Clever bloke says global warming is a sack of arse
Discussion
Frankeh said:
The problem is that scientists (read
eople) tend to say this stuff a lot.
It's like when people say the beatles were s
t.
Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/24/lawrence-solomon-radiations-benefits/eople) tend to say this stuff a lot. It's like when people say the beatles were s
t. Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
rhinochopig said:
Frankeh said:
The problem is that scientists (readeople) tend to say this stuff a lot.
It's like when people say the beatles were st.
Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/24/lawren...eople) tend to say this stuff a lot. It's like when people say the beatles were s
t. Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
V88Dicky said:
rhinochopig said:
Frankeh said:
The problem is that scientists (readeople) tend to say this stuff a lot.
It's like when people say the beatles were st.
Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/24/lawren...eople) tend to say this stuff a lot. It's like when people say the beatles were s
t. Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
Edited by rhinochopig on Monday 11th October 13:37
jbi said:
el stovey said:
He must be right and all the other many of thousands of scientists are wrong. 
The community is largely divided on the issue, It's a gravy train IMO
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
My current stance is that I don't care and I think that it's too early to tell either way.
Also, I think the taxes and such are a huge scam although I wouldn't mind them if they actually went to help fund research into alternative fuels/energy.
Basically I think it's a gravy train too at the moment.
I don't think there's any huge conspiracy or anything like that, but there is complacency and I think a lot of scientists rely on climate change for their pay check. Confirmation bias isn't always concious and it is possible for a lot of scientists to see what they want to see resulting in peer review of dubious claims.
I'm just a keyboard warrior though. Time will tell if I'm right.
I'm willing to sit in the "Whatever" camp for now.
Also, I think the taxes and such are a huge scam although I wouldn't mind them if they actually went to help fund research into alternative fuels/energy.
Basically I think it's a gravy train too at the moment.
I don't think there's any huge conspiracy or anything like that, but there is complacency and I think a lot of scientists rely on climate change for their pay check. Confirmation bias isn't always concious and it is possible for a lot of scientists to see what they want to see resulting in peer review of dubious claims.
I'm just a keyboard warrior though. Time will tell if I'm right.
I'm willing to sit in the "Whatever" camp for now.
rhinochopig said:
V88Dicky said:
rhinochopig said:
Frankeh said:
The problem is that scientists (readeople) tend to say this stuff a lot.
It's like when people say the beatles were st.
Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/09/24/lawren...eople) tend to say this stuff a lot. It's like when people say the beatles were s
t. Clever scientists said that smoking didn't increase the causes of cancer back in the day.
That radiation did't cause harm, etc etc.
Edited by rhinochopig on Monday 11th October 13:37
KaraK said:
To me the biggest thing I took from that letter is that he is unhappy at what he sees as the suppression of true scientific investigation of the issues. Can't say I blame him really.
And the question which naturally follows is why suppress a scientific investigation into the issues? That is after all part of science.... Jasandjules said:
KaraK said:
To me the biggest thing I took from that letter is that he is unhappy at what he sees as the suppression of true scientific investigation of the issues. Can't say I blame him really.
And the question which naturally follows is why suppress a scientific investigation into the issues? That is after all part of science.... jbi said:
el stovey said:
He must be right and all the other many of thousands of scientists are wrong.
The community is largely divided on the issue, It's a gravy train IMO
The two thousand figure often quoted refers to the IPCC's expert reviewers and several of those disagree vehemently with the position adopted by climate officialdumb, but their feedback is ignored becaase heresy against doctrine isn't permitted. This is more like religion and not at all like science.
A further example to add to the OP, an open letter from one of those expert reviewers that tells its own story.
Prof A Kellow said:
I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment', and made in essence the criticism...that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models.
It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!
Nonsense is putting it mildly.It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!
el stovey said:
jbi said:
el stovey said:
He must be right and all the other many of thousands of scientists are wrong.
The community is largely divided on the issue, It's a gravy train IMO
The media tries to give both sides of the argument but I think it massively overstates the support there is for non MMGW among scientists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff