'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Mondy]

Well, these 'credible' scientists are still in the exceptional minority, a band of renegade dissidents. The vast majority of the world's climate scientists, meteorologists etc believe in man made global warming. That's the overwhelming scientific consensus, just remember that.

Is that so? Just you remember this. The present GW scenario is a hypothesis - it is supported to a limited extent by the current level of computer modelling. The limitations of this hypothesis and modelling technique are rather obvious. Simply put, climatologists and modellers alike lack significant levels of understanding and data to be able to arrive at anything like an unambiguous conclusion - they are unable to prove their hypothesis, which is surely a basic occupier of scientific principles!

Why do you dismiss the credible scientists so easily? Haven't at least one of those ten got you at least thinking 1% of what they say might be true? Did you even read the link or quotes or don't you need to?

[Mondy]

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists, meteorologists etc believe in man made global warming. That's the overwhelming scientific consensus, just remember that.

Hmm.. Right, so the overwhelming consensus believe in a theory? Now, isn't the main quality of a good theory is that it can explain observed facts and make accurate predictions? So far the prediction models have proved to be wildly in the wrong (GW seems to be much worse than anticipated - the important word being "seems"), so, bluntly, it is premature to say that the science linking human CO2 to GW is "undeniable".

While i'm at it, no scientific theory can boast the term "undeniable". Even one of the greatest theories of the 20th century is on the verge of being proved wrong. I'm talking of Einstein's relativity theory, one of the pillars of modern science. Science is always changing, it's there to be challenged (scientific background or not)

[Mark Bayley]

Just been reading the newspaper and it said globle warming was not coursed by co2 but flares from the sun. :huh:

Edited March 5, 2007 by mark bayley

[Mondy]

The vast majority of the world's climate scientists, meteorologists etc believe in man made global warming. That's the overwhelming scientific consensus, just remember that.

I almost feel bad for pulling your remarks apart, Iceberg, but not so according to Czech President Vaclav Klaus who has this to say..

[Guest Viking141]

Spot on Monds. The fact that many of the pro-AGW brigade are getting so revved up about this documentary speaks volumes. To those I say this - if you are so sure of your arguments, if you are so convinced that your are right then why the need to go off the deep end if someone questions it? I've said this before and I will say it again - IS YOUR ARGUMENT SO WEAK, IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR THEORY SO FLIMSY, THAT IT CANNOT WITHSTAND DEBATE?

If you are so convinced of your rectitude surely there should be no need for insults and silly comments like "im in the mood for a fight" or some such nonsense.? This "Jehovas Witness" style evangelism about AGW is really starting to irritate me. Anyone who says "we have the only truth and all else is heresy" is living on the very limits of credibility.

[parmenides3]

Have you been 'smoking' again, Vikes?

:)P

[Guest Viking141]

Have you been 'smoking' again, Vikes?

:)P

Always - Im hot stuff you know!!

[Mondy]

To those I say this - if you are so sure of your arguments, if you are so convinced that your are right then why the need to go off the deep end if someone questions it?

Beginner's guide to the GW movement!!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Souce of funding does not matter as long as the science is peer reviewed at the end of it, rather than released as an un-peer reviewed paper, I think this is where funding does come into it.

Agreed. So you are all in favour of peer-reviewed science funded by oil companies then? Seems to have worked very well for geological science if profits are a benchmark for accuracy. The sound that you hear is the scribble of fountain pen on cheque-book...

If scientific consensus was the judge of reality we'd still use the Ptolemaic system of the universe. One of the only true consensus that exists in the debate, one backed up by the thermometer, is the world has warmed. HGW is still a heavily funded theory, that's why there is debate.

Edited March 5, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[parmenides3]

I can stick my tongue out further than you can and my brother is bigger than your brother and you smell and your mum is....

As the Velvet Underground once mumbled; "...What do you think I'd see, if I could walk away from me...?"

:)P

[jethro]

I can stick my tongue out further than you can and my brother is bigger than your brother and you smell and your mum is....

As the Velvet Underground once mumbled; "...What do you think I'd see, if I could walk away from me...?"

:)P

Lou Reed, a genius.

[parmenides3]

A poet.

:)P

[jethro]

A poet.

:)P

one of the best.

[HighPressure]

Not looked in for a couple of days but would take a couple of the comments above, reading back through the believers are very touchy over this CH4 Doc and yes it does make you wonder why that should be when of course it can only be complete rubbish because they already have it in the bag so to speak?

My second point, Oh yes it does matter where the funding is coming from its a key factor for me being non comital on how much impact man is having on GW. Simply because there are no scientists working for large oil companies touting AGW and there are no Green Peace scientists touting the opposite or if there are they are locked in a cupboard somewhere. So please funding is a key issue.

[parmenides3]

At his best, lyrical, taut & contemporary. Sometimes loses track completely. Can be self-indulgent. But more - real - in some ways that many of his contemporaries. You feel you know the world he describes, the characters he fashions, and yet they are like nobody you actually know. Worth listening to, always.

:)P

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

My second point, Oh yes it does matter where the funding is coming from its a key factor for me being non comital on how much impact man is having on GW. Simply because there are no scientists working for large oil companies touting AGW and there are no Green Peace scientists touting the opposite or if there are they are locked in a cupboard somewhere. So please funding is a key issue.

But does funding affect what is true? Or, just what is known?

If the agreement of a panel of highly-paid beardies was enough to establish my divinity I would warm to consensus science faster than Al Gore can say "information superhighway".

[HighPressure]

But does funding affect what is true? Or, just what is known?

If the agreement of a panel of highly-paid beardies was enough to establish my divinity I would warm to consensus science faster than Al Gore can say "information superhighway".

No it does not but it does effect credibility.

The truth may well we out there but I used Columbus before as an argument so I shall again. He stated the world was not flat he was right but all the top experts of the day thought he was mad, so he went and proved it and gained his credibility. Another thing that worries me about these panels of experts is that science history does not show many these so called expert panels coming up with the right answers only their eventual ridicule by individual scientists, quite a few with very little education within the subjects they became pioneers of?

'Faraday proposed that electromagnetic forces extended into the empty space around the conductor. This idea was rejected by his fellow scientists'

' Newton claimed that he had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared being mocked for it'

I could probably go on with a few more but I am sure you get the picture, and I could not find any expert panels of scientists who actually discovered anything of use but have stood in the way of progress many times. So I say the answer maybe out there locked in a cupboard or being universally mocked for his views??

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

No it does not but it does effect credibility.

I'll tell you what should effect credibility. A theory that over two decades has had millions in public and private monies ploughed into dozens of institutions, 1000s of researchers, that has bought the most high-tech infrastructure ever known to mankind into its service. But which, despite every thing science has thrown at it, has been constantly wrong in its predictions, and has had to significantly water-down the severity of its initial claims in the light of new facts.

Not only are this theory's supporters undeterred by its inverse propotion of cost / results they maintain the theory is still very credible; undoubted, unchallengeable truth. In fact, now at all the money and work on the theory proves a concensus exists in science.

With an absolutely straight face they say their conclusions are indeed supported by the premise by more than a hair-width while their less glamarous meterological collegues slave over the same supercomputers and fail to predict the next week's temperature to within a margin of error these guys are 100% confident to use in a future they know they'll be long dead/retired by, by the time issues of their credibilty come knocking.

The truth may well we out there but I used Columbus before as an argument so I shall again. He stated the world was not flat he was right but all the top experts of the day thought he was mad, so he went and proved it and gained his credibility. Another thing that worries me about these panels of experts is that science history does not show many these so called expert panels coming up with the right answers only their eventual ridicule by individual scientists, quite a few with very little education within the subjects they became pioneers of?

'Faraday proposed that electromagnetic forces extended into the empty space around the conductor. This idea was rejected by his fellow scientists'

' Newton claimed that he had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared being mocked for it'

I could probably go on with a few more but I am sure you get the picture, and I could not find any expert panels of scientists who actually discovered anything of use but have stood in the way of progress many times. So I say the answer maybe out there locked in a cupboard or being universally mocked for his views??

Maybe.

Edited March 6, 2007 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Mondy]

At his best, lyrical, taut & contemporary. Sometimes loses track completely. Can be self-indulgent. But more - real - in some ways that many of his contemporaries. You feel you know the world he describes, the characters he fashions, and yet they are like nobody you actually know. Worth listening to, always.

:)P

Who? Al Gore?

[Gray-Wolf]

No it does not but it does effect credibility.

The truth may well we out there but I used Columbus before as an argument so I shall again. He stated the world was not flat he was right but all the top experts of the day thought he was mad, so he went and proved it and gained his credibility. Another thing that worries me about these panels of experts is that science history does not show many these so called expert panels coming up with the right answers only their eventual ridicule by individual scientists, quite a few with very little education within the subjects they became pioneers of?

'Faraday proposed that electromagnetic forces extended into the empty space around the conductor. This idea was rejected by his fellow scientists'

' Newton claimed that he had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared being mocked for it'

I could probably go on with a few more but I am sure you get the picture, and I could not find any expert panels of scientists who actually discovered anything of use but have stood in the way of progress many times. So I say the answer maybe out there locked in a cupboard or being universally mocked for his views??

The Columbus example may be used for different analogies. The Crown, the Church and Columbus were fully aware that the Earth was round (the Ptolemaic calculations as to it's circumference were common knowledge) and only U.S. 'teachers' corrupted the story (for their own reasons?) so to paint the picture of an ignorant world and an enlightened Columbus is wholly wrong. This shows how a 'social myth' can gain ground over the truth and maybe both pro and con G.W. adherents had better check their 'knowledge' on the subject to 'weed out' all the mis/dis information that the subject is full of.

Even though we know, and have historical (church) proofs, of our understanding of both the world and our place in the universe in Columbus' time the 'Columbus Myths' persist and are still 'erroneously' held up to prove/reinforce a persons stance on a subject.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

:blink: Who? Al Gore?

Lol, good one Mond

[The Penguin]

I look forward to the Ch4 program with unbridled apathy. Like all television documentaries it will be all about making a red hot piece of television and nothing at all about getting to the root of the matter in hand.

I strongly suspect that what we will see again on Thursday is thinly disguised editorial bias paraded as no more than the production team’s latest CV.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Ok...back to basics. WHY would anyone make this stuff up or mislead us?

[memories of 63]

Ok...back to basics. WHY would anyone make this stuff up or mislead us?

How about we (the human race) are so full of our own importance that ANY change MUST be down to us. BTW this idea also covers the multitude of UFO sightings - of course we're SOOOO important that any other life-form must be desperate to visit us :blink:

[Mondy]

Making stuff up or misleading the public? Depending on which way you look at that, there could be truth in both those cases.

The IPCC and other mortals have said there is a link between human CO2 emissions and GW. People can take that at face value if they want. Others clearly believe the findings/theory are to be challenged. You only have to very quickly glance at the GW sceptic links thread to see some of these challenges.

It was mentioned yesterday that the main quality of a good theory is that it can explain observed facts and make accurate predictions. So far the prediction models have proved to be wildly in the wrong so is it fair to argue/challenge that it's premature to say that the science linking human CO2 to GW is undeniable, undesputeable?

That really is the jist of the thread in a nutshell.

:blink: