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 15th Jun 2011, 03:33
  #8161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
All I know is that there are figures produced by scientists which prove global warming/climate change and that humans are the root cause of it.

Many of these figures, accepted as bone fide, have since been proved to be duplicitous. In proving that duplicity other, equally qualified, scientists have produced their own figures which, unless I missed something, have yet to be disproved by the original scientists. Instead they come up with the "heresy" catchphrase.

I know who I put my trust in and it ain't the political mobs who are trying to bankrupt the western economies.

Having said that I do believe it behoves us humans to cut down the amount of pollution which we are chucking into the atmosphere.
sisemen is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 03:45
  #8162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,652
Eliminating pollution should be the goal of every reasonsable denizen of this planet. Recycling our products to minimise waste? Exemplary! Paying taxes on a gas that our planet produces in sufficient abundance to keep us alive? Time for revolution!
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 05:43
  #8163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Should one have any confidence at all in what the IPCC says?

Look at the below post by Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit regarding IPCC WG3's statement on " 80 percent of word energy supplies met by renewables by the middle of the century.

IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke « Climate Audit

The entire press release by IPCC was based on the upper end of a scenario of a report written by Greenpeace. And the lead author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee, who prepared the Greenpeace scenarios and whose foreword was written by Rajendra Pachauri.

Like Steve McIntyre says " Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch. "

Totally agree with that. IPCC has completely lost it's credibility and is not to be trusted on anything they say.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 05:50
  #8164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
LowNslow,

Totally agree. This speech by Vaclav Klaus last year sums it all

Global Warming Alarmism is a Grave Threat to our Liberty | Václav Klaus

His last paragraph says it all about protecting the environment

" One last comment. I very often see that people confuse two different things – a necessary protection of the environment (necessary because there is no doubt that we have to take care of the rivers, lakes, seas, forests and air) and an irrational attempt to fight or to protect the climate. I am very much in favor of rational efforts when it comes to environmental protection, but I resolutely reject any attempts to change or – as I frequently hear – to combat climate."
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 07:27
  #8165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Oh, it must be galling...

The weird doctor was not dug up by self; he was put forth as one of your own by one of your own! To me he exemplifies much that is wrong with the general approach taken here by anti-AGW skeptics.

There is a very strident critical tone taken towards the majority of climate scientists. Accusations of bias, fraud, etcetera are extremely common and people like me are told that we know nothing of science. (Here, 'science' seems to involve simply cutting and pasting such stuff as seems to reinforce a certain point of view with very little thought given to the merit of what is posted. To simply argue from general knowledge of what I think of as science, well, you lot want your little graphs and citations, when nothing else will do!)

People on the fringe, such as Dr. M., are taken completely at face value by the anti-AGW faction when even a slightly critical look shows grounds for serous doubt:

1. EIR is a Lyndon LaRouche publication, when LaRouche is notorious for his total lack of ethics so that 'guilt by association' must come into it.

2. Both the interviewer and Dr. M. were all over the map, with many points left undiscussed despite their supposedly being central to the argument.

3. Just going by Dr. M.'s tone, he is exceptional in both the way he puffs himself up and the way he denigrates professional colleagues. This sort of thing is a marker for the 'crank' in my experience.

At your invitation, a few minutes spent Googling Dr. M. brought up two other points:

1. He had been censured for misrepresenting himself and the views of the organization he was supposedly heading, at a professional conference.

2. He has a stated belief in the unscientific practice of dowsing. A quiet belief in this practice might fly, but to go on the record, as a prominent scientist? Sorry, no.

There has been a certain groundswell of support for dowsing, which is touching. It might work for all I know, but nobody has been able to show that in a scientifically acceptable way, which is sort of the point if you want to continue to view Dr. M. as some sort of Swedish god of science, as he was originally put forth.

Hey, I used to while away the empty hours in the Sahara watching the head of Maharishi International University, a once-prominent physicist, telling his rapt audience about how Transcendental Meditation fits with string theory. He might be right, for all I know, but I don't think I am going to refer to him as an authority on much of anything, since the general impression was that the cheese had slid off his cracker. The same should go for Dr. M., I think, but that might just be me.

There have been some good points raised here. For instance, I, too, am skeptical about these wind turbines that are sprouting all over the German landscape thanks to government subsidies. When you look at the overall carbon footprint, including the energy that goes into the structure, are they really beneficial, especially when you consider how burdensome they can be? Well, should one expect a serious discussion of this sort of thing with a gang of unruly children playing at science in a cut-and-paste kindergarten? 'Not really,' is my guess.

I only looked at one of your so-called authorities on your side of the AGW debate, when it was plain very quickly that he's quite a dubious figure. I guess that many of the other ones can be exposed in exactly the same way.

What response did this exposure draw, though? There was no real response to the facts about Dr. M. Instead we got a long list of the supposed wrongs by the AGW faction, completely beside the point, and the fact of his having published a peer-reviewed paper on a completely different topic, also beside the point. This is like asking, 'Do you think Leonardo da Vinci could be called a scientist?' and getting the answer, "Look! A squirrel!'

I guess that means that the facts I mentioned are inarguable and that you lot do not want to engage with those facts. Well, I don't suppose I would want to try and defend the man by arguing the facts either, but then I would probably not have been foolish enough to try and use him to support my argument in the first place.

By the way: That dowsing test cited by GG, first by GG as support for dowsing and then, after someone pointed out how it really debunked dowsing, to show that GG himself was skeptical of the practice (nice pirouette there), raises some questions.

The test used 43 dowsers who were tested about 20 times each over the course of two years, or roughly once every five weeks on average. That is sort of strange, isn't it? Does a dowser get all pooped out, so that he needs a long recovery period between tests? Or were these people tested once at the beginning of the period and once at the end, for about ten times each?

Can you direct us to the source document that shows the test protocol, GG? It would be interesting to read the initial hypothesis and the summary of the results. Call that 'science' if you like and I will not mind.

Last edited by chuks; 15th Jun 2011 at 08:08.
chuks is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 07:44
  #8166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
low and slow / rvv500, both of you hit the nail squarely on th head.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 07:47
  #8167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: korat thailand
Age: 78
Posts: 136
Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Alert Print Post comment Retweet Facebook
Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT
What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.




Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?
The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation." Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade ? The Register
crippen is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:00
  #8168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Does anybody out there really think that a computer model can predict temperature accurate to the same level in 10/20/50/100 years hence?
The computer models are used to predict changes in temperature, not absolute temperature. This is discussed in the IPCC WGI report, which it's probably wise to read before trying to debate the subject.
Also, clinical thermometers are rather inaccurate, a field-grade thermometer can measure to thousandths of a degree. An experimental thermometer to several orders of magnitude better than that.

Do I want these governments making political decisions that will potentially ruin my childrens financial futures? NO!
Who else, apart from the politicians, should be making political decisions? It's your government, maybe you should vote for a different one next time.

All I know is that there are figures produced by scientists which prove global warming/climate change and that humans are the root cause of it.
Would you mind showing us one of these figures that says humans are the "root cause"?

Totally agree with that. IPCC has completely lost it's credibility and is not to be trusted on anything they say.
Not like those anonymous bloggers who endlessly post about climate change, eh?
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:23
  #8169 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Chucks since you ignored my last post I shall ignore yours.
green granite is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:23
  #8170 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,057
"This is highly unusual and unexpected,"


28th October 2009.

Watt's Up With That June 2008: Livingston and Penn paper: “Sunspots may vanish by 2015″.
ORAC is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:25
  #8171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Democracy in action...

I think you are missing the point, Simonpro. If enough people get together to make the same point on a blog then that point should be taken to be correct because that is essentially democratic; the mob has ruled.

If the mob can reinforce its (or 'it's' if you really must) point with overheated rhetoric, so much the better; that trumps some abstruse argument based on data no reasonable non-scientist is expected to believe in without having to, perhaps, open a book to figure out what in the world is under discussion. Anyone can understand accusations and insults but how many of us can understand what constitutes 'science,' let along 'good science,' especially when scientists themselves often disagree, as in the case of the tree-loving Dr. M.?
chuks is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:35
  #8172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
In your place...

I think that is probably the wisest policy, GG, to ignore my query.

Still, it is sort of an interesting question, isn't it, so that I wonder what went on in that barn.

Did they start with all 500 dowsers, one by one, or all at a time?

How big was the barn; how many square meters did each dowser have at his disposal?

If this was an old barn, did they lose any candidates through the usual gaps in the floor?

Did the cows mind, or was this testing done between the periods when they were milked?

Did milk production rise or fall as a result?

Do you know the answers to any of these questions, yourself?
chuks is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:39
  #8173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
As usual, Simonpro exhibits selective blindness to contents of a message. Read the link, understand what it says and comment. It's in simple english.

And read IPCC's SPM and it's contents about human influence on warming. And what is the A in AGW all about? You know, theory you praised to sky in these very boards?

And Steve McIntyre has more credibility any day compared to IPCC and it charlatans and it's sycophants.

Hell, a witch doctor has more credibiity than IPCC as he doesn't bullshit that his work is entirely based on " peer reviewed " and published science.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:45
  #8174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
chuks, start a sepratate thread on dowsing rather than continual attempts to divert the thread from the subject title.

play the ball not the player.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:51
  #8175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Stuckgear, best not to feed the trolls.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 08:59
  #8176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Here's a good discussion on Dr.Judith Curry's blog about IPCC and the detection and attributions they put on anthropogenic part of AGW

Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution. Part IV | Climate Etc.

And by the way, Dr.Judith Curry is a luke warmer and is a pro-AGW scientist, well published and respectable. She's one of the sensible ones who looks at both sides of the arguments and she finds a lot of troubling aspects about IPCC. She's also one of the few mainstream scientists who have spoken out about the antics of the pro-AGW rabid scientists and the behaviour of the climate journals.

This thread above explains how IPCC sets attribution on humans for causing warming.

And her comment about " blog science "

It's as follows

" And finally a comment about “blog science.” From the previous Parts I, II and III, you can see how my thinking on this has evolved, and a significant element in that evolution has been the comments and discussion on these threads at Climate Etc."

This is a classic example of a true scientist not afraid to discuss all issues related to AGW and seeing for herself that things are a lot wrong in the AGW camp and questioning them. That's how good blog science has evolved. Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry, Anthony Watts etc. are redefining blog science ad setting much higher standards in science as well as ethics, compared to IPCC, climate scientists and climate related scientific journals.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 09:03
  #8177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
If you say so...

I was just sort of intrigued by the larger question about scientific method.

Science is science, whether it is examining AGW or dowsing, isn't it? What much of this thread calls into question is scientific method itself, whether it can be regarded as valid or not.

Yes, perhaps someone should start a sub-thread on dowsing. First up: Dr. Mörner, and James Randi!
chuks is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 09:08
  #8178 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,057
Science is science, whether it is examining AGW or dowsing, isn't it? What much of this thread calls into question is scientific method itself, whether it can be regarded as valid or not.
I would suggest that what this thread calls into question is whether many of the AGW proponents are adhering to the scientific method.

Nice attempt at a smear/slur though....
ORAC is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 09:10
  #8179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
As usual, Simonpro exhibits selective blindness to contents of a message. Read the link, understand what it says and comment. It's in simple english.
Sigh, we've discussed this before. Why should I respond to everything? I'm not paid to respond to posts on here, I do so because it's interesting. Pointless blogs don't interest me so I'm not reading them. If you don't like that then you're more than welcome to employ me to respond to all of your posts.

You know, theory you praised to sky in these very boards?
I think you'll find that I haven't done that. Just because I don't go around shouting and moaning about the IPCC doesn't mean that I worship the AGW theory, y'know.

Hell, a witch doctor has more credibiity than IPCC as he doesn't bullshit that his work is entirely based on " peer reviewed " and published science.
In that case can you find some examples of non-peer reviewed science that has been included in the IPCC WGI report? I asked that a few months ago and received no response.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2011, 09:27
  #8180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Yeah, you don't read " pointless " blogs, but can comment about them without reading, great.

Go back and see your own posts about AGW theory being the most very well accepted blah, blah.

WGI or II or III are all IPCC reports and all the action is being taken based upon the SPM's. So if WGII and III are crap and come out with lousy suggestions and " findings " it's still crap. We are talking about IPCC as an " organisation " in it's entirety. It's the recommendations of the organisation that are being trumpeted around the world as " product of extensive scientific reviews " and policies affecting millions an costing billions are being proposed based on that report of IPCC.
rvv500 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.