Jump to content
Will it snow? 7 day forecast Weather Radar Will it be cold?
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?

Slinky

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    385

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Slinky

    When Did You Become A Climate Skeptic?

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Slinky

    Good question that, "When Did You Become A Climate Skeptic?" and a nice relaxed thread considering the subject!

    I first joined net weather back in 2004 but had had a very keen interest in the weather long before that. Back then I was baffled (to be honest I still am!) at all the scientific jargon I read on here, but over the years I have managed to learn a fair amount (thanks to you all)

    I was a skeptic of global warming/human induced climate change before I joined, and i am at present.

    Back in 2004-2007 I would at times pop into the climate threads to read but rarely post in there, then around 2007 (I think) I made a few posts in a climate thread debating against climate change being anything to do with humans, the following couple of days of battering I took, from prominent members of the forum at the time, put me off posting again and I am sorry to say this forum. In my posts I talked about the mini ice age and other natural climate changes, however I got attacked more on my grammar than I did on my thoughts. I had not at that time realised how heated this subject can get, I still do not understand today why people get so upset and defensive (I would like to point out that this is the case on both sides of the argument)

    Over the years I have popped in to have a look around as a guest but have not logged on for long, just to post a few pics occasionally not to post in any of the main threads.

    I came back to this forum a few days ago, I may stay for a while probably lurking here and there soaking up everyone's ideas on what this winter will bring weather wise. As to staying long term we will see.

    I am not a die hard skeptic I like to think I am open minded, if I learn of some new discovery that proves climate change is down to us, I will not dismiss it out of hand, and if it is solid and makes sense to me I will embrace it. However nothing I have learnt over the years so far has made me think any different, some will probably say I need to read and learn more then! They are probably right..........

    CRU E-mails and data

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    No? Then what did "Take a branch of science (i use the term "science" quite loosely) worth millions in research alone (disregard the billions made through advertising ect) of course there will be those that will modify the facts to fit, to achieve grants and funding" refer to? Not climate science?

    Are you telling me that you truly beilive that there are no bad apples in climate science............?

    My bad, the 'why' shouldn't be there, so 'do you trust sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies?'

    I will put my 'why' whereever I like :clap: To answer your question though, no I do not trust them for the very same reasons.

    So, again, in a thread about e mails lifted from the CRU, a part of climate science people often say is driven by money and research grants, when you said "Take a branch of science (i use the term "science" quite loosely) worth millions in research alone (disregard the billions made through advertising ect) of course there will be those that will modify the facts to fit, to achieve grants and funding" you were not thinking of climate science? Good, then my bad for thinking you might mean said

    You got me there lol Maybe I should of worded it better so apologies for that, I did not intend to insult your friend. I was not stating anyone/everyone in climate science was corrupt, just trying to get across that its a very high probability that there are such people in all kinds of organizations. (Just take the expenses scandal as an example)

    Again sorry to upset you

    I don't see the latter as an argument for the "we want to mislead in order to get funding" position? It's more as it is expressed- a reputation/ego thing, where it is difficult, after having held a view for many years, to accept that it might be wrong.

    Researchers generally don't get funding according to the results they obtain from their work, they get funding according to the topic they are proposing and its chances of furthering scientific understanding, and the track record of those who are going to be doing the work- i.e. they get funding before they do the work, not after. The last bit is the bit that can potentially lead to some pro-AGW bias (sceptics having to work harder to get funding than those who follow the scientific consensus). But it doesn't support the idea that scientists push through things to get funding because if they're doing the work, and it's funded, they will have the funding in the first place.

    There are quite a number of peer-reviewed papers out there that question the extent of the human contribution to global warming, and while the policymakers may sometimes be guilty of glossing over them in order to make the issue seem more settled than it really is, the papers do exist and the people who do the work do get funded.

    I see your point TWS. I must admit to sometimes wondering how researchers going down a different line to AGW get on with getting funded and how seriously their work is regarded upon completion, not having a background in meteorology I can only speculate as to how their projects are taken. I would think (again speculation) that the reputation/ego issue is more common, i know I would not be happy after years and years arguing a case only for someone to come along and say its wrong!

    CRU E-mails and data

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    ello PIT glad to see you on here still!

    Quote - "Academia you're right we shouldn't be surprised. Like when one prof won't take any notice of another prof because he got his/her qualifications at the wrong University regardless of the quality of work"

    Well said :unsure:

    I must confess I didn't expect to get jumped on so quickly returning to this forum, but I must keep in mind how heated these sort of threads can get.

    CRU E-mails and data

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Slinky

    You're assuming guilt - civilised societies don't do that. How would you like it if a bunch of politically motivated activists attacked your integrity by stealing you correspondence and then misinterpreting it?

    Or, to take your line of argument, why do you trust sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies? I don't see it fit to suggest they are thus tainted - it's better to point out sceptic science's, blog science's, failings than to play the man.

    I've meet Dr Phil Jones he is a scientists of the highest integrity and YOU should be ashamed of what you said of people like him.

    Pmsl

    why so defensive?

    To be fair to me I did not pass any comment on this incident whatsoever, or indeed accuse anyone of any wrong doing ?

    You know nothing of me, why do you think i trust "sceptical scientists funded by right wing political organisations or oil companies"? Are you not jumping to conclusions?

    Just for the record, I dont!

    Why should I be ashamed? I have not passed judgement on Dr Phil Jones, i know nothing of the man, and nor do I care whether or not there is any guilt to be had.

    Sorry for any misunderstandings though....

    I have serious doubts about this "twisting results to get grant funding" idea. If a piece of work raises strong conclusions then it's a nice claim to fame for those who worked on it. If not, it opens the door for more work and more funding- so it's more like a tradeoff. Btw, if AGW was shown to be being seriously overestimated there would still be a need for research into the natural forcings on climate particularly as they are less well understood than the anthropogenic ones.

    Good fair point TWS :unsure: Still I think there are those that would push through things for ease to get said funding. What about the reputation ego side of it, if someone has spent 10 years arguing till they are blue in the face, and lets face it people are passionate about this subject, religiously so.........

    CRU E-mails and data

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted

    But is there any evidence of anyone fiddling anything to get more grant money? You've got to have supporting evidence if you accuse anyone of foul play, a hunch may be good enough for Columbo but it's not good enough in real life.

    Hi Jethro, I was not trying to state that this instance was anything to do with grant money or indeed passing any comment on this incident. I was trying to point out that when things, in this instance an idea or theory, are worth a lot of money there are always those (always) that will go to great lengths to earn what they can out of it. Again if your reputation or ego is threatened, there are some that will go to great lengths to hide and minimize that damage....

    I was just surprised that others seemed shocked that this has "possibly" happened!

    CRU E-mails and data

    in Space, Science & nature

    Posted · Edited by Slinky

    I don't know if this has been posted, but a report on the BBC website on the hacking.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm

    I am shocked and to be honest, disgusted at the BBC's lack of coverage on this story.

    I was not shocked however when this first came to my attention. Why anyone is surprised that this has happened is beyond me! Take a branch of science (i use the term "science" quite loosely) worth millions in research alone (disregard the billions made through advertising ect) of course there will be those that will modify the facts to fit, to achieve grants and funding. What shocks me is that this has not happen sooner then now. You also have to consider those that are not doing it for money but have been religiously arguing for years that we are doomed, seeing new data apposing their theories and tweaking said data to fall in place. Again with the vast amount of monies the vast amounts of ego flying about this "science" are you really surprised?

    I am not, and I sit back and chuckle :unsure:

    Snow Watch: Midlands & C Southern England

    in Spring Weather Discussion

    Posted

    Now thats tricky to answer.

    This is getting rather concerning. My snow started around 4am and within 1hr I have seen around 6cm. Now what is concerning is if you flick between the frames of the Met O radar near the wash you will see this hasn't really moved N at all and is remaining pretty much stationary.

    I would prefer to see a few more frames before answering but heaven knows what the snowfall totals will be if this continues for another 3hrs!

    The BBC are hinting it could last all day for the E Midlands!!

    Alright Dave, finally we get some decent snow!!!! But not long before it turns to rain me tinx :lol: Sods law huh....

    BBC TV Weather Forecasts

    in Spring Weather Discussion

    Posted

    Just need somewhere to rant :whistling:

    BBC weather = Bloody awful! for the last 3 weekends they have got the forecast for my area completely wrong, costing me a fair amount of money. Take today for instance, its supposed to be bright with sunshine, now have I got that here?? - Have I ****! Not happy

×
×
  • Create New...