Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
Now you've done it. You'll be linking to scienceofdoom or, god forbid, realclimate next and people will really start to get upset.
No-one will get upset. Bored with the repetition maybe. I don't think that a reminder that these 'sites are not as their name suggests is inappropriate, in case this thread has new readers.durbster said:
kingofdbrits said:
I like big advert for Shell. Not shy about being on the payroll of 'Big Oil' 
Why would that be a problem?
Oh of course, New Scientist is in on the great conspiracy too. Silly me.
Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
kingofdbrits said:
It's not a problem for me, though, the founding editor of the New Scientist did leave because of the magazines view on Climate change, he did give his reasons to Channel 4 in the programme 'the great global warming swindle'. IIRC he was called a heretic for not believing in CAGW instantly, which i guess as an editor of a science magazine, he should be questioning such things. Though it cost him his job.
Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
Shell has long had a policy of throwing money at "ecological" causes by way of sponsorship.Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
One would assume that such a policy was intended to buy silence rather than criticism from the green worthies about some of Shell's long term activities. However I suspect that there may be a deeper long term motive (or motives) in play that would be more to do with commercial advantage.
kingofdbrits said:
It's not a problem for me, though, the founding editor of the New Scientist did leave because of the magazines view on Climate change, he did give his reasons to Channel 4 in the programme 'the great global warming swindle'. IIRC he was called a heretic for not believing in CAGW instantly, which i guess as an editor of a science magazine, he should be questioning such things. Though it cost him his job.
Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
Are you talking about Nigel Calder? He edited New Scientist up until 1966. His views on AGW didn't cost him anything.Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
Well the answer is no, lots of people who do it as a hobby and are entrenched, as shown by their replies to this. They couldn't disprove it so they tried to shift the goal posts.Anyone?
Such as
"Sceptics don't tend to want to disprove AGW. "
Er, yes they do.
and
"What happens next, we tell you and you beetle off in a frenzied quest to establish a tenuous link with big oil? You'd make better use of your time investigating the Establishment Warmists. See if you can come up with corruption and incompetence on a grand scale. It's not hard."
That's not answering the question, that's trying to evade the question by bringing your pet hates into it when they were not asked for. Hope it makes you happy ....
The fact is this whole "scientific" debate thread, which it really isn't, is just a thread for petrol heads with a biased agenda to agree with one another and thus feel right about it because most people think the same way due to amount of posts in agreement with the vox pop.
It's a bit like Galileo v the roman catholic church moved on a few hundred years.
Anyhow, forgetting the playground luddites for a moment, this is very interesting
Two articles about sea ice, both Antarctic and Arctic, published about 2 months apart.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3017...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3039...
This is important as both are on thickness and not extent, and what do we find?
"that the thickness of the pack ice was greater than they had anticipated." from the Antarctic
"Indeed, Cryosat's five-year October average now shows pretty stable volume - even modest growth (2014 is 12% above the five year-average)." from the Arctic.
So both are actually up!
This is the sort of science that leads to more questions and then hopefully more answers.
Global warming is a non-trivial problem. Certainly it is a long term question to be answered and something to be answered by scientists and not bloggers or forum posters who know feck all and only think about the short term.
Mind you, it gives us all a hobby. Or obsession if you look at Turbobloke.
Doesn't mean we are right though.
We just dabble and my dabble on one side is same as your dabble on the other. Trying to make it out like it is written in stone one way or another just shows you are narrow minded and non-scientific
deeen said:
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
2. No, he's asking a question. You seem just to want to ask another question without answering his.
3. This is not relevant to the question being asked, you just replied by asking another non relevant question.
4. He didn't appeal to authority. Presumably this was just an introductory passage invented to throw a last insult in?
Well done. 0 out of 10.
And I'm being fecking generous tonight.
chris watton said:
deeen said:
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
See my post above for my rebuttal.
Did you not even read the b
ks he was writing? Edited by Gandahar on Friday 19th December 16:49
Gandahar said:
chris watton said:
deeen said:
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
See my post above for my rebuttal.
Did you not even read the b
ks he was writing? mybrainhurts said:
Gandahar said:
chris watton said:
deeen said:
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
See my post above for my rebuttal.
Did you not even read the b
ks he was writing? chris watton said:
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.Every single one was idle.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 16th November 15:21
Gandahar in his thread - The great thing about stboxes is... said:
tboxes is... said:I've had my shiitbox diesel turbo thing superchipped just to get it into that space even quicker. I get the added benefit of a huge cloud of particles emissions every time I accelerate, especially when following cars with their headlights on. I just hope Boris is watching it from his mountain top lair somewhere near Westminster as I head into the signposted clean zone each day on the A2.
chris watton said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gandahar said:
chris watton said:
deeen said:
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
See my post above for my rebuttal.
Did you not even read the b
ks he was writing? chris watton said:
Gandahar said:
mybrainhurts said:
Passed all the windymills on the M1 today, from Sheffield to the M25.
Every single one was idle.
That's nothing, a nuclear power station can be offline for a month at a time when it needs major works.Every single one was idle.
Also, a wind turbine decommissioning costs? What are they ?
Probably less than a nuclear power plant decommissioning costs I'd wager, though of course we don't know yet as none has totally been done to completion!
Need to get in a Tardis and ask my grandchildren I think.
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 16th November 15:21
Gandahar in his thread - The great thing about stboxes is... said:
tboxes is... said:I've had my shiitbox diesel turbo thing superchipped just to get it into that space even quicker. I get the added benefit of a huge cloud of particles emissions every time I accelerate, especially when following cars with their headlights on. I just hope Boris is watching it from his mountain top lair somewhere near Westminster as I head into the signposted clean zone each day on the A2.
hairykrishna said:
kingofdbrits said:
It's not a problem for me, though, the founding editor of the New Scientist did leave because of the magazines view on Climate change, he did give his reasons to Channel 4 in the programme 'the great global warming swindle'. IIRC he was called a heretic for not believing in CAGW instantly, which i guess as an editor of a science magazine, he should be questioning such things. Though it cost him his job.
Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
Are you talking about Nigel Calder? He edited New Scientist up until 1966. His views on AGW didn't cost him anything.Anyways, the 'Big Oil' thing was just a joke, when i read a New Scientist article shouting down Skeptics claiming they were on the payroll of 'big oil', when of course they weren't, though it's OK for the New Scientist to publish articles on climate sponsored by Shell. just as long as it's 'on message'.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff