Horizon:Science under attack

[Lost_BMW]

Eric Mc said:

It was good enough for Jacob Bronowski. It should be good enough for him.

Nurse doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Bronowski!

[Famous Graham]

youngsyr said:

Famous Graham said:

freecar said:

However I did start to think, maybe we should take a leaf out of their books. Maybe we should be pulling wind turbines down and shooting subsidised solar panels! After all, it is our money that is being used to subsidise these fraudulent technologies!




for the avoidance of doubt, I am in no way encouraging acts of violence against white elephant technology!

See, that's where I disagree. I fully endorse "alternative" sources of energy. Not due to MMGW, but simply because fossil fuels are limited and we do have a pollution problem as a result of using them.

The amount of proven oil reserves has increased by 30% in the past 7 years alone:



Source: http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/ies_world_crude_oi...


Who is to say that technology won't increase our oil reserves at a faster rate than we use them? After all, as resources become scarcer and our demand for them increases, the prices increase expnonentially, as do the rewards for finding for finding them and the incentive to invest more in doing so.

Edited by youngsyr on Monday 24th January 22:03

Fair enough, I didn't know that but my basic point still stands, ie I have no problem exploring other forms of energy harvesting/collection/whatever.

[Eric Mc]

durbster said:

Hmm. I didn't see the doco but I find it quite surprising how many people still think the science of climate change is dubious. It's accepted by pretty much all major scientific groups in the world now. I can't find much evidence against the IPCC research anyway, but if any of you getting angry about it have anything contrary I'd be interested to see it.

Have you not read that HUGE thread elewhere on PH? I'd keep this one for discussing the merits (or lack of same) of this programme.

[durbster]

Eric Mc said:

durbster said:

Hmm. I didn't see the doco but I find it quite surprising how many people still think the science of climate change is dubious. It's accepted by pretty much all major scientific groups in the world now. I can't find much evidence against the IPCC research anyway, but if any of you getting angry about it have anything contrary I'd be interested to see it.

Have you not read that HUGE thread elewhere on PH?

Nope. From a brief look it seems to be mostly media stories rather than any scientific research, but I'll have a proper look later.

Eric Mc said:

I'd keep this one for discussing the merits (or lack of same) of this programme.

Quite right. I'm done

[EDLT]

So far the new series of Horizon has been MMGW!!!111 New, cutting edge science (like Horizon used to be) MMGWW!!!!!1111!!1. I was hoping to see and explanation of the science the HIV/Aids man had based his views on, and if Greenpeace had any basis at all for their anti-GM stance. They didn't even cover the concerns of vaccines they mentioned in the intro . The presenter was a biologist ffs, talking about something that is his area of expertise would be interesting.

[Lost_BMW]

durbster said:

Hmm. I didn't see the doco but I find it quite surprising how many people still think the science of climate change is dubious. It's accepted by pretty much all major scientific groups in the world now. I can't find much evidence against the IPCC research anyway, but if any of you getting angry about it have anything contrary I'd be interested to see it.

You can't be looking very hard then, can you!

[EDLT]

Can you leave the climate change poo flinging in NP&E please?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Lost_BMW]

EDLT said:

Can you leave the climate change poo flinging in NP&E please?

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Not relevant to this programme then? Odd.

Also missed the 'poo flinging'. Very odd . . .

[El Guapo]

I had high hopes for this program, expecting to see a rational analysis of arguments for and against the theory of ACC and the validity of the scientific process from somebody who should personify scientific integrity. What we got was the old mantra of "these are scientists so you should believe them".
I also thought that Nurse came across as a bit of a dimwit (and I do realise he has a Nobel and is president of the Royal Society). He sounded genuinely surprised that the vaults contained the minutes of the Royal Society going back to year dot.

[andr3w]

re-watch the program and fast-forward to the bit where he's talking about the half-baked, ill thought out, poorly researched postings of self-righteous bloggers and it should remind you a lot of some of the posts on this thread.

[mybrainhurts]

andr3w said:

re-watch the program and fast-forward to the bit where he's talking about the half-baked, ill thought out, poorly researched postings of self-righteous bloggers and it should remind you a lot of some of the posts on this thread.

Ambiguous, old boy...

[mybrainhurts]

El Guapo said:

I also thought that Nurse came across as a bit of a dimwit (and I do realise he has a Nobel ).

As does Al Gore...

So, let's not take that as any measure of anything...

[Dakkon]

durbster said:

Hmm. I didn't see the doco but I find it quite surprising how many people still think the science of climate change is dubious. It's accepted by pretty much all major scientific groups in the world now. I can't find much evidence against the IPCC research anyway, but if any of you getting angry about it have anything contrary I'd be interested to see it.

Perhaps you should actually look at some real science, rather than just sit back and accept politically biased crap.....

[Eric Mc]

durbster said:

Eric Mc said:

durbster said:

Hmm. I didn't see the doco but I find it quite surprising how many people still think the science of climate change is dubious. It's accepted by pretty much all major scientific groups in the world now. I can't find much evidence against the IPCC research anyway, but if any of you getting angry about it have anything contrary I'd be interested to see it.

Have you not read that HUGE thread elewhere on PH?

Nope. From a brief look it seems to be mostly media stories rather than any scientific research, but I'll have a proper look later.

Eric Mc said:

I'd keep this one for discussing the merits (or lack of same) of this programme.

Quite right. I'm done

Most of us aren't scientists and therefore most of us don't conduct our own basic research into climate science. We therefore have to rely on the arguments for and against the theory based on how it is reported in the media.
What else can we do?

[Jasandjules]

I had already decided this show was going to ignore some rather important information and indeed there were comments made which justified my preconceptions. And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.

All in all I only watched it briefly to ensure my blood pressure was not affected, it was basically unsurprising that the BBC sought to protect it's pension fund.

[TrevorH]

I thought that he didn't make it clear that the climate-change sceptics aren't sceptical about CC, they're sceptical about the amount of influence mankind has had/is having on that change. Or did I miss something?

[durbster]

Jasandjules said:

And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.

Don't understand this viewpoint. How can going with the concensus be ignorant?

The concensus of scientific opinion also agrees that evolution is real, smoking is bad for you, the solar system is quite large and the earth is spherical. Is it ignorant to agree with these conclusions too?

[ewenm]

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.

Don't understand this viewpoint. How can going with the concensus be ignorant?

The concensus of scientific opinion also agrees that evolution is real, smoking is bad for you, the solar system is quite large and the earth is spherical. Is it ignorant to agree with these conclusions too?

Backup up by evidence from multiple experiments... rather than models that only occasionally match reality.

The problem with climate science is that wide-ranging decisions are being made based on too little knowledge and too little data. Political errors rather than scientific in the main. We just don't know enough about the Earth's climate.

[youngsyr]

durbster said:

Jasandjules said:

And I was shocked that the chap went with "consensus" in terms of science. Ignorance at it's highest point there I felt.

Don't understand this viewpoint. How can going with the concensus be ignorant?

The concensus of scientific opinion also agrees that evolution is real, smoking is bad for you, the solar system is quite large and the earth is spherical. Is it ignorant to agree with these conclusions too?

There's a fundamental difference between the opinions you list and climate science though: evolution, smoking and properties of the solar system can all be subjected to repeatable, independent and objective tests to support the conclusions.

What the weather will be like in 50 years time cannot be tested repeatedly and objectively - it is reliant on computer modelling, a.k.a. "predictions" and interpretation of very complex historic data.

[Balmoral Green]

A deeply ironic programme, considering its basic premise. It became increasingly so as it progressed IMO, using terms such as cherry picking, and then doing the very same thing all the way through, especially when it came to Dellpole. The cancer analogy was so stupid, no wonder it stumped him, 'we'll cherry pick that bit and just run that'.

Doubly ironic, in that he did reinforce his basic premise for the programme, as he was doing exactly what he was talking about himself :doh: