Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

A growing groundswell of opinion?

Recommended Posts

I can't remember who it was that said it but they claimed that "the correct answer is usually the obvious one"..

I have to correct this. The correct analogy is "the simplest answer is usually the correct one".

Hmmm.. Wonder who it was?? *strokes chin*

http://wotug.kent.ac.uk/parallel/www/occam/occam-bio.html

In other words keep it simple.. I'll leave the other bit out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is probably the 'why' that we 'Acceptalist's' are pursued for! The fact that we (humanity)have, and continue to,put out, a comparable CO2 tonnage (when distributed throughout the atmosphere as we have introduced CO2 over the past 40yrs) as a moderate volcanic eruption every day throughout that time( with lower,mid and upper level release of CO2) as a moderate volcano popping it's top. Even though everyone accepts the impact of a volcanic eruption but they then struggle with the probable impacts of the 'Human Volcano'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...e#StartComments

Interesting article in the Sunday Mail today. Also lots of interesting comments from readers.

Plus a poll...the question being "is climate change a real threat to the world or is it overhyped?"

Results.......real threat 34%

.......over-hyped 66%

(**noggin sits back and waits for comments such as "what else would you expect from Mail readers?" whose opinions are usually dismissed as summarily as those of Terry Wogan's listeners!**)

Yes, definitely a "growing groundswell of opinion" and also a more vocal opinion now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noggin, this is not a fight and the 'truth' of the impacts of our shinanigins will be all to apparent very soon (next summers Arctic melt?) and the impacts of said tinkering will start causing their own dire impacts (even if to you it just means Australian wine shortages) It's never been about opinions, it still isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, what would you expect from Daily Mail readers and Terry Wogan listeners? :doh:

Naughty, naughty! :)

Oh, alright then, forget them. How's about a whole load of scientists and professors instead....http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to know what scientists are thinking, you'd do better to read the reports from last week's AGU than go to the National Post.

Fortunately, Ban Ki Moon had the good sence to ignore that letter, which seems to be signed by most of the usual suspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing must be allowed to stop the gravy train! Opinion of the public, phah! Piffle. New scientific evidence; nonsense, all of it. New perspective on old science; utter rot. Open up all the evidence thus far for wider inspection; not on your nelly.

Oh, and the usual suspects as reported in the National Post; all eminent, reputable scientists, some of which were even involved compiling the IPCC report. Most definately not a raggamuffin gang of fools, as some would have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providing it strengthens your case I'd hazard a guess?

Really, you can say what you want, but you're as entrenched in your views as any contributor to this increasingly ridiculous and pointless thread. No one's going to change their viewpoint on the basis of anything anyone writes here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Providing it strengthens your case I'd hazard a guess?

Really, you can say what you want, but you're as entrenched in your views as any contributor to this increasingly ridiculous and pointless thread. No one's going to change their viewpoint on the basis of anything anyone writes here.

I'm not entrenched, honest. It's just that no matter what point of question or doubt or query over the science is met with such adament counter-argument based on opinion, that I have to labour every single point in an effort to get some kind of meaningful discussion.

If every question I raised or paper I posted was met with a sound argument or counter-paper, explaining why I was talking nonsense, then the discussion would reach a natural end. Sadly, that rarely happens. As is the case in Bali; the scientists on that list are eminent and respected, they raise valid, serious questions but instead of the Bali conference or the IPCC answering those questions, they instead chose to ignore. If there is a genuine desire to silence the dissenters once and for all, then answer those questions. I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I doubt very much that those scientists are either, so instead of ignoring or shouting louder, explain why those questions, queries and doubts are ill-founded.

I don't have a case to strengthen, I have no agenda, the quote at the bottom of my posts sums up the only motive I have:

There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be.

Charles Sanders Pierce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But how can you say you seek the truth when you're clearly coming at it from a certain angle? I've certainly seem enough evidence to convince me, as, it seems, have the majority of people who matter.

It just baffles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how can you say you seek the truth when you're clearly coming at it from a certain angle? I've certainly seem enough evidence to convince me, as, it seems, have the majority of people who matter.

It just baffles me.

It really isn't coming at it from a certain angle, although I can see why anyone would think that. The case for warming is comprehensive, no need to investigate that, we all know all the literature. In order to assess any argument or point, if the body of evidence is predominately for one side, then any investigation needs to focus on the other side, to see what counter-evidence there is. The other side of the AGW debate, the sceptic side for want of a better phrase, attracts far less publicity; headlines of Polar Bears facing extinction, Ice Free Arctic, sells papers. I actually began all this malarky as a believer, my only questions were, how much change can we expect and how soon. It wasn't until I delved deeper that I realised there were some major doubts and questions, that the body of evidence wasn't as water-tight as we'd been led to believe. There is a world of difference between the world is getting warmer and we are causing the warming. I am completely and utterly open to being converted but that works both ways, show me a pro-AGWer who is completely open to seeing and accepting the flaws in the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how can you say you seek the truth when you're clearly coming at it from a certain angle? I've certainly seem enough evidence to convince me, as, it seems, have the majority of people who matter.

It just baffles me.

Hi OON!

Just thought I'd poke my nose in to back Jethro up (quelle surprise!). She and I seem to have much the same approach to AGW - I have said before, and I shall probably say again (as I do have a habit of repeating myself needlessly :) ), that the case supporting AGW is circumstantial. There may seem to be quite a bit of evidence for it, but it is largely based on assumptions derived from previous papers - standing on the shoulders of giants, you might say.

I have read numerous papers over the past few months which state something along the lines of the following: "Such-and-such appears to be happening, as a result of man's CO2 emissions." But there is nothing to explain how that conclusion was arrived at - it seems as though they have apportioned the blame to man's CO2 emissions based solely on the presupposition that man's CO2 emissions are to blame. A bit tautological, that!

So, to go back to Jethro's and my approach, all we are doing is coming from a persistently questioning angle. A scientific theory which is not questioned - or is questioned but doesn't produce answers - is on pretty dicey ground, scientifically speaking. Skepticism is how science has progressed for hundreds of years, and there's every reason to continue questioning now, even if the subject under scrutiny is widely accepted.

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, you have doubts, and perhaps you're the type who like to analyse this stuff from a scientific point of view. But as I've said time and time again, if you're right and this has nothing or little to with humans, then any preventative measures will have been pointless, but relatively harmless. If nothing is done and you're wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic.

That's why I don't understand all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have folk on the South tip of Indonesia (genetically linked to the Aboriginal folk and so part of the first 'out of Africa' wave 60 thousand years ago) having to leave their island homes due to sea level rises. To the North we have Inuit folk struggling to cope with with the rapidity of change up there and having no verbal traditions of their folk to help them cope.

If we are looking at folk who survived the end of the last ice age and the inundations/climate change that accompanied it ,and then happily lived through the oft quoted little ice age,Romano warm period, bronze age cool down, middle age warm period then what is different today. If you could ,as Potty P. suggests, go for the simplest answer I'd love to hear it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, you have doubts, and perhaps you're the type who like to analyse this stuff from a scientific point of view. But as I've said time and time again, if you're right and this has nothing or little to with humans, then any preventative measures will have been pointless, but relatively harmless. If nothing is done and you're wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic.

That's why I don't understand all this.

Which is why I have persistantly argued that those most at risk should be protected, regardless. Many of those scientists on the list presented at Bali have argued for adaptation being the priority. I really cannot think of one sceptic on this forum who promotes the idea of not living an ecologically sound lifestyle; there is however a huge assumption that to have questions and doubts about the validity of the theory automatically means we carry on as usual with our polluting ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well (and I mean this constructively) I don't consider myself to be thick, but I've never read that into any posts by "sceptics" on here, probabl;y because the message is lost in the fine detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, you have doubts, and perhaps you're the type who like to analyse this stuff from a scientific point of view. But as I've said time and time again, if you're right and this has nothing or little to with humans, then any preventative measures will have been pointless, but relatively harmless. If nothing is done and you're wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic.

That's why I don't understand all this.

The preventative measures may have been harmless ecologically speaking (unless some crazy out there does decide to fumigate the atmosphere with absurd amounts of aerosols!), but what of the economic cost? That's a whole different argument, of course, but a lot of people are finding it hard enough to make ends meet in this country as it is, and that's without the proposed future "green" taxation (like the pay-as-you-throw scheme). How are we to "combat climate change" if we've got no money to do it with?! Surely the onus should be on the producers, not the end users?

Besides, if I am wrong then there's a pretty good chance that all the measures in the world won't help us - except maybe for that aerosols idea...

:)

CB

EDIT - Oh, I almost forgot...I am not opposed to sensible use of resources either! Chopping down rainforests and excessive use of non-renewable fuels is, quite clearly, madness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After much consideration, and the input of my recent acquaintance of P17 Holmes and a movie me an' the kids have just been watching I've decided I was wrong and that it wasn't 'us' to blame all along. All the strange weather, Geminids ,earthquakes and vulcanisity pointed me to it! It's all Ming the merciless and has been all along!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After much consideration, and the input of my recent acquaintance of P17 Holmes and a movie me an' the kids have just been watching I've decided I was wrong and that it wasn't 'us' to blame all along. All the strange weather, Geminids ,earthquakes and vulcanisity pointed me to it! It's all Ming the merciless and has been all along!!!!!

Ah, now you're talking sense!

;)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well (and I mean this constructively) I don't consider myself to be thick, but I've never read that into any posts by "sceptics" on here, probabl;y because the message is lost in the fine detail.

I can only speak for myself Oon, but I have made many, detailed posts on numerous threads since first joining the forum, on this very subject. I've even opened a thread to deal specifically with some of the mad ideas proposed to combat AGW and Co2 consumption by proposing to convert the rainforest into crops for bio fuel. I even argued for greatly increased taxation to combat consumption, advocating the introduction of a VAT style tax with a carbon calorie counter on every packaged item, import tax paid by the supermarket giants if they really want us to eat apples from New Zealand instead of british grown ones, I've posted links on just how much can be grown at home, encouraged folk to buy locally grown organic produce etc etc etc. I don't consider you thick either but perhaps slow down a little, stop speed reading posts or perhaps there's an element of expectation in that you see a poster and expect them, as a sceptic, to be full of wanton waste? I really cannot think of one poster on here, who doesn't consider conservation and responsibilty to be the way they live their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus a poll...the question being "is climate change a real threat to the world or is it overhyped?"

Results.......real threat 34%

.......over-hyped 66%

My goodness...now I really have missed something here. Are we really accepting a poll in the Mail as scientific fact???????????????????

Oh we are? That's OK then.

Well it's nice to know that Diana didn't die, that we never went to the moon, that cancer is caused by eating green smarties and that pigs can fly.

If this is the extent of scientific debate in this country, I despair.

P.S. And just a small point: a 'paper' is generally referred to as an article that is peer reviewed: just quoting any old piece of written work from the internet, media, etc, etc really doesn't cut it in any kind of serious debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the 'green 'Sceptics'.

Though we applaud your efforts to minimise your 'footprint' here on planet earth we must query your motivations.

If your wish to 'tread lightly' is due to an understanding of how ,if folk didn't make an effort, the place would be a real mess and we would threaten,needlessly ,many other creatures that we share our world with how come when it's a 'national polluter' or a 'multinational polluter' you fail to see how they , on a macro scale, are doing exactly what you wish to avoid on a 'micro scale'

You have been alive for so little time, compared to the 150yrs of the 'macro-polluters' , can you not conceive of the damage done during this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My goodness...now I really have missed something here. Are we really accepting a poll in the Mail as scientific fact???????????????????

Oh we are? That's OK then.

That's a bit harsh isn't it, Roo? Surely noggin's point was that your average Joe on the street was asked (albeit by a newspaper) whether or not climate change was a real threat and those were the results. We're not really talking about science here, are we? It was an attempt to gauge the opinion of Johnny Everyman, not a scientific analysis. The results of the poll at least seem to suggest that the message is not getting through...

:)

CB

PS - Of course Diana didn't die - she's living on the Moon with Elvis, Lord Lucan and Jimmy Hoffa. So obviously we did go to the Moon... (And that Smarties thing is rubbish too - everybody knows that eating your greens is good for you... :p )

To the 'green 'Sceptics'.

Though we applaud your efforts to minimise your 'footprint' here on planet earth we must query your motivations.

My motivations? Seriously? Well, mainly to save money (since I'll have to start a savings account for when all these "Green Taxes" come into effect!).

If your wish to 'tread lightly' is due to an understanding of how ,if folk didn't make an effort, the place would be a real mess and we would threaten,needlessly ,many other creatures that we share our world with how come when it's a 'national polluter' or a 'multinational polluter' you fail to see how they , on a macro scale, are doing exactly what you wish to avoid on a 'micro scale'

As I say, reducing CO2 emissions has, for me, little to do with it. Cutting down on CO2 emissions surely can't hurt, and if you can save money into the bargain as well then it's worth doing. I agree with many of the "Environmental Causes", for want of a better phrase, simply because they make sense - unless we all want to end up living in Mega-Cities like in Judge Dredd! But the issue of how we may be altering the macroscopic balance of the planet is a rather different one from things like pollution (not CO2 "pollution"), deforestation and hunting animals to extinction.

You have been alive for so little time, compared to the 150yrs of the 'macro-polluters' , can you not conceive of the damage done during this time?

Yes I can, and I think it is most probably somewhat less than people imagine.

:)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Opinion of the public, phah! Piffle.

Absolutely. In the same way that you wouldn't ask Joe Public to decide whether you needed a heart transplant, whether your brakes were safe, whether your house needed work doing to it, etc, etc.

We have skilled professionals for a reason. Anyone working in the academia of climate science and it's related fields works hard at what they do, and, as P3 has said, is busy examining a wide range of theories concerning GW.......BUT, the one thing they will not be doing is reporting hearsay, gut reaction or 'common sense' (interestingly sociologists use this term as something that describes unsubstantiated thought) as fact until it can be PROVED as such.

There have been thousands of experiments and papers (and I mean published, peer reviewed ones, not internet fripperies) carried out by a multitude of different disciplines and agencies across the world and the massive majority have pointed to AGW being a very real phenomena (these same studies have been able to replicate their results and uncover links to other disciplines' results): as far as I can see, the only true debate now focuses on the scale of the damage, not on whether it is happening.

The views of AGW are based on a huge, qualified consensus based on fact.

Why do we keep having these same old pages and pages of stuff. It's so depressing.

As quotes are popular here, I have one of my own: 'Fiddling while Rome burns'

That's a bit harsh isn't it, Roo? Surely noggin's point was that your average Joe on the street was asked (albeit by a newspaper) whether or not climate change was a real threat and those were the results. We're not really talking about science here, are we? It was an attempt to gauge the opinion of Johnny Everyman, not a scientific analysis. The results of the poll at least seem to suggest that the message is not getting through...

Fair enough point, but it really annoys me each time I see that 'the message isn't getting through': there has been so much information that people have no excuse not to have got the message: the majority just don't want to listen as it will impact on their daily consumerist lives.......

Also, I think the point of the Daily Mail poll was not to find out whether the message was getting through, but was more to give voice to Joe Public's opinions (which sadly, do not have enough specialist knowledge to be valid). Yet another example of the 'everyone has a right to comment, even if they don't know what on earth they're talking about' plague which seems to be sweeping the British media...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...