Climate change - man made?

[jctg]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While scientists arguing in favour of the climate

> change model are in the majority - that, of

> itself, does not indicate unanimity and many of

> their reports are hedged with more "possibles",

> likely", "most" etc.

Using Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an example, try getting 620 different eminent scientists to agree on a wording. It took four years.

the vociferous and almost evangelical nature of the many

> supporters

which is understandable given that it's the biggest issue facing humankind in the next 50 years.

- whose invariably unscientific

> approach seems to be unconcerned with facts,

I think you'll find the unscientific approach is more likely to be employed by climate change deniers and sceptics.

> scientific research is subject to fads, fancies

> and current enthusiasms

So the entire scientific community, with all its competition and its dogged, tenacious ability to find fault, has agreed on a whim to run a con on all of us?

[louisiana]

jctg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marmora Man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > While scientists arguing in favour of the

> climate

> > change model are in the majority - that, of

> > itself, does not indicate unanimity and many of

> > their reports are hedged with more "possibles",

> > likely", "most" etc.

>

> Using Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment

> Report (AR4) of the United Nations

> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an

> example, try getting 620 different eminent

> scientists to agree on a wording. It took four

> years.

>

>

> the vociferous and almost evangelical nature of

> the many

> > supporters

>

> which is understandable given that it's the

> biggest issue facing humankind in the next 50

> years.

>

>

> - whose invariably unscientific

> > approach seems to be unconcerned with facts,

>

> I think you'll find the unscientific approach is

> more likely to be employed by climate change

> deniers and sceptics.

jctg has a point here, MM. If we look to who has been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to be people who are non-scientifically trained. Nigel Lawson comes to mind, but I can think of others...

Would you like to put forward the name of someone who is anti-CC and who does not confirm to this model? i.e. who has scientific training in the relevant fields and who has published peer-reviewed papers... Even one paper? somewhere?

[bigbadwolf]

With all the hot air coming from the Palmerston thread the O-zone layer above se22 must be really struggling.

[jctg]

louisiana Wrote:

If we look to who has

> been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to be

> people who are non-scientifically trained. Nigel

> Lawson comes to mind

ie. businessmen.

[louisiana]

louisiana Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jctg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Marmora Man Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > While scientists arguing in favour of the

> > climate

> > > change model are in the majority - that, of

> > > itself, does not indicate unanimity and many

> of

> > > their reports are hedged with more

> "possibles",

> > > likely", "most" etc.

> >

> > Using Climate Change 2007, the Fourth

> Assessment

> > Report (AR4) of the United Nations

> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as an

> > example, try getting 620 different eminent

> > scientists to agree on a wording. It took four

> > years.

> >

> >

> > the vociferous and almost evangelical nature

> of

> > the many

> > > supporters

> >

> > which is understandable given that it's the

> > biggest issue facing humankind in the next 50

> > years.

> >

> >

> > - whose invariably unscientific

> > > approach seems to be unconcerned with facts,

> >

> > I think you'll find the unscientific approach

> is

> > more likely to be employed by climate change

> > deniers and sceptics.

>

> jctg has a point here, MM. If we look to who has

> been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to be

> people who are non-scientifically trained. Nigel

> Lawson comes to mind, but I can think of

> others...

>

> Would you like to put forward the name of someone

> who is anti-CC and who does not conform to this

> model? i.e. who has scientific training in the

> relevant fields and who has published

> peer-reviewed papers... Even one paper? somewhere?

Edited to correct vowel.

[louisiana]

jctg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> louisiana Wrote:

>

> If we look to who has

> > been promoting the anti-CC agenda, it tends to

> be

> > people who are non-scientifically trained.

> Nigel

> > Lawson comes to mind, but I can think of

> > others...

>

> ie. businessmen.

Or those funded by business people. Certain large US corportations have put money on the table to sell the anti-CC story in the UK media.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Is the Great Alignment when we switch to digital TV?

[louisiana]

Nah, that's the Great Disconnect (when people fail to...).

Edited to correct spelling.

[bob]

JCTG

The alignment is an astronomical Fact it will happen what change's it bring's is speculation.

Bob S

[Brendan]

I pretty concerned about this great alignment business. The mass congregation of Hippies jumping about at Stonehenge may well knock the earth off its axis.

[skidmarks]

If it doesn?t knock the Earth off its axis it will at least be the biggest pong since the last Levellers concert.

[jctg]

bob Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JCTG

> The alignment is an astronomical Fact it will

> happen what change's it bring's is speculation.

> Bob S

I am not doubting this phenomenom will happen. Of course, events like this can be predicted very accurately by astronomers etc. What is quite clearly bulls--- is that it will somehow cause the end of civilization as we know it on that day.

[mockney piers]

If *bob* says it's true then it will come to pass, he's like a modern day Cassandra who cried wolf too often, but was ignored because he always followed his pronouncements of doom with a joke about mrs sloacombe's pussy!

[bob]

Have to agree with you jctg to many people jumping in on the end of the world is nigh and making lot's of money writing it but we do come to the end of a cycle all be it 50.000 year one and some of the recent climatic changes were predicted a long time ago the alignment will have an effect on the gravitational pull on the earth how this will efect us I don't know it could be a good thing who no,s

Mockney good to see you posting again but may be the wrong Bob.

BoB s

[mockney piers]

whoops, iphone screen so mall and fiddly, ooh look, it's mrs slocombe, the mere sight of her pussy...

[bob]

oo,er mrs's

Bob S

[Alan Dale]

REMOVED

[Huguenot]

Alan Dale eh?

Demonstrating your infamous ability to predict the future.

It's a pretty good rule of thumb (called the Alan Dale Law) that the truth of a situation is inversely proportional to Alan Dale's level of conviction.

How's the property empire?

Marmora Man has already said on another thread that nothing could persuade him to change his mind on the subject of climate change, which rather demonstrates his position to be an ideological one rather than educated.

It seems Alan that you share the same delusional capacity, and it fits neatly with your conservative leanings.

It's notable that the only people who don't believe in man made climate change are demonstrably NOT the experts.

[vinceayre]

Jeez there must be something wrong with me, even after thirty years the mere mention of mrs sloacombe's pussy still makes me laugh.

What gets me about climate change and the cause and effect argument is nobody seems to blame the most obvious thing, that bloody great yellow ball of fire just above us.

I think Private Eye has it about right with their spoof headline about about the environmental panic "YOU WILL ALL DIE UNLESS YOU PAY MORE TAX"

Vince

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Hugenot said: Marmora Man has already said on another thread that nothing could persuade him to change his mind on the subject of climate change, which rather demonstrates his position to be an ideological one rather than educated.

What I said was:

I remain a sceptic about the climate change thesis - I acknowledge the energy gap problem which I see as a far greater threat to mankind. I therefore support the actions to reduce and ultimately close that energy gap - some of which may also be seen as appropriate if you happen to believe in climate change.

Two further points on a thread I said I wouldn't add to - but have been provoked to:

1. Science holds there are no facts - only hypotheses - which can be tested and, perhaps, ultimately disproved but never proved. For example it is a hypothesis that the sun will always rise in the West. To date observation suggest this is likely to be true - but it will take just one counter observation to disprove it. Thus - Climate Change is also a hypothesis, some observations may indicate it has some merit but there are plenty of other counter observations to indicate the the hypothesis may not be useful (ie explain the observations) or that it needs further thought, development and refinement. Climate Change is not a single coherent proposition in the way that Newton's Laws of Motion or Einstein's Theory of Relativity are. The former held sway for nearly 250 years until the latter was able to disprove it (or rather modify it to take into account new findings and thinking) as an absolute and true explanation of motion. This lack of coherence in the Climate Change model makes it both hard to disprove (because it is so "flexible") and hard to assemble comprehensive data to support the idea.

2. The statement " it's notable that the only people who don't believe in man made climate change are demonstrably NOT the experts. " is a little over the top. The vast majority of supporters are also not experts - in fact many many of them seem to have little understanding of science, scientific research and development. They appear to have latched on to Climate Change as a suitable "progressive" policy that can engage woolly left of centre ideologists across the spectrum from "Swampy" types against building of new roads and taking in anti nuclear protesters, hunt protesters, anti capitalists, anti globalisationists and similar single issue protesters.

[rgutsell]

HI all

You need to be older to see and feel the change.

I don't think I am being biased when I say that summers are DEFINITELY hotter, and the insect population has definitely plummeted, and so has the sparrow population.

Does that mean it is influenced by people?

If you drove a car through the countryside 40 years ago along side smaller, more varied fields, your windscreen would be covered by squashed insects. These days you drive by huge barren fields, and nothing touches your screen. Its not proof, but it sure convinces me!!

[Huguenot]

Sure MM, but climate change science is discussing converging data.

It's a bit like a ball running down a slope, and you're arguing that you can't prove it's a slope until we hit the bottom.

With all respect....

[Huguenot]

Science bod points out that the top is higher than the bottom, and gainsayers says 'yeah but my mate Dunk sez fugging no, and this maffs shite is just greek.... wuz a greek made my sister pregnint so maffs is shite too'

The whole rejection philosophy is so close to 'no but yeah but noe'.

[Marmora Man]

I was tempted - but refrained. I stick to my first post - I'm not engaging in this discussion - too much belief, too little rational discussion.

[AnotherPaul]

Alan,

For a compelling and intelligently presented analysis of just what it is we humans have done and are doing to the climate I highly recommend 'Field notes from a catastrophe' by Elizabeth Kolbert.

You get the gist from the title, and I admit to believing climate change to be fact before reading it, but even with that said it's eye-opening, jaw dropping and thorough.

To paraphrase (hugely). Normally lay folk (non-scientists) get all panicky about hard-to-grasp scientific issues. When cool headed scientists start telling you to panic then you need to pay attention.

ap