Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
johnfm said:
A quick query - what do you guys think is a realistic timetable for the 'great wake up', when the music finally stops on this unscientific 'climate science' merry go round?
I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
I fear that in 15 - 20 years' time we will have another - more scary - scenario to worry about, promoted by vested interests and backed by credulous politicians. All the shouty people will have moved on to the new game and AGW will be a quiet backwater of debate. Like us discussing Tulipmania.I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
Somebody said on the radio recently that in 100 years' time historians will look back at Brexit and comment it was just a re-alignment of the UK customs policies with the EU. Nothing more.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?
Warmer.
ks, in ways that will be an immediate benefit to mankind.robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?
Warmer.ks, in ways that will be an immediate benefit to mankind.(note for XM5ER: this is trolling)
durbster said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
And still Durbster trundles on, having blind faith and belief in solution(s) to a problem that he’s never shown exists. Planet warmer or colder Durbster?
Warmer.ks, in ways that will be an immediate benefit to mankind.(note for XM5ER: this is trolling)
Beeb CC politics news
Donald Trump win 'won't sway world on climate'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38573352
The election of the climate sceptic Donald Trump as US president will not sway UK leadership on the issue, a minister has said.
Mr Trump, reported to believe climate change is "mostly bunk", has threatened to withdraw from the UN climate deal.
Environment Minister Nick Hurd admitted the Trump victory was "a very big rock chucked in the pool".
Until Trumps policy allows the up till now surpressed academics the opportunity to tell their side of the story
Donald Trump win 'won't sway world on climate'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38573352
The election of the climate sceptic Donald Trump as US president will not sway UK leadership on the issue, a minister has said.
Mr Trump, reported to believe climate change is "mostly bunk", has threatened to withdraw from the UN climate deal.
Environment Minister Nick Hurd admitted the Trump victory was "a very big rock chucked in the pool".
Until Trumps policy allows the up till now surpressed academics the opportunity to tell their side of the story
johnfm said:
A quick query - what do you guys think is a realistic timetable for the 'great wake up', when the music finally stops on this unscientific 'climate science' merry go round?
I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
Mr Trump may well bring this house of cards tumbling down very quickly. I still reckon another 10-15 years before it is consigned to a chapter that will be remembered for the politicising of science.
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Durbster you cannot work on numbers of reports, if what Judith Curry said is correct you will not get anything other than people producing papers to confirm the status, good work may be being done by people all around the world but all of it is dependent on grants, who controlled the grants Government's do, many government's have backed the idea of Global warming, reports under their stewardship will tow the line, politicians interference in science is not new.
Yep, but that's true of all science and it hasn't stopped controversial discoveries being made historically, so why would it now?Let's not kid ourselves, there is quite a lot of money in fossil fuels and their associated industries and infrastructure, and I daresay there would be an enormous chunk of it willingly handed over to anybody that could scientifically disprove AGW. It would take far more than the egos of politicians to prevent that.
.
The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
PRTVR said:
Science has changed, we now have instant communication across the world, this in my opinion is good but can be bad as it reduces the chance for as you say controversial discoveries, the weight of information available at the click of a button you would have to be extremely brave to publish something that contradicted all that and possibly never work again is not a good outlook for any scientist.
The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
I can't see any reason why a new idea would not be accepted as it always has historically. If you have scientific proof that can be tested and reproduced, opposing viewpoints are worth nothing.The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
The thing is, the scientific proof of AGW is not one basic experiment that could be disproved to disrupt the whole thing. At its core is fundamental physics and chemistry, so a change to that would affect almost everything we understand about chemistry and physics.
On top of that, the evidence is so broad and wide-ranging that I can't see any opportunity for doubt. As research has become more intense, AGW has been reinforced rather than put into dispute. The data supports it and the observable evidence supports it.
So I'm really struggling to see where you think there is an opportunity for our understanding to change?
By contrast, despite the endurance of this thread, the case raised against AGW is weak. It's persistently vague and confused; it's wildly inconsistent and regularly hypocritical. It hangs on conspiracy theories (specifically the deliberate corruption of data), but has no scientific basis.
A few on here insist on repeatedly telling us there is a mass of scientific evidence to disprove AGW, but whenever they've been asked to show us, they either post something irrelevant (see: turbobloke's list of papers earlier in the thread that he seems unable to explain) or go silent.
And look at the sources. When your scientific case is based on websites like No Tricks Zone that shemelessly misrepresents the science they list, surely you must question the validity of that scientific argument?
durbster said:
PRTVR said:
Science has changed, we now have instant communication across the world, this in my opinion is good but can be bad as it reduces the chance for as you say controversial discoveries, the weight of information available at the click of a button you would have to be extremely brave to publish something that contradicted all that and possibly never work again is not a good outlook for any scientist.
The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
I can't see any reason why a new idea would not be accepted as it always has historically. If you have scientific proof that can be tested and reproduced, opposing viewpoints are worth nothing.The fossil fuel industry working against climate change is a red herring, once over it might have happened but they are private companies with what they do scrutinized by shareholders, most oil companies have a renewables component in their makeup,
But let's just say they paid for a controversial research paper, how would it stand up to in the avalanche of opposing viewpoints? you yourself often use the idea of overwhelming scientific evidence, how long would an idea last in that environment, we are well past the point were alternative views are allowed or considered .
The thing is, the scientific proof of AGW is not one basic experiment that could be disproved to disrupt the whole thing. At its core is fundamental physics and chemistry, so a change to that would affect almost everything we understand about chemistry and physics.
On top of that, the evidence is so broad and wide-ranging that I can't see any opportunity for doubt. As research has become more intense, AGW has been reinforced rather than put into dispute. The data supports it and the observable evidence supports it.
So I'm really struggling to see where you think there is an opportunity for our understanding to change?
By contrast, despite the endurance of this thread, the case raised against AGW is weak. It's persistently vague and confused; it's wildly inconsistent and regularly hypocritical. It hangs on conspiracy theories (specifically the deliberate corruption of data), but has no scientific basis.
A few on here insist on repeatedly telling us there is a mass of scientific evidence to disprove AGW, but whenever they've been asked to show us, they either post something irrelevant (see: turbobloke's list of papers earlier in the thread that he seems unable to explain) or go silent.
And look at the sources. When your scientific case is based on websites like No Tricks Zone that shemelessly misrepresents the science they list, surely you must question the validity of that scientific argument?
robinessex said:
Are you a parrot? You keep repeating stuff that has comprehensively been trashed here.
Simply saying something isn't true does not "comprehensively trash" it.Critical thinking requires more than just words. I ask for evidence. None comes.
I would say I've done a pretty good job of "trashing" the credibility of No Tricks Zone, but it keeps being referenced. You don't seem to mind that.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Are you a parrot? You keep repeating stuff that has comprehensively been trashed here.
Simply saying something isn't true does not "comprehensively trash" it.Critical thinking requires more than just words. I ask for evidence. None comes.
I would say I've done a pretty good job of "trashing" the credibility of No Tricks Zone, but it keeps being referenced. You don't seem to mind that.
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Critical thinking requires more than just words. I ask for evidence. None comes.
You still don't seem to understand that computer models are not evidence.Wow!
don4l said:
durbster said:
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
Critical thinking requires more than just words. I ask for evidence. None comes.
You still don't seem to understand that computer models are not evidence.Wow!
Questions for the Durbster,
Which model is correct then?
What about the contradicting models?
Convert said:
Agreed, We've reached a new (low) level of stupid.
Questions for the Durbster,
Which model is correct then?
What about the contradicting models?
Computer models are used successfully and extensively throughout science and beyond. Rejecting them as a concept is wilful ignorance.Questions for the Durbster,
Which model is correct then?
What about the contradicting models?
This place gets weirder and weirder.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 11th January 11:45
durbster said:
Convert said:
Agreed, We've reached a new (low) level of stupid.
Questions for the Durbster,
Which model is correct then?
What about the contradicting models?
Computer models are used successfully and extensively throughout science and beyond. Rejecting them as a concept is wilful ignorance.Questions for the Durbster,
Which model is correct then?
What about the contradicting models?
This place gets weirder and weirder.
Edited by durbster on Wednesday 11th January 11:45
We use some very good CFD models, however we don't adjust the inputs to give a desired output, unlike the GIGO CC models.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff