statistically significant, just 2 questions,
1) Do you think the climate is getting warmer?
2) Do you think man's activities affect the climate?

Both of which most people let alone scientists would answer yes to, nothing asked about co2 at all.

You might like to read this article which puts a better slant to it: Where Consensus Fails – The Science Cannot Be Called ‘Settled’ | Watts Up With That?
green granite is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 22:13
  #8068 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
It is sort of interesting that Wikipedia, for just one, does say that...
Be careful with wikipedia. Here's a PPRuNe thread all about it...

"In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it — anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit..."


http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/3761...ropaganda.html





.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 22:26
  #8069 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
How it is...

There are some things I know a lot about, nothing very surprising or important to most people, just things I happen to know a lot about. Often, in those narrow fields of knowledge, I find that Mr Average really cannot understand some fairly basic point of knowledge because 'it just doesn't make sense.' For instance, you don't put the gear up in a windshear encounter. 'Say what? All that drag?'

Why should I have an extended argument about something like this? It is so, it makes sense once you understand the deep background, and basta. If I am speaking to someone who knows and trusts me, when I tell them this, they just accept it as valid and we go on to something else. They might say, 'Gee, that is surprising!' when I could just say that yes, it is, but they are willing to accept that I am telling them the truth as it is generally understood.

If I meet some armchair aviator then he might well want to argue the point with all sorts of somewhat valid counter-arguments, not even understanding that gulf between my grasp of the what and why of conventional knowledge and his ignorance of the same. Life is too short for this sort of thing.

When it comes to AGW I have read a bit about it in The New Yorker, the New York Review, some of the mainstream newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and The New York Times, but that is about it. I have seen, first-hand, some of the effects of climate change in Africa. I just did a couple of semesters of chemistry and math at the college level, but there again, this was just meant to give me a reasonable basic knowledge in these fields. It is not as though I can call myself a scientist or a mathematician. Exposure to all of these things, though, has led me to basically trust most of the people espousing the basic notion of AGW; what I read makes sense to me and I have no real reason to doubt it.

Put simply, it is like being in a strange city and asking ten people which way the nearest public telephone is, when I have a vague notion it must be to the north. Nine say it is two blocks north. One says it is one block south. So?

It would be nice if I only have to walk one block instead of two, but the odds are that the majority (and my vague notion) are correct over only one person, so that the reasonable solution is to take 'north' for correct. I have no absolute way of knowing which answer is correct; I have to make a reasoned guess.

Well, same for AGW. Most of the experts say it is a reality; only a few say it is a mistaken notion, while what I understand of the science behind it means that AGW makes sense to me; I have made a reasoned guess that the AGW hypothesis is correct.

Another thing I understand only too well is this very human drive many people one encounters on the internet have, to be wildly, obstinately mistaken, shielded by anonymity as they are. Whatever it is that 'they, the establishment' want to tell us, this tiny, fake elite want us to believe that they know better, that they have peeked behind the curtain to see the Wizard of Oz or Al Gore at work, that it's all bosh. They might well believe this themselves, but to me they come across as essentially cracked.

Well, while there is no absolute truth out there, I still choose to follow the accepted hypothesis of AGW. I wish it were not so, same as I would wish that telephone was only one block away instead of two, but wishing won't make something so, and I turn to walk north instead of south.

By the way: I think that Lysenko found that he was on to a very good thing, pushing his bogus theories which did happen to coincide with Soviet ideology. He may well have believed his own nonsense despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, so that he may not have been a conventional faker but more a madman. Or, he may have been a simple opportunist, or perhaps he was a combination of these things, but he was no scientist as we use the term properly. So for Lysenkoism I mean bogus science which is accepted as true in the face of contradictory evidence. I hope there is very little of that sort of thing being done, despite some of the wilder allegations here to be read.
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 22:42
  #8070 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I tend to agree with chuks, here, and there is only one caveat. Mostly I love a good discussion. Here, I cannot lose. I can be wrong, but I cannot lose.

The hardest part will be if Gore is right. If he is, it won't be because he believes in what he pitches, it will be because he's lucky, and a bastard of that description deserves luck, but only the bad kind.

Warm? Bring it. It has been uncommonly cold here in Cali this winter, and I can go boarding next July 4, there is so much snow. If Tongans have to move there Hale up the Beach, to keep dry, mo bettah me. If Polar Bears die out, fine. They are annoying. Plant Life can thrive, and the Northwest passage means Trade. So much will be new. I hate Parkas, mittens, and mulled wine.

Thongs, SPF 0 and wattah skis. Mo bettah.

bear, nonPolar
 
Old 12th Jun 2011, 22:55
  #8071 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
via chuks:
...I have seen, first-hand, some of the effects of climate change in Africa...
err, chuks. The climate is always changing, yer can see evidence of that every where on the planet..



via chuks: ...the establishment' want to tell us, this tiny, fake elite want us to believe that they know better...
Yep, them hocky stick scam artists and climate modelers are actualy a fairly small group..






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 02:21
  #8072 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
chuks, your thoughts?

konstantin is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 03:09
  #8073 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Oh Chuks, you meant " that " sort of a response, you meant? Now I understand perfectly. Silly me, I thought you're going to post something with science, sense and rational thought.

Go ahead, believe Wikipedia's 98% poll which counted the responses of 78 scientists out of 4500 polled, yes, check for yourself.

And what have you seen in Africa which " climate change " caused and in which country, when, which is anomalous. Go ahead, specify.

Hey, but what am I doing? I'm asking you to specify and state things with fact and rationale, silly me.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 03:43
  #8074 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
No commentary;

konstantin is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 05:13
  #8075 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Thanks to Tim Oates for a large dose of common sense.

Climate change should be excluded from curriculum, says adviser | Education | The Guardian

He's the head of Government Review for school syllabuses in UK and has stated that Climate Change should not be part of the curriculum.

He has called for the national curriculum "to get back to the science in science".

Hats off to him for his stand.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 07:19
  #8076 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,623
Chuks,

In an excellent post you have described very well the way many people try to understand what we are being told about AGW. Although I am a qualified chemist I find the level of mathematics and statistics required to evaluate the various claims is beyond me. But what I can do, is evaluate what other, cleverer, people say in refereed technical papers and, over the years, I have become aware how difficult it has been to get papers published which present technical arguments which go against AGW.

Then, over the years, I have seen some scientists who are acknowledged experts in their field having the courage to go against the AGW flow.

For example, when it was fashionable to believe that rate of sea level rise meant that the Maldives would soon disappear, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (Head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden) describes it as a"total fraud".

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/C...rinterview.pdf

For me, as someone who has earned a reasonable living as a scientist, I cannot accept the claims of the AGW unless the views of people like Dr Mörner can be reconciled with what the IPCC claims.

For that reason, I come to the opposite view to you when it comes to putting at risk the global economy and especially the economy of the country where my kids live, the UK.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 07:35
  #8077 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
chuks, I went to a great deal of effort to explain why you should take wiki with a good dose of salt and also about the 98% business yet you don't even bother to acknowledge it, why's that? Perhaps you didn't bother to read it as it wasn't what you wanted to hear.
green granite is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 10:31
  #8078 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
God help Giodarno Bruno!

It is a little sad to see the fervour with which the anti AGW faithful have responded to Chuk’s very reasonable position reference this subject. One senses a little of the inquisition about the way that an honest PPRuNer’s rational discourse is derided by the faithful. What next, an auto de fe and immolation for anybody who dares take the heretical stance that AGW might just be a reality?

What with all the heat that has been generated here, we may be exacerbating a worldwide warming trend.

What we have here on this thread is the mere nay or attempted gainsaying of positions using links to sources that conveniently support a particular point of view or prejudice. This is not science no matter what the people (of whatever opinion about this subject) using these tactics may claim! At least Chuks doesn’t presume to use science, mathematics or a slew of internet waffle to bolster his point of view. What is clear to this observer is that his rational point of view, clearly and honestly explained, is far more credible than any number of links to tendentious websites or self-proclaimed experts.

Last edited by Cacophonix; 13th Jun 2011 at 12:02.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 11:41
  #8079 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,623
Cacophonix,

You are doing the same thing. At least give some examples of to these "links to tendentious websites or self-proclaimed experts".

We can then discuss the merits or otherwise of these links and you can tell us why you think that they are tendentious.

I hope that you are not referring to my above link to Dr Mörner's interview. I am sure that you will be able to find many references to his expertise in the field of sea level monitoring.

e.g. Mörner, N.-A., 2000. Sea Level Changes and Coastal Dynamics in the Indian Ocean. In: Integrated Coastal Zone Management, p. 17-20. ICG Publ. Ltd

You cannot ignore what he says. Challenge it scientifically by all means. Show that he is wrong if you can.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 11:54
  #8080 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
What is clear to this observer is that his rational point of view, clearly and honestly explained, is far more credible than any number of links to tendentious websites or self-proclaimed experts.
Would that be the same websites and "experts" who claimed Tuvalu was going under because of the sea level rising (it isn't), or that the Himalayan glaciers will vanish by 2035 (they won't), or that figures show the planet is still warming (it isn't), that the number of polar bears is dropping (they aren't, the numbers are increasing), that Lake Chad is vanishing because of AGW (it isn't, it's shrinking because of the increase in the use of the rivers feeding it for irrigation), etc, etc, etc?

There is just a few examples of the lies thrown out by the pro-AGW camp, and the IPCC, so tell us exactly where the issue lies with "tendentious websites or self-proclaimed experts".
hellsbrink is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.