Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Alan Robinson]

What a load of tosh. Mathematics is an invention.

Oh really Spark, that is too much. Didn't you ever hear of axioms? And I use axiom in the traditional sense of self-evident truth requiring no further proof. Euclid is full of them. Invention indeed!

 

Perhaps that is the biggest problem with maths teachers, they don't grasp that learning maths is a long sequence of realizations, revelations and penny-dropping ....... and perhaps many pupils didn't realize that either and relied on rote.

[Methuselah]

Oh really Spark, that is too much. Didn't you ever hear of axioms? And I use axiom in the traditional sense of self-evident truth requiring no further proof. Euclid is full of them. Invention indeed!

 

Perhaps that is the biggest problem with maths teachers, they don't grasp that learning maths is a long sequence of realizations, revelations and penny-dropping ....... and perhaps many pupils didn't realize that either and relied on rote.

Which is why my proof of two triangles' identicality was simple: because they are? If all their angles and sides are equal, how can the triangles be different?

 

But, as I hinted at previously, what has any of this got to do with man-made climate change?

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks Pete. Et Tu?

 

The reason, as I feel it, that we have such a nasty undercurrent here has nothing to do with the science but all to do with the human condition. The worst ;denial-ism' is fuelled by this and pays no heed to the science nor wishes to engage in sceptical debate. They fear the future painted for us all and so deny it being so.

 

I have always maintained that it displays the first phase of the grieving process for good reason, I believe it is just that. The death of the way we would wish to continue at our own hands. the death of countless millions by our own hands so that we might 'enjoy' the way of being we are accustomed to. To give this up due to nothing more than 'predictions' is far more than most of our denialists would sanction. But now those predictions are being made flesh and so the messenger must go.

 

Thanks for all the fish........

[Alan Robinson]

But, as I hinted at previously, what has any of this got to do with man-made climate change?

 It concerns the tendency in the contemporary Scientific Method towards metaphysics. It concerns the question of whether something is discovered or invented. It concerns whether or not science in all its complexity is these days a matter of faith for most of us, because we have to take someone else's word for it that something is factual. It prompts the question, why should I believe what I am told?

 

These questions go part way to explaining why this thread was opened in the first place, namely, not everyone is convinced by what passes for science these days.

[stewfox]

David Rose does the world a favour again by putting the debate into some form of prospective.

 

Interesting the ;threats to his family' and liking him to Hitler (Dave is Jewish) is the kind of response you expect from some.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html?ico=mailonsunday^editors_choice

Edited September 15, 2013 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

Indeed A.R, . and so the 'debate' strays from the 'science/data/facts' and into psychology?

 

Folk , removed from the methodology, have difficulty in 'accepting' the work of the scientists and seek to regain 'control' by denying it. We see the response to any newspaper/blog challenge to the science here all the time.

 

Folk dismiss ALL the work if one small data point is questioned, they vent anger toward the individuals/body that produced the data, they even , on occasion, question ALL science?

 

The climate misleaders are not bound by the need to provide scientific evidence to refute studies/papers only to bring the current science into question in an attempt to delay any moves toward mitigation of future climate shifts.

 

When we look at the tobacco lobby and the methodology they employed to slow progress toward understanding the damage tobacco does and compensating the victims ( claims died with the claimant) the parallels with the controlled efforts to slow the public's acceptance of the importance of the changes we have brought into being.

 

Though scientific evidence for change does carry psychological impact I cannot think of instances where this is exploited by the study. it is only the latter dissection of the work that folk bring psychology into the issue. How often do we hear charges of 'doom monger' laid at the feet of a person bringing evidence/papers to the forum?

[Methuselah]

 It concerns the tendency in the contemporary Scientific Method towards metaphysics. It concerns the question of whether something is discovered or invented. It concerns whether or not science in all its complexity is these days a matter of faith for most of us, because we have to take someone else's word for it that something is factual. It prompts the question, why should I believe what I am told?

 

These questions go part way to explaining why this thread was opened in the first place, namely, not everyone is convinced by what passes for science these days.

Another thread might be a good idea, Alan?

[stewfox]

Indeed A.R, . and so the 'debate' strays from the 'science/data/facts' and into psychology?

 

Folk , removed from the methodology, have difficulty in 'accepting' the work of the scientists and seek to regain 'control' by denying it. We see the response to any newspaper/blog challenge to the science here all the time.

 

 

 

If the 'challenge' cannot scientifically be rebuffed then why should someone 'accept' the work ?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#comments

 

Are 'we' not right to 'challenge'  (and that includes investigative reporters).

 

I still 'deny' the artic will be ice free by the summer of 2013

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm

 

I'm glad many did not agree the Earth was flat despite the 'evidence'

Edited September 15, 2013 by stewfox

[pottyprof]

I think that quite a few folk get put-off the subject - when they get preached at?

 

I don't know why I'm putting myself through this Pete.  I nearly found something of interest and then I realised where I was...

[Devonian]

Following this thread I have to say, again...., I see a lot in the 'sceptic' thread I don't agree with. But, I take that thread and this one as they were set up and I have only post to this one, the one that best matches my views - that was, was it not, the intention of the two threads???

 

Why do I continue to see views sceptical about man made climate change in this thread???

[pottyprof]

Why do I continue to see views sceptical about man made climate change in this thread???

 

Errrrrrrrrr....  I give in.  You having some kind of pub quiz Dev?

[knocker]

Well the answer is obvious. Bias by the mods who made the rules.

[Devonian]

Errrrrrrrrr....  I give in.  You having some kind of pub quiz Dev?

 

From Paul's opening post to this thread:"As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't. " (my underline). I do that. I post to this thread I've never posted to the 'sceptic' thread. I think I'm respecting the aims of these threads by doing so? But maybe not?

Edited September 16, 2013 by Devonian

[loafer]

It is a problem on both threads, tbh, but I think the mods do a good job walking the tightrope between promoting open discussion and preventing open warfare.

[pottyprof]

From Paul's opening post to this thread:"As part of a slightly different approach in the climate area, we're starting this plus 2 other threads with the explicit aim of the threads that members take part in the discussions that best match their own views, and not in the discussions which don't. " (my underline). I do that. I post to this thread I've never posted to the 'sceptic' thread. I think I'm respecting the aims of these threads by doing so? But maybe not?

 

I've only just popped my head round the virtual door as I have had much more important things to focus on than the he said/she said point scoring stuff in recent weeks, plus my on-going health issues have been causing me many problems.

 

If there are any issues then I'm sure if you click 'report post' then someone will take a look.  If you can't be bothered to do that and just moan in any of the threads then I'm sure nobody will be that interested.  I used to put up with the personal insults and remove posts amongst other things, without waiting for them to be reported for the good of the community here on Netweather but something had to give.

 

Sorry I can't be of any further assistance at this point in time as my interest in this subject has become virtually non existent and I don't want to do anything that would be seen as being biased.  Please follow the forum guidelines.

[knocker]

Mark McCarthy's blog is quite a good read. A climate scientist with the METO so presumably much vilified by the conoscenti

 

http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/

Edited September 16, 2013 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

Climate sensitivity

[knocker]

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

 

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial?CMP=twt_gu

Edited September 17, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

UPDATE: Despite Doubling Down, Climate Change Article Still Very Misleading

 

Over the weekend, the Mail on Sunday posted a highly misleading article on climate change. In it, author David Rose made a number of errors, some fundamental, downplaying the reality of climate change. I, along with many others, pointed out the numerous mistakes made, including his comparing two numbers that are not at all comparable, as well as a grossly inaccurate misquote of a climate scientist, making it seem he was saying something he really wasn’t.

Edited September 18, 2013 by knocker

[Steve C]

All I will say (and I've not researched as others have) is that the sceptics who talk about 'feedback loops' etc. reducing global temperature rise, had better be correct, if they end up influencing global consensus.

 

If you're correct, then well done, but if you're wrong, then the consequences would be terrible for our descendants. I and undoubtedly most others posting, wouldn't really suffer, but what a legacy for future humanity and our environment, if thoughts which (let's be honest) are mostly influenced by current and near future higher fuel bills, are incorrect and are taken on board? 

 

Like I said, I'm agnostic on this topic, but we can't mess up here, even if we err on the side of caution.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well said Steve C!

 

Without concerns of impacts to global climate surely we have enough worries for our future, and the generations to come, with population growth and energy security? We seem to be making no sense of these challenges and merely 'living in the moment'?

Maybe humanity is 'hardwired' to only look at clear and present dangers and not able to take on board things that are not already causing problems?

[Tamara]

I would suggest that sustainable energy and foodstuffs, environmental prudence and respect, as well as concerns over population growth are issues of higher priority than fixed assumptions over man made climate theory. I rather see it the other way round that questioning these assumptions about changes in climate, and assessing all possible drivers instead, is critical to future generations welfare and survival instead of taking it as a given and making a swathe of increasingly grave predictions decades ahead accordingly.

 

So it is not the so called 'sceptics' who embrace an open mind, but those with strident, entrenched and one-sided views instead who better be the ones who don't mess up things.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Tamara Road

[Methuselah]

Indeed Tamara. As you imply: scepticism's fine (arguably essential), denialism serves little or no purpose whatsoever, scientifically...But, we all - each and every one of us - resorts to 'assumption'... 

[Tamara]

I don't like some of these terms at all myself - they are divisive and polarising in themselves. Whatever 'denialism' is intended to imply, it comes across as derogatory, sanctimoneous and patronising  Someone can only be in denial of something if there is irrevocable evidence that it is true and has some kind of certainty and inevitability attached to it and they refuse to accept it. The questions surrounding climate variation have nothing attached to them whatsoever of this kind .

Edited September 19, 2013 by Tamara Road

[Methuselah]

I don't like some of these terms at all myself - they are divisive and polarising in themselves. Whatever 'denialism' is intended to imply, it comes across as derogatory, sanctimoneous and patronising  Someone can only be in denial of something if there is irrevocable evidence that it is true and has some kind of certainty and inevitability attached to it. The questions surrounding climate variation have nothing attached to them whatsoever of this kind .

Or (the term does get a tad stretched) just the simple, blind refusal to accept the very possibility, of something. I don't see it as an 'insult' - more of a philosophical position...When someone posits a device which contravenes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I become a denier...

 

If only the world's politicians/environmentalists had emphasized the fact that all fossil fuels are finite (and are thus running-out) instead of man-made Climate Change, who knows what they might have achieved?