Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
mondeoman said:
Have you read some of the comments 
Some serious allegations there.
The comments sum up the whole debate for me. All they do is try and discredit anyone who speaks out against the consensus view.Some serious allegations there.
It's proof to me that many therefore see it as a political issue and not a scientific issue.
alock said:
It's proof to me that many therefore see it as a political issue and not a scientific issue.
Witness the volume of posts on our 'political thread' versus this 'scientific thread'.The science is settled don't you know? Leaving one to only decide towards which side of the fence one would like to jump.
Oh what a paradox!
TheExcession said:
mybrainhurts said:
TheExcession said:
Oh what a paradox!
Tried that in the washer once. It was rubbish, nowhere near as good as Daz. What happened to Omo..?Baron Greenback said:
Great article here http://phys.org/news/2013-08-climate-faster-millio...
Very good.Why stop at 65million years though? This could be the biggest and fastest temperature rise since the Big Bang!!
And we can stop this thermal runaway, if everyone in the west immediately stopped using energy we'll be at least 0.125C cooler, according to models.
TheHeretic said:
So all this warming that stopped 16+ years ago is going to get worse, maybe we're looking at a 0.0C rise over the next decade causing all sorts of extra melting and flood chaos.Sobering stuff, this 'could change a bit in 1000 years' malarky.
TheHeretic said:
The comments are amazing. Some deluded people out there. kiethton said:
Complete with pictures of sad looking Polar bears 
In other news, scientists are 95% sure the universe is expanding in order to distance itself from the field of stupidity surrounding Earth.
"Six health myths you should ignore
We are constantly being bombarded with health advice, but not all of it is based on rigorous evidence.
This week's issue of New Sicnetist debunks the six common myths you should ignore. You can read the whole thing here."
New Scientist sent me a mail a few days ago. This was one of the articles they proudly pointed to. Pity about the spelling error of their name but, hey, anyone can make a mistake.
Given that this is health related one might expect them to be very rigourous about their analysis. The alternative might lead to suggestions that they are trying to influence people to have unhelthy lifestyles perhaps with a view to reducing life spans and, at a stretch, saving the planet.
Think about the first two sentences.
The Six Health Myths they have chosen might, broadly, be considered as consensus science in the world of health care providers. Yet firstly they say (probably quite rightly) that we should ignore such advice.
Firstly they are saying it is anot all rigorous? Gosh, that's an interesting observation. Or is it an opinion?
Secondly they are saying that these often communicated ideas are simply wrong and should be ignored! Well, well, well.
Finally they suggest we can use a link to read the whole article but this is at best misleading and at worst fraud because you can't - not unless you are subscribed to their site.
I'm puzzled. Is there an explanation that can be put forward in support of their claims?
We are constantly being bombarded with health advice, but not all of it is based on rigorous evidence.
This week's issue of New Sicnetist debunks the six common myths you should ignore. You can read the whole thing here."
New Scientist sent me a mail a few days ago. This was one of the articles they proudly pointed to. Pity about the spelling error of their name but, hey, anyone can make a mistake.
Given that this is health related one might expect them to be very rigourous about their analysis. The alternative might lead to suggestions that they are trying to influence people to have unhelthy lifestyles perhaps with a view to reducing life spans and, at a stretch, saving the planet.
Think about the first two sentences.
The Six Health Myths they have chosen might, broadly, be considered as consensus science in the world of health care providers. Yet firstly they say (probably quite rightly) that we should ignore such advice.
Firstly they are saying it is anot all rigorous? Gosh, that's an interesting observation. Or is it an opinion?
Secondly they are saying that these often communicated ideas are simply wrong and should be ignored! Well, well, well.
Finally they suggest we can use a link to read the whole article but this is at best misleading and at worst fraud because you can't - not unless you are subscribed to their site.
I'm puzzled. Is there an explanation that can be put forward in support of their claims?
LongQ said:
The Six Health Myths they have chosen might, broadly, be considered as consensus science in the world of health care providers. Yet firstly they say (probably quite rightly) that we should ignore such advice.
Firstly they are saying it is anot all rigorous? Gosh, that's an interesting observation. Or is it an opinion?
Secondly they are saying that these often communicated ideas are simply wrong and should be ignored! Well, well, well.
Finally they suggest we can use a link to read the whole article but this is at best misleading and at worst fraud because you can't - not unless you are subscribed to their site.
I'm puzzled. Is there an explanation that can be put forward in support of their claims?
Actually it's the exact opposite of the 'consensus science' view. It's a list of 6 things which aren't supported by medical evidence and aren't the scientific view. I can read it here without subscription; http://www.newscientist.com/special/six-health-myt... (I think - I'm at work and we may have one)Firstly they are saying it is anot all rigorous? Gosh, that's an interesting observation. Or is it an opinion?
Secondly they are saying that these often communicated ideas are simply wrong and should be ignored! Well, well, well.
Finally they suggest we can use a link to read the whole article but this is at best misleading and at worst fraud because you can't - not unless you are subscribed to their site.
I'm puzzled. Is there an explanation that can be put forward in support of their claims?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff