Climate Change may not be a bad our best brains feared.
Discussion
As a scientist myself, whilst many things bug the hell out of me, this is probably the one thing that grates my gonads the most.
In science, people do studies. Those studies are published in peer reviewed journals, and are repeated and reviewed.
Nothing is ever black or white. Not at the level I work at. Instead, the scientific community reach a consensus as a result of the collective direction that studies conclude. Let me give a wonderful example as an explanation.
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
However, consensus can and does change. I suspect homeopathy will do the same, although my knowledge of atomic physics is patchy I know about spin and resonance and I think it's possible to alter the spin or resonance of certain molecules which would explain why homeopathy has a slightly higher rate of success than the placebo effect alone. But homeopathy does not fall in to the criteria of nuclear physics and thus will be a long time before a bottle of water pills are put in to a resonance imaging machine.
The article is pretty much the same. The media have this habit of twisting academic papers and reporting them in a way that fits a certain agenda, and once again they've done this. Just because the telegraph decides to report on one study that says we're not doomed, there will be a hundred out there that say we're screwed. But nope, those are conveniently forgotten.
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're f
ked. But it has only been going for 30 years.
That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Take this (likely fictitious as I'm making this up but wouldn't surprise me if it was real) example. "Potatoes are the best source of fibre and micronutrients and are the new superfood" according to a study by scientists. The research, carried out at the potato research institute, found that everyone should be eating three times as many potatoes for a healthier, longer life.
Really? So if we all treble our intake of chips, we'll live longer? Wow.... but doesn't the potato research institute have a vested interest in a study like this? Oh.....but chips are so gorgeous and now scientists say they're good for us. So lets ignore all the other stuff and cherry pick the stuff we want to hear, irrespective of the fact the study was funded by people who have a pecuniary interest in results falling in a certain way.
I often hear stuff on radio 4 that starts off with the reader saying "scientists/research has shown/found that blah blah blah" and before the reader has finished the article I've mentally shredded the 'report' and can often be heard at the traffic lights going 'Bah!! Bloody idiots'.
Anyway, I'm not going to go in to what constitutes a proper scientific study. It's long, complex and unbelievably dull. Plus its gone midnight and I want my 7 hours of snooze.
In science, people do studies. Those studies are published in peer reviewed journals, and are repeated and reviewed.
Nothing is ever black or white. Not at the level I work at. Instead, the scientific community reach a consensus as a result of the collective direction that studies conclude. Let me give a wonderful example as an explanation.
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
However, consensus can and does change. I suspect homeopathy will do the same, although my knowledge of atomic physics is patchy I know about spin and resonance and I think it's possible to alter the spin or resonance of certain molecules which would explain why homeopathy has a slightly higher rate of success than the placebo effect alone. But homeopathy does not fall in to the criteria of nuclear physics and thus will be a long time before a bottle of water pills are put in to a resonance imaging machine.
The article is pretty much the same. The media have this habit of twisting academic papers and reporting them in a way that fits a certain agenda, and once again they've done this. Just because the telegraph decides to report on one study that says we're not doomed, there will be a hundred out there that say we're screwed. But nope, those are conveniently forgotten.
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're f
ked. But it has only been going for 30 years.That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Take this (likely fictitious as I'm making this up but wouldn't surprise me if it was real) example. "Potatoes are the best source of fibre and micronutrients and are the new superfood" according to a study by scientists. The research, carried out at the potato research institute, found that everyone should be eating three times as many potatoes for a healthier, longer life.
Really? So if we all treble our intake of chips, we'll live longer? Wow.... but doesn't the potato research institute have a vested interest in a study like this? Oh.....but chips are so gorgeous and now scientists say they're good for us. So lets ignore all the other stuff and cherry pick the stuff we want to hear, irrespective of the fact the study was funded by people who have a pecuniary interest in results falling in a certain way.
I often hear stuff on radio 4 that starts off with the reader saying "scientists/research has shown/found that blah blah blah" and before the reader has finished the article I've mentally shredded the 'report' and can often be heard at the traffic lights going 'Bah!! Bloody idiots'.
Anyway, I'm not going to go in to what constitutes a proper scientific study. It's long, complex and unbelievably dull. Plus its gone midnight and I want my 7 hours of snooze.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
As a scientist myself, whilst many things bug the hell out of me, this is probably the one thing that grates my gonads the most.
In science, people do studies. Those studies are published in peer reviewed journals, and are repeated and reviewed.
Nothing is ever black or white. Not at the level I work at. Instead, the scientific community reach a consensus as a result of the collective direction that studies conclude. Let me give a wonderful example as an explanation.
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
However, consensus can and does change. I suspect homeopathy will do the same, although my knowledge of atomic physics is patchy I know about spin and resonance and I think it's possible to alter the spin or resonance of certain molecules which would explain why homeopathy has a slightly higher rate of success than the placebo effect alone. But homeopathy does not fall in to the criteria of nuclear physics and thus will be a long time before a bottle of water pills are put in to a resonance imaging machine.
The article is pretty much the same. The media have this habit of twisting academic papers and reporting them in a way that fits a certain agenda, and once again they've done this. Just because the telegraph decides to report on one study that says we're not doomed, there will be a hundred out there that say we're screwed. But nope, those are conveniently forgotten.
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're fked. But it has only been going for 30 years.
That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Take this (likely fictitious as I'm making this up but wouldn't surprise me if it was real) example. "Potatoes are the best source of fibre and micronutrients and are the new superfood" according to a study by scientists. The research, carried out at the potato research institute, found that everyone should be eating three times as many potatoes for a healthier, longer life.
Really? So if we all treble our intake of chips, we'll live longer? Wow.... but doesn't the potato research institute have a vested interest in a study like this? Oh.....but chips are so gorgeous and now scientists say they're good for us. So lets ignore all the other stuff and cherry pick the stuff we want to hear, irrespective of the fact the study was funded by people who have a pecuniary interest in results falling in a certain way.
I often hear stuff on radio 4 that starts off with the reader saying "scientists/research has shown/found that blah blah blah" and before the reader has finished the article I've mentally shredded the 'report' and can often be heard at the traffic lights going 'Bah!! Bloody idiots'.
Anyway, I'm not going to go in to what constitutes a proper scientific study. It's long, complex and unbelievably dull. Plus its gone midnight and I want my 7 hours of snooze.
All well and good. However the graph posted above gives a 1degree uplift. As measured does it reinforce your analysis or does it suggest something is wrong with modelling and has always been? It's a serious question: if the metrics fail to meet your expectations at what point do you reconsider your position?In science, people do studies. Those studies are published in peer reviewed journals, and are repeated and reviewed.
Nothing is ever black or white. Not at the level I work at. Instead, the scientific community reach a consensus as a result of the collective direction that studies conclude. Let me give a wonderful example as an explanation.
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
However, consensus can and does change. I suspect homeopathy will do the same, although my knowledge of atomic physics is patchy I know about spin and resonance and I think it's possible to alter the spin or resonance of certain molecules which would explain why homeopathy has a slightly higher rate of success than the placebo effect alone. But homeopathy does not fall in to the criteria of nuclear physics and thus will be a long time before a bottle of water pills are put in to a resonance imaging machine.
The article is pretty much the same. The media have this habit of twisting academic papers and reporting them in a way that fits a certain agenda, and once again they've done this. Just because the telegraph decides to report on one study that says we're not doomed, there will be a hundred out there that say we're screwed. But nope, those are conveniently forgotten.
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're f
ked. But it has only been going for 30 years.That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Take this (likely fictitious as I'm making this up but wouldn't surprise me if it was real) example. "Potatoes are the best source of fibre and micronutrients and are the new superfood" according to a study by scientists. The research, carried out at the potato research institute, found that everyone should be eating three times as many potatoes for a healthier, longer life.
Really? So if we all treble our intake of chips, we'll live longer? Wow.... but doesn't the potato research institute have a vested interest in a study like this? Oh.....but chips are so gorgeous and now scientists say they're good for us. So lets ignore all the other stuff and cherry pick the stuff we want to hear, irrespective of the fact the study was funded by people who have a pecuniary interest in results falling in a certain way.
I often hear stuff on radio 4 that starts off with the reader saying "scientists/research has shown/found that blah blah blah" and before the reader has finished the article I've mentally shredded the 'report' and can often be heard at the traffic lights going 'Bah!! Bloody idiots'.
Anyway, I'm not going to go in to what constitutes a proper scientific study. It's long, complex and unbelievably dull. Plus its gone midnight and I want my 7 hours of snooze.
Wiccan of Darkness said:
As a scientist myself, whilst many things bug the hell out of me, this is probably the one thing that grates my gonads the most.
In science, people do studies. Those studies are published in peer reviewed journals, and are repeated and reviewed.
Nothing is ever black or white. Not at the level I work at. Instead, the scientific community reach a consensus as a result of the collective direction that studies conclude. Let me give a wonderful example as an explanation.
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
However, consensus can and does change. I suspect homeopathy will do the same, although my knowledge of atomic physics is patchy I know about spin and resonance and I think it's possible to alter the spin or resonance of certain molecules which would explain why homeopathy has a slightly higher rate of success than the placebo effect alone. But homeopathy does not fall in to the criteria of nuclear physics and thus will be a long time before a bottle of water pills are put in to a resonance imaging machine.
The article is pretty much the same. The media have this habit of twisting academic papers and reporting them in a way that fits a certain agenda, and once again they've done this. Just because the telegraph decides to report on one study that says we're not doomed, there will be a hundred out there that say we're screwed. But nope, those are conveniently forgotten.
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're fked. But it has only been going for 30 years.
That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Take this (likely fictitious as I'm making this up but wouldn't surprise me if it was real) example. "Potatoes are the best source of fibre and micronutrients and are the new superfood" according to a study by scientists. The research, carried out at the potato research institute, found that everyone should be eating three times as many potatoes for a healthier, longer life.
Really? So if we all treble our intake of chips, we'll live longer? Wow.... but doesn't the potato research institute have a vested interest in a study like this? Oh.....but chips are so gorgeous and now scientists say they're good for us. So lets ignore all the other stuff and cherry pick the stuff we want to hear, irrespective of the fact the study was funded by people who have a pecuniary interest in results falling in a certain way.
I often hear stuff on radio 4 that starts off with the reader saying "scientists/research has shown/found that blah blah blah" and before the reader has finished the article I've mentally shredded the 'report' and can often be heard at the traffic lights going 'Bah!! Bloody idiots'.
Anyway, I'm not going to go in to what constitutes a proper scientific study. It's long, complex and unbelievably dull. Plus its gone midnight and I want my 7 hours of snooze.
Excellent post. In science, people do studies. Those studies are published in peer reviewed journals, and are repeated and reviewed.
Nothing is ever black or white. Not at the level I work at. Instead, the scientific community reach a consensus as a result of the collective direction that studies conclude. Let me give a wonderful example as an explanation.
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
However, consensus can and does change. I suspect homeopathy will do the same, although my knowledge of atomic physics is patchy I know about spin and resonance and I think it's possible to alter the spin or resonance of certain molecules which would explain why homeopathy has a slightly higher rate of success than the placebo effect alone. But homeopathy does not fall in to the criteria of nuclear physics and thus will be a long time before a bottle of water pills are put in to a resonance imaging machine.
The article is pretty much the same. The media have this habit of twisting academic papers and reporting them in a way that fits a certain agenda, and once again they've done this. Just because the telegraph decides to report on one study that says we're not doomed, there will be a hundred out there that say we're screwed. But nope, those are conveniently forgotten.
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're f
ked. But it has only been going for 30 years.That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
I'd like to know who funded that study. I bet it was Exxon. They have their grubby prints all over dozens of 'climate change is not as bad as we feared' studies. Always useful to find out how a study was financed.
Take this (likely fictitious as I'm making this up but wouldn't surprise me if it was real) example. "Potatoes are the best source of fibre and micronutrients and are the new superfood" according to a study by scientists. The research, carried out at the potato research institute, found that everyone should be eating three times as many potatoes for a healthier, longer life.
Really? So if we all treble our intake of chips, we'll live longer? Wow.... but doesn't the potato research institute have a vested interest in a study like this? Oh.....but chips are so gorgeous and now scientists say they're good for us. So lets ignore all the other stuff and cherry pick the stuff we want to hear, irrespective of the fact the study was funded by people who have a pecuniary interest in results falling in a certain way.
I often hear stuff on radio 4 that starts off with the reader saying "scientists/research has shown/found that blah blah blah" and before the reader has finished the article I've mentally shredded the 'report' and can often be heard at the traffic lights going 'Bah!! Bloody idiots'.
Anyway, I'm not going to go in to what constitutes a proper scientific study. It's long, complex and unbelievably dull. Plus its gone midnight and I want my 7 hours of snooze.
Colonial said:
Wiccan of Darkness said:
As a scientist myself, whilst many things bug the hell out of me, this is probably the one thing that grates my gonads the most.
.......
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're fked. But it has only been going for 30 years.
That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
.....
Excellent post. .......
The climate change issue is such a vast field of science that it has its own specialisation, and the consensus is we're f
ked. But it has only been going for 30 years.That said, we (that is, smart cookies like me) stopped calling it global warming in the 1990's and started calling it climate change, as it became apparent that as the earth warmed up, the nice big watery oceans acted like a car radiator and soaked up the heat energy. That in turn gives extra energy to individual weather events. Climate change will turn a drizzle in to a flood, a dusting of snow in to a blizzard and a warm spell in to a drought. The rate at which weather records are being broken is increasing annually. Since 2010, the number of consecutive days where a temperature above 40 degrees C is recorded on the earths surface is broken.
The undeniable consensus is the climate is changing. It is also undeniable that this is largely contributed by human activity. What is not known is the proportion that is natural and what can be apportioned to human activity, nor the precise measurements of the results.
.....
It isn't called global warming anymore because the globe isn't any warmer than statistical noise, the heat they claim is around somewhere isn't in the oceans (they can't find the missing heat), and there is no data at all that says weather events are more extreme now than ever before.
Florida has been having hurricanes since forever, the last count had it at 119 since 1850, but the last one was due to climate change? Really? In the UK we're suppposed to be flooded out every autumn, didn't see much of that last year, and now they have to give depressions names to "raise awareness of climate change". I call b
ks.mondeoman said:
I had you down as quite smart, til this.
It isn't called global warming anymore because the globe isn't any warmer than statistical noise, the heat they claim is around somewhere isn't in the oceans (they can't find the missing heat), and there is no data at all that says weather events are more extreme now than ever before.
Florida has been having hurricanes since forever, the last count had it at 119 since 1850, but the last one was due to climate change? Really? In the UK we're suppposed to be flooded out every autumn, didn't see much of that last year, and now they have to give depressions names to "raise awareness of climate change". I call bks.
You are confusing the media reporting of a climate event with the actual science behind the study. It isn't called global warming anymore because the globe isn't any warmer than statistical noise, the heat they claim is around somewhere isn't in the oceans (they can't find the missing heat), and there is no data at all that says weather events are more extreme now than ever before.
Florida has been having hurricanes since forever, the last count had it at 119 since 1850, but the last one was due to climate change? Really? In the UK we're suppposed to be flooded out every autumn, didn't see much of that last year, and now they have to give depressions names to "raise awareness of climate change". I call b
ks.It is always simplistic and sensationalist, which was kind of the point of the post.
Wait Here Until Green Light Shows said:
Disco Infiltrator said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
So for clarity - you do or don't believe it exists ?
No, I think it's an overblown load of nonsense.
It is the supposed consequences of this warming that I find to be utterly unbelievable.
Which was the point made in the article I posted in my first post.
Edited by Disco Infiltrator on Wednesday 20th September 08:09
Wiccan of Darkness said:
A hippy type person I occasionally socialise with, is adamant that homeopathy works. A quick bio-net search for 'homeopathy is effective' threw up just over 9,000 studies that show homeopathy works. She was delighted and started singing and dancing saying see, it's true.
I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
Ah, the Oreskes methodology. That's sound sciency sounding stuff, that is! I did another search, for the antithesis and it threw up some 150,000 results. So for every study that says it works, another 15 says it doesn't. Naturally, being the pseudoscientist she is, she only chooses to pay attention to the 9000 studies that support her argument, and not the 150,000 that didn't.
Disco Infiltrator said:
Wait Here Until Green Light Shows said:
Disco Infiltrator said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
So for clarity - you do or don't believe it exists ?
No, I think it's an overblown load of nonsense.It is the supposed consequences of this warming that I find to be utterly unbelievable.
Colonial said:
mondeoman said:
I had you down as quite smart, til this.
It isn't called global warming anymore because the globe isn't any warmer than statistical noise, the heat they claim is around somewhere isn't in the oceans (they can't find the missing heat), and there is no data at all that says weather events are more extreme now than ever before.
Florida has been having hurricanes since forever, the last count had it at 119 since 1850, but the last one was due to climate change? Really? In the UK we're suppposed to be flooded out every autumn, didn't see much of that last year, and now they have to give depressions names to "raise awareness of climate change". I call bks.
You are confusing the media reporting of a climate event with the actual science behind the study. It isn't called global warming anymore because the globe isn't any warmer than statistical noise, the heat they claim is around somewhere isn't in the oceans (they can't find the missing heat), and there is no data at all that says weather events are more extreme now than ever before.
Florida has been having hurricanes since forever, the last count had it at 119 since 1850, but the last one was due to climate change? Really? In the UK we're suppposed to be flooded out every autumn, didn't see much of that last year, and now they have to give depressions names to "raise awareness of climate change". I call b
ks.It is always simplistic and sensationalist, which was kind of the point of the post.
The arrogance of "the smart ones (like me)" comment. Brilliant.
Science is data, not consensus. And the data is totally inconclusive, so the only consensus you can have is "we don't know".
Disco Infiltrator said:
Homeopathy fan Prince Charles being fully on board doesn't exactly sell it to me either.
Yeah, but so is The Royal Society.Anti-vaxxer President Trump thinks climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. You're happy to side with his scientific credentials?
mondeoman said:
No, really, I'm not. Read wickens post, in full, particularly the part I quoted, then read my response to that part.
The arrogance of "the smart ones (like me)" comment. Brilliant.
Science is data, not consensus. And the data is totally inconclusive, so the only consensus you can have is "we don't know".
The data is not "totally inconclusive". It's actually pretty conclusive. Which is why scientific consensus exists.The arrogance of "the smart ones (like me)" comment. Brilliant.
Science is data, not consensus. And the data is totally inconclusive, so the only consensus you can have is "we don't know".
I have to look at the modelling for things like predicted coastal erosion modelling for storm surges from even minor sea level rise for 100 years into the future. It's not pretty.
I'd be over the moon if the current modelling is proved wrong. Great news. I'd be happy to say "yep I was wrong" but at the moment that is as scientifically robust as supporting homeopathy.
Colonial said:
mondeoman said:
No, really, I'm not. Read wickens post, in full, particularly the part I quoted, then read my response to that part.
The arrogance of "the smart ones (like me)" comment. Brilliant.
Science is data, not consensus. And the data is totally inconclusive, so the only consensus you can have is "we don't know".
The data is not "totally inconclusive". It's actually pretty conclusive. Which is why scientific consensus exists.The arrogance of "the smart ones (like me)" comment. Brilliant.
Science is data, not consensus. And the data is totally inconclusive, so the only consensus you can have is "we don't know".
I have to look at the modelling for things like predicted coastal erosion modelling for storm surges from even minor sea level rise for 100 years into the future. It's not pretty.
I'd be over the moon if the current modelling is proved wrong. Great news. I'd be happy to say "yep I was wrong" but at the moment that is as scientifically robust as supporting homeopathy.
The north sea used to be forest and grasslands.
People/the world will adapt.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff