Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Paul

Manmade Climate Change Discussion

Recommended Posts

 

Oh my...

 

STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All

 

 

Does make you wonder. Mind listening to Today this morning they had a lengthy item on someone called Justin Bieber punching someone.........................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-53#entry2913648

 

 

No doubt their sceptical remarks are contentious, their facts arguable and their conclusions unusual – but the three of them certainly gave the lie to the claim that “the science is settledâ€.

 

Personally I think this virulent denier blog does everyone a disservice particularly science. But I'm not going to nitpick them but  just to repeat a couple of posts posted prior to their distorted view.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/expertise/.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/ipcc-5th-assessment-review/

 

http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/well-all-be-dead-by-then-lindzen-in-london/

 

My own view is that if they felt the need to have three sceptical opinions to balance the evidence is that they could have chosen better.

 

Perhaps 4wd, SI and Jonboy? Or even Dr, Spencer and the Angel Gabriel.

Edited by knocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Knocks!

 

The 'average' of 0.3c above the base shows that we are looking to move on from the predominant 'cool drivers'? If a Nino Year, posting max global temp record, is below the 'average' for the coming years then how are the years going to pan out? With the upper limit  at over 0.4c I have to wonder what type of climate extremes we should expect over the coming years???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-53#entry2913648

 

 

Personally I think this virulent denier blog does everyone a disservice particularly science. But I'm not going to nitpick them but  just to repeat a couple of posts posted prior to their distorted view.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/expertise/.

 

http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/ipcc-5th-assessment-review/

 

http://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/well-all-be-dead-by-then-lindzen-in-london/

 

My own view is that if they felt the need to have three sceptical opinions to balance the evidence is that they could have chosen better.

 

Perhaps 4wd, SI and Jonboy? Or even Dr, Spencer and the Angel Gabriel.

 

On expertise just because someone shouts long and hard that they are right and the science is settled does not mean this is correct. I see so many times the comment that X is an expert and he /she says or shows that A B and C are the cause of a given outcome so it must correct.

 

Have we forgotten what Wakefield said about vaccinations and how those who dared oppose his view were treated yet eventually he was proved incorrect but not before a hugh setback in child health had been achieved.

 

Now I'm not saying that CO2 has no impact but what I firmly believe is that it is not the driver and that we need to better understand how our atmosphere interacts with the many other influencers

 

So no apology for being a Skeptic from Jonboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. Wakefield was one person and the majority of scientific opinion thought him incorrect as there was no scientific basis to support his so-called findings. Media hype, led by the Daily Fail, prevailed for some time and irreparable damage was done. Ring any bells?

 

No need to apologise for being a Skeptic as I'm one as well. That's why I tend to ignore the rubbish from these idiotic denier blogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the article I posted earlier.

 

Dr Roy Spencer's intellectual honesty

 

http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/dr-roy-spencers-intellectual-honesty.html?spref=tw

 

Not a great piece at all. Now I'm not one for ascribing the Almighty to anything - although, at a push, I would say that there is a very minute possibility that some things we do not understand might be the work of the Almighty; I don't personally think so. But, if this guys is for real then the sentence "You made your bed when you signed it." is pretty much the antithesis of all science. Science is particularly predicated on the notion that as evidence changes, so do your beliefs: there is no such thing, as implied here, that once you've made your bed, you're stuck with it for life. I take it that this blogger's belief is that since the scientist in question is on the advisory board of some jumped-up-creationist-bandwagon he must therefore subscribe to all the beliefs held therein. Anyone care to do the same exercise to the IPCC?

Edited by Sparkicle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On expertise just because someone shouts long and hard that they are right and the science is settled does not mean this is correct. I see so many times the comment that X is an expert and he /she says or shows that A B and C are the cause of a given outcome so it must correct.

 

Have we forgotten what Wakefield said about vaccinations and how those who dared oppose his view were treated yet eventually he was proved incorrect but not before a hugh setback in child health had been achieved.

 

Now I'm not saying that CO2 has no impact but what I firmly believe is that it is not the driver and that we need to better understand how our atmosphere interacts with the many other influencers

 

So no apology for being a Skeptic from Jonboy

 

I think climate scientists are always striving to improve our understanding of all things influencing the climate. New papers are released on an almost daily basis now.

I think to disprove CO2 as a primary driver of recent temperatures, there are a lot of things that require brand new explanations. Such as the growing energy imbalance, the cooling of the lower stratosphere, nights warming faster than days, etc.

 

 

Not a great piece at all. Now I'm not one for ascribing the Almighty to anything - although, at a push, I would say that there is a very minute possibility that some things we do not understand might be the work of the Almighty; I don't personally think so. But, if this guys is for real then the sentence "You made your bed when you signed it." is pretty much the antithesis of all science. Science is particularly predicated on the notion that as evidence changes, so do your beliefs: there is no such thing, as implied here, that once you've made your bed, you're stuck with it for life. I take it that this blogger's belief is that since the scientist in question is on the advisory board of some jumped-up-creationist-bandwagon he must therefore subscribe to all the beliefs held therein. Anyone care to do the same exercise to the IPCC?

 

The IPCC reports change as our understanding progresses and new evidence comes to light. The bible looks quite similar now as it did when I read it as a kid, and rarely changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IPCC reports change as our understanding progresses and new evidence comes to light. The bible looks quite similar now as it did when I read it as a kid, and rarely changes.

 

I was talking about some of the more outlandish views (like the bible) that exist within the IPCC: for instance, inside the IPCC there exists scientists (by reason of the Guassian distribution and the large number of people who work within it's framework) that there's going to be an ice age soon, or soon we are all going to boil to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you have the likes of Greenpeace and the WWF submitting reports that are included then we have a problem.

 

Yes, one of the biggest ironies of all, is the likes of Greenpeace (and their political lobby, the Green Party) are (very) likely to have ensured that CO2 levels are much higher in the Western world than they would have been if we'd adopted nuclear power: a policy they're vehemently against.

 

Anyone with a brain can see that this makes sense. Even the die-hard environmentalist Monbiot eventually saw the light: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you have the likes of Greenpeace and the WWF submitting reports that are included then we have a problem.

 

We do indeed. What reports were they? And don't say Himalayan glaciers because that error was nowt to do with Greenpeace or WWF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the place next my son and my favourite roach mere has had it's alarm bells ringing? They say it may well be just 'natural background radiation' but then I know, from personal experience around the time of Chernobyl, that they fib , lie and omit to mention the truth.......

 

Whilst we have Three mile island, Chernobyl, Fukushima  type incident to remind us that the unthinkable does happen I cannot favour the nuclear option.

 

We would never have 'gone nuclear' whilst cheap Fossil fuel was an option. I.M.H.O.  we kept it just to keep are nuclear arsenal armed and ready

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...