|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
OK, so peer review says I should have believed that Global Warming Theory was a fact because a self-collection of scientists 20 years ago decided it was and got themselves printed? Eh? Isn't that the realm of faith?
..the Sola Scriptura argument.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
What an interesting definition of "peer reviewed" you are working with there, Myrrh.
Mind if the rest of us use the definition established by common consensus?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Myrrh - Dr Allegre wrote an article last year expressing his views in the French Press. Now a politician, he was immediately denounced by the French climate science community (try a Babel Fish translation of their letter), having made basic errors in his arguments that the wider climate science community refutes here. Not sure why this has come up again now...
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What an interesting definition of "peer reviewed" you are working with there, Myrrh.
I'm not sure which post he was reading, either.
I'm as aware of the pitfalls of peer review as anyone. All those idiots who just can't quite seem to grasp the importance of my work....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I have pointed out that Carl Wunsch has disowned the programme, and that John Christy contradicted his own research. I have pointed out that the programme appeared to fabricate critical data and attribute it to NASA. I have pointed out that the director was previously censured for misrepresentaion by the ITC. All these points are factual ... Please tell me why none of this counts and I have wasted hours of my life.
What I said was you haven't helped my understanding of the issues. What you've done (and continue to do) is lift errors out of an opposing view and infer from them that you view must be right.
quote:
I have linked all the science arguments that mainstream scientists have debunked. Although this is opinion, it is the opinion of an estimated 99-100% of climate scientists.
Um, that's quite a claim. Are you sure 99-100% of climate scientists hold this opinion? You're not just associating a very big percentage with a very broad category to give the impression that your view must be right? Oh, and what exactly is the opinion you're referring to?
quote:
I have consistently pointed out that the IPCC report has ACC at greater that 89% probablility, not fact.
What does that mean? If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.
quote:
a great deal of people seem to believe that there is huge disagreement in the scientific community. The result is that genuine action on climate change will be much harder to acheive.
Huge disagreement about what? As far as I can tell, there is no broad agreement in the scientific community about what action to take because the processes of ACC are complex and still being worked out.
Any 'genuine action' now is going to be based at best on informed guesswork and at worst on commercially or politically inspired speculation. Hardly good grounds for taking far-reaching decisions unless the outcomes will have positive value in other ways. Which for me, for example, minimising environmental pollution would have.
The question is how high a priority decision-making in this area should give climate change. Your approach seems to be stuff any other considerations. That to my mind is a stupid view, and one that perhaps more people than you realise recognise as such.
quote:
People are absolutely free to believe whatever they like to comfort them, but they shouldn't delude themselves that science backs them up. Only propaganda will do that
But of course it's only everyone else's arguments and reservations that are 'propaganda', never your own.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What I said was you haven't helped my understanding of the issues. What you've done (and continue to do) is lift errors out of an opposing view and infer from them that you view must be right.
No, the mainstream view is (almost certainly) right. Which is...
quote:
Are you sure 99-100% of climate scientists hold this opinion? You're not just associating a very big percentage with a very broad category to give the impression that your view must be right? Oh, and what exactly is the opinion you're referring to?
...that mankind is the primary driver of Anthropogenic (man induced) climate change (ACC). I base the guesswork stat on 0% of 928 papers not contradicting the view that ACC is correct. (just to be clear, we are talking about actual bone fide climate scientists here).
quote:
If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.
No, the A in ACC is anthropogenic. Otherwise dealt with above. Within the science, there is a consensus. Science will always improve and modify, but I refer you to all the earlier quoted statistics to assess the degree of certainty. As Carl Wunsch said, policy must be directed by probability, not certainty which is rarely (if ever) possible with science. ACC is extremely probable.
quote:
As far as I can tell, there is no broad agreement in the scientific community about what action to take because the processes of ACC are complex and still being worked out.
Any 'genuine action' now is going to be based at best on informed guesswork and at worst on commercially or politically inspired speculation. Hardly good grounds for taking far-reaching decisions unless the outcomes will have positive value in other ways. Which for me, for example, minimising environmental pollution would have.
The question is how high a priority decision-making in this area should give climate change. Your approach seems to be stuff any other considerations. That to my mind is a stupid view, and one that perhaps more people than you realise recognise as such.
I've provided data on meta-analysis of climate science peer reviewed paper to support my position. Do you have anything to support yours that there is actually a much larger number of contrarian climate scientists? There are a few (and more than a few bogus lists), but as a percentage they appear to be minute.
Also, have still yet to hear a theory from ANYONE as to why all world governments now have, in your view, a stupid view. Isn't it a bit odd if everyone else is stupid and you are not?
quote:
But of course it's only everyone else's arguments and reservations that are 'propaganda', never your own.
Peer reviewed science is not propaganda.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Now THAT'S stupid. It's called politics. I'm so glad that the US and North Korean and Iranian and Pakistani governments all agree on something. Citation please.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Now THAT'S stupid. It's called politics. I'm so glad that the US and North Korean and Iranian and Pakistani governments all agree on something. Citation please.
I guess you mean all world governemnts agreeing with ACC. Each country sends delegates to the IPCC. On publication of the FAR, all governments endorsed the conclusion that ACC is very likely.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Every state government on Earth? Wow! If you say so. Saudi Arabia eh? Iran? Dubai? Kuwait? Bahrain? Venezuela? Nigeria? Turkeys all signing up for Xmas eh? Do you remember when Libya was on some UN committee for human rights, or was it Iraq? I think the latter was on another one for disarmament. Really credible these global organizations.
But as for runaway greenhouse effect, ACC, AGW being caused by trace gas drivers, I couldn't give a CO2, CH4, N2, H2S, CH3SH, H2 cocktail what they say any more than the majority 'Christian' opinions on this web site. Not until the astrophysical synthesis is overturned by a superior antithesis.
They made MONEY on it. Peer review that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
the mainstream view is (almost certainly) right.
Oh right.
quote:
I base the guesswork stat on 0% of 928 papers not contradicting the view that ACC is correct.
And you don't see any problem with translating 'not contradicting' as 'agrees with'. If I remember correctly, that report breaks down the figure in a way that presents a somewhat more nuanced, and to my mind fairer, interpretation.
If you slowed down for half a second and read my post, you'll notice that I'm not disputing anthropogenic climate change is happening. But don't worry about it...
quote:
As Carl Wunsch said, policy must be directed by probability, not certainty which is rarely (if ever) possible with science.
'Policy' is a matter for public debate in which such probabilities are reflected in scientific input. But scientists (hopefully) inform that debate; they should never direct it. That in a democracy is the remit of elected government who I hope will take all relevent factors into consideration.
quote:
have still yet to hear a theory from ANYONE as to why all world governments now have, in your view, a stupid view. Isn't it a bit odd if everyone else is stupid and you are not?
Unbelievable. You seriously think 'stuff any consideration other than climate change' (what you've quoted me as saying) is not a stupid view? That any world government is going to ignore for example cost implications? Get real.
quote:
Peer reviewed science is not propaganda.
No, I was referring to your posts here. But that's my lot for now on this.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
You'll find a list of countries in this document.
Saudi Arabia - yes
Iran - yes
Dubai - yes (UAE)
Kuwait - yes
Bahrain - yes
Venezuela - yes
Nigeria - yes
And why not add North Korea as well?
Or... er... sorry, were you being sarcastic?
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I wouldn't know Noiseboy, I wouldn't know.
Noiseboy, baby, would you like to place a WAGER? Would you like to put your money where your mouth is? Could get messy I realise. Filthy lucre indeed. But really, would you like to put a quid on the astrophysicists' forecast or North Korea's?
I mean, hey, they're on the side of the 89% probability angels, yeah? Any thing these paragons of truth endorse I gotta buy. I mean, WOW, how could I be so shtewpid not to?
89% of all known scientists use AGW (probably - sponsored by Carlsberg)! You know it makes sense.
Who said, "88.2% of Statistics are made up on the spot"? I know, but do YOU? Eh? Without looking it up on Wikipedia, eh?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
I am going to stick my hand up here and say that the enormous consensus of scientists doing climate research state that it is very likely that greenhouse gases produced by mankind are more responsible than Milankovich cycles and solar cycles for global warming. If in 40 years times it appears that this is not the case I will admit that I was wrong and was duped.
I am not a betting man but will Ł10 do as a bet Martin?
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mr C. You will have to take that up with my heirs, I'll be 92 then. But done. I might have been twinkled by then, but don't know if I want to stoop to Hell to collect or pay up.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mr C. You will have to take that up with my heirs, I'll be 92 then. But done. I might have been twinkled by then, but don't know if I want to stoop to Hell to collect or pay up.
Don't you have a daughter knocking around here? Maybe I misremember?
I suggested 40 years as that is a good amount of time for data collection and development of the science but if there are other ways to get to the bottom of this then I would certainly like to know, but I don't think there are.
I'm not sure what Hell might have to do with things but if it gets hot enough here soon then maybe it will be a hell on Earth, or perhaps a Benidorm in Britain? We could grow lovely Mediterranean fruit.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ah HA! Is here Liverpool or Northampton? I was just thinking last night, and today, I wonder if that person who knows me but I don't know who they are is still about. And should I give a damn, my dear? I mean it's all very well being anonymously outspoken in my loony fundy con-evo faith, but if it got back tut missus! Never mind the gay-moslem brigade. They can only cut my throat and out-me after all. And as for getting money out of her, you MUST be bleedin jokin. She'll still be paying off her student loan AND poncing off me, as I do my mother, beyond the grave.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
'Here' is SOF; I thought I remembered a poster (can't remember who) about 3 years ago saying that you were her dad.
I've just looked at your profile and you are exactly 18 years older than me as I too am a 10th July child. Not startling but of note!
I was just thinking earlier today that this issue is important to me and although I am usually cautious I do believe what the IPCC is saying and look forward to the full report later in the year.
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Nah, really mdijon?
You did seem to have the misconception that an individual could be peer reviewed from what you said
I looked at what I said and all I saw was the same lazy language others have used. I assumed everyone contributing here knew what was meant by the peer review process; I didn't think I'd have to be pedantic about it. I can't remember a time when I didn't know what it meant.
Your correction came across as patronising. It was certainly unnecessary. I'd suggest maybe you ascertain what someone means before you decide to correct them.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
89% of all known scientists use AGW (probably - sponsored by Carlsberg)! You know it makes sense.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
DaveLarge, when I read quote:
What does that mean? If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.
I also thought this meant that you felt that there was little scientific agreement on the causes of climate change, so I don't think you should be too hard on NoiseBoy for thinking the same. I would also say that in general the causes of Climate Change in general are pretty well understood - with uncertainty round the edges (hence the rather large range for the predicted figure for temperature rise if we carry on as we are, for example).
I would agree that it's important to separate out the causes of climate change from what we do about it in detail. As LittleLady said earlier on, if humans are causing the bulk of the change (as the IPCC report claims) then effective policies are different than if not. However, given that ACC (where A = Anthropogenic) is a reality, clearly one of the options is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that are entering the atmosphere in order to reduce the effects as much as possible. There are also other things you can do, some with known technology like building sea defences, others more speculative like launching loads of silver balloons to reflect sunlight. However, it is not for the scientists to decide which of these policies should be used - though their contribution about the effectiveness of each should clearly be taken into account. There are other considerations including cost, equity etc. Ultimately people and governments have to decide what to do.
As far as developing countries are concerned, the argument that believing in ACC means you think they shouldn't develop is not correct. Though it is obviously one possible viewpoint, it is certainly not one that I hold. Nor could I say that development through industrialisation using a high-carbon economy has actually happened or worked in most of the developing world. I would in fact argue that in most cases, development needs to follow similiar paths using appropriate technology whether or not you believe in ACC. For many people, solar panels or microhydro or geothermal energy is a better bet than being connected to a national grid powered by coal or oil. What we should do is help those countries build their own capacity to develop and use these rather than just selling them our tech). For poor countries with a low carbon footprint ACC is not particularly relevant as far as their development goes (though sadly they are generally most at risk from the effects even though they are not the cause). A response to ACC must be led by the rich countries who are much more responsible for the problem in the first place and have more capacity to do something about it. This initially means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions - though not necessarily our quality of life.
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
DaveLarge, when I read quote:
What does that mean? If ACC is Accelerated Climate Change, then that's hardly controversial. What's causing it, and what if anything can be done, is the issue. My impression is that there is little agreement about that because how ACC works is not yet well understood.
I also thought this meant that you felt that there was little scientific agreement on the causes of climate change, so I don't think you should be too hard on NoiseBoy for thinking the same.
That was me, JonahMan, not DaveLarge, but yes, I was getting a little short and could have been clearer. I only joined the thread when the Great Global Warming Swindle discussion began, so I had the ACC acronym wrong and have no doubt missed informative contributions from Noiseboy and others.
I think I've made the points I wanted to, but apologies if my late arrival has meant I've undervalued anyone's earlier posts.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
I looked at what I said and all I saw was the same lazy language others have used.
Actually, I don't think it was just a language issue. Pointing to a television programme and saying "plenty of those scientists will have been peer reviewed" seems to take too much on faith, to me, and to take too broad a view of the credibility generated by the process.
And I'm puzzled by your view of "correction" - you post an idea - I post a response - if you feel it was unnecessary you can explain why - if you find I've misunderstood you can tell me how - or ignore me completely. But now you want me to check with you before posting? Should I PM you before responding to any of your posts?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961
|
Posted
Here's an article from The Times which has more on this debate.
quote:
Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.
In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.
quote:
Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut
--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.
If only.
Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Thanks for your posting JonahMan, I agree that this is probably where some of the confusion comes from. I also have a feeling that I've been a bit of a bull in a china shop in this debate at times. Wheras I stand by the actual content and arguments of everything I've written, I'm sure I could have been a good deal more helpful in the way I presented it, so sorry to you Dave Marshall and Little Lady that I've not always exactly been the paragon of good grace.
Thanks for the link, Mr Clingford. I think a lot of people have written to Ofcom (not just me!) so we'll have to wait and see how it all resolves.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I mean, what are we s'posed to do now? Now you've gone all gracious on us? I reckon platinum dust in between us and the sun. The solar wind will probably disperse it too quickly tho.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
Dave M., many apologies for getting myself confused over who said what. I will try to differentiate between Dave's from now on. This is what comes of posting when I should be asleep!
Also, thanks for the clarification on your thinking - it really is so easy to misrepresent oneself, never mind anyone else, that a gracious acknowledgement ,like yours, of possible unclearness is the electronic equivalent of gold dust.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Now to return to our regular scheduling of lies, damn lies and statistics! (oh, and the odd inconvenient truth).
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Now to return to our regular scheduling of lies, damn lies and statistics! (oh, and the odd inconvenient truth).
I'm increasingly inclined to believe subtlety and skepticism aren't properly valued on this thread.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Here's an article from The Times which has more on this debate.
But you didn't post the best bit, Mr Clingford! The best bit just has to be this from Durkin:
quote:
“You’re a big daft cock.”
Great line!
Not very original though. But never mind. It made me giggle for some unknown reason.
I love the 'facts' in the Times article. They seem to be just rebuttals of previous 'facts'. Oh well. Whatever the 'facts' maybe (and God knows what they are, coz I sure don't), I'm still skeptical and content to remain so.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Actually, I don't think it was just a language issue.
I don't care what you think. It was a language issue, period.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Now to return to our regular scheduling of lies, damn lies and statistics! (oh, and the odd inconvenient truth).
I'm increasingly inclined to believe subtlety and skepticism aren't properly valued on this thread.
Depends what value you assign to them doesn't it? And how you then measure them.
Me, I like sceptism. But I dislike stupidity, or sceptism taken to extremes.
As for subtlety, too often it's just hypocrisy and dishonesty in disguise. Also, I am as subtle as a half brick between the eyes, so am ill-qualified to spot it!
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
So, if one doesn't know much about a particular subject, and is of a skeptical bent, and is also of a cynical bent and therefore mistrusts information from any source, how the heck does one ever make an informed decision? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
As for subtlety, too often it's just hypocrisy and dishonesty in disguise. Also, I am as subtle as a half brick between the eyes, so am ill-qualified to spot it!
Now that's a disclaimer: you get to say people who value something you don't comprehend are lying hypocrites.
Well done.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
As for subtlety, too often it's just hypocrisy and dishonesty in disguise. Also, I am as subtle as a half brick between the eyes, so am ill-qualified to spot it!
Now that's a disclaimer: you get to say people who value something you don't comprehend are lying hypocrites.
Well done.
I'm sorry you misunderstood my jokey attempt at gentle self-mockery there, 206. Was it too subtle for you?
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
I'm sorry you misunderstood my jokey attempt at gentle self-mockery there, 206. Was it too subtle for you?
Could be; could be it was too crude.
How can you assign a value to something like that?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
I'm sorry you misunderstood my jokey attempt at gentle self-mockery there, 206. Was it too subtle for you?
Could be; could be it was too crude.
How can you assign a value to something like that?
Ah, I think you comprehend the point I made initially.
Returning to the original subject, it seems to me that a lot of the uncertainty around what people believe to be the causes of climate change does come down to the value you put on different opinions or different facts. Whom do you trust the most, and which processes of arriving at a reasonable position? Given that CC is complicated, with many inputs and complex interactions between inputs and effects, (not to mention a range of possible outcomes) how should people decide who is right?
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fredwa
Apprentice
# 12401
|
Posted
Wow, my first ever post!
I've just been reading the thread and wanted to thank you Noiseboy for your posts which were clear, intelligent, well researched, and supported by good references. They have been a great help as I have looked again at the issues that surfaae from the C4 programme.
Thanks also for a couple of pieces of wonderful humour to...
Mr Clingford for leading me to the Times article and Durkin's wonderful incisive reply to a critic "You're a big daft cock" It just speaks volumes..
and to Littlelady for this gem
quote:
I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.
peronally I don't happen to believe that 2+2=4. I have no idea 2+2=, since I'm not a mathematician.
Fred
Posts: 5 | From: Tiger country | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Given that CC is complicated, with many inputs and complex interactions between inputs and effects, (not to mention a range of possible outcomes) how should people decide who is right?
As you've pointed out it is impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point in time; it may remain impossible even decades from now.
Which is all I've ever tried to say regarding this debate and which, I maintain, is continually inadequately acknowledged by many of the 'proponents' of ACC who are perfectly willing to restrict human freedom on the off chance they're 'correct' both in their diagnosis and prescription of the 'problem'.
My concern remains a metaphysical libertarian one much more so than a 'scientific' one and the remarkable allegiance to 'science' some demonstrate continues to surprise and frighten me.
Yeah, science is a wonderful thing overall but it remains about 'theory', not 'fact', no matter how many internet links someone dredges up.
That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
As you've pointed out it is impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point in time; it may remain impossible even decades from now.
Which is all I've ever tried to say regarding this debate and which, I maintain, is continually inadequately acknowledged by many of the 'proponents' of ACC who are perfectly willing to restrict human freedom on the off chance they're 'correct' both in their diagnosis and prescription of the 'problem'.
My concern remains a metaphysical libertarian one much more so than a 'scientific' one and the remarkable allegiance to 'science' some demonstrate continues to surprise and frighten me.
Yeah, science is a wonderful thing overall but it remains about 'theory', not 'fact', no matter how many internet links someone dredges up.
That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.
206, do you ascribe this view to Creationism also? Evolution is, of course, only a theory. Also, are you arguing that science should never inform political policy? Are you against, for example, the restriction of human freedom that is entailed by having to wear seatbelts in cars? In some accidents, of course, you would be safer without one as you could be flung clear of wreckage. It is a matter only of probability that they might save your life.
A point that has been made numerous times (including by GCCS contributor Carl Wunsch) is that science can rarely deal with absolute certainty, but it can with probability. The peer-review process has resulted in us having a high degree of probability of ACC. So while anyone is entirely free to believe whatever they want, it is not accurate to suggest that science has this issue as 50/50, or anything close. So it is entirely innacurate to call this an "off chance". Further, as the governments of the world from every political persuasion are looking to take action based on these high probabilites, this is a rational response to all the availaible evidence. I personally feel that the civil liberites of my children will be more infringed by a much more dangerous world caused by ACC that my own liberties are right now if I am not allowed to buy conventional light bulbs.
I do understand cynicism when it comes to governments and motives, but I'd argue that the science itself and the breadth of worldwide political acceptance would counter any parochial factors of short term gain. Also, when it comes to the UK, it is the far more libertarian opposition that are proposing the higher environmental taxes, not the current government.
Fredwa - you are too kind! And welcome to the Ship.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
As you've pointed out it is impossible to determine who is 'right' at this point in time; it may remain impossible even decades from now.
You are either misunderstanding or misquoting me, 206. I do not think it is impossible to tell who is 'right' about ACC, in the broadest sense of the two camps which are 1) Humans emitting greenhouse gases are the main cause of the rapid changes in climate we are seeing at the moment 2) it isn't humans, it's something else.
All the evidence points to it being the former.
Note that this is not saying that there are other causes of changes in the climate, both in the long and short term. However, the main influence recently is the activity of people. The uncertainty does not lie in this broad area, but in the exact impact, and the interplay of the different effects.
quote:
Which is all I've ever tried to say regarding this debate and which, I maintain, is continually inadequately acknowledged by many of the 'proponents' of ACC who are perfectly willing to restrict human freedom on the off chance they're 'correct' both in their diagnosis and prescription of the 'problem'.
My concern remains a metaphysical libertarian one much more so than a 'scientific' one and the remarkable allegiance to 'science' some demonstrate continues to surprise and frighten me.
Human freedoms are not being restricted on the 'off-chance' that climate scientists are right. It is only now, when the evidence is so clear that even the USA (not noted in the past for its allegiance to green issues) has been forced to admit it that any really significant action is being proposed. I would also question which freedoms being restricted? Are they privileges or freedoms anyway? And what about the freedom of others (for example the freedom not to have your country inundated by floods due to the actions of others)? Of course there has to be a debate about what should be done to minimise the effects and if possible reverse climate change; and of course there needs to be further work done to develop even better models of how the climate works, including investigating all the possible causes of climate change in as much detail as possible.
quote:
Yeah, science is a wonderful thing overall but it remains about 'theory', not 'fact', no matter how many internet links someone dredges up.
That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.
I don't think this comment is accurate. You do understand that theories are not just ethereal things floating about in scientists' heads but are checked against facts and measurements don't you? And if the theory isn't borne out by these facts, the theory is junked or modified. I quite agree that science (or truth) is not about internet links - heck, anyone can generate a web page with any content they like - but it is about the provenance behind them.
For example, you do understand that people have measured the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and have noted that it has increased? And that the greenhouse effect works (try standing in a greenhouse to demonstrate this for yourself). And that CO2 in air acts in the same fashion as the glass in the greenhouse. And so on. All facts, with with a theory which explains existing observations and predicts others in the future. Not very subtle, no. But science, in the broadest sense, doesn't need to be.
Jonah
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
For example, you do understand that people have measured the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and have noted that it has increased?
But as I understand it the actual change as a percentage of gas in the atmosphere is a very small number.
quote:
CO2 in air acts in the same fashion as the glass in the greenhouse.
But in terms of actual temperature difference on an infinitessimaly smaller scale.
quote:
All facts, with with a theory which explains existing observations and predicts others in the future.
There may well be broad agreement about these 'facts' as far as they go. What I, and perhaps others, are concerned about is that when presented like this, they give the impression of an effect that is massively disproportionate to the facts because of the illustrations you use.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
do you ascribe this view to Creationism also? Evolution is, of course, only a theory.
Yes, 'evolution' is only a theory. My understanding is that the hypothesis is very well supported and provides much hueristic value regarding natural selection of entities already in existence but doesn't speak at all to what might be called the 'creation'.
quote:
Also, are you arguing that science should never inform political policy?
No. Dude, I'll give you this much: you are utterly relentless.
quote:
Are you against, for example, the restriction of human freedom that is entailed by having to wear seatbelts in cars? In some accidents, of course, you would be safer without one as you could be flung clear of wreckage. It is a matter only of probability that they might save your life.
Yes. I understand the odds and it's my business whether I wear one or not, not some do-gooder's.
In this example, I believe the evidence is stronger than predictions about what will happen to the earth decades from now but it still remains my business as to how I act.
quote:
So it is entirely innacurate to call this an "off chance".
Whatever.
quote:
I personally feel that the civil liberites of my children will be more infringed by a much more dangerous world caused by ACC that my own liberties are right now if I am not allowed to buy conventional light bulbs.
'not allowed to buy conventional light bulbs' is a ridiculously simplistic strawman but you're certainly entitled to your opinion about your children's civil liberties.
I think we've determined we'll need to agree to disagree.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
I understand the odds and it's my business whether I wear one or not, not some do-gooder's.
Actually there is a major cultural difference here between the US and the UK - here it has been the law for many many years to wear seatbelts.
ACC is a more complex issue that this of course since, like passive smoking but far more serious, the actions of others affects the individual (with seatbelts only the individual concerned suffers, excepting the issue of kids).
Actually the example of lightbulbs is not a straw man - here in the UK this is one of the few concrete proposals outlined so far that will affect ordinary people.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
That subtlety seems to have been lost somewhere.
I think you have a new meaning for the word "subtlety" here.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
Yes. I understand the odds and it's my business whether I wear one or not, not some do-gooder's.
What about speeding?
That's a better analogy - you doign somethign that endangers others rather then yourself.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But as I understand it the actual change as a percentage of gas in the atmosphere is a very small number.
This is one of the many areas where the GCCS did not tell anything like the whole story.
It is true that the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapour, but this comes and goes very quickly - the average residence time for a molecule of water is 9 days. By contrast, CO2 hangs around for about 200 years. When the total effect of each greenhouse gas is evaluated, it (unsurprisingly) gets very complex, as the Wikipedia article shows. But it has been studied since the end of the 19th century, and the significant effect of CO2 is demonstrable by easy experiment (here's a simple example I found).
All round, it's a good example of where GCCS deceives its audience - present one true fact out of context to totally change the meaning.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
While what you say may well be right, by not quantifying all the factors involved, the impression you give is at best unclear (but in the context obviously somehow 'bad'), and at worst unjustified cause for alarm.
In this example, unless you include (as the GGWS did) the fact that the percentage of CO2 in air is around 0.0314 (source), and that changes due to global warming are percentages of that, you're not giving the whole picture.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982
|
Posted
Dave M - sorry, I genuinely thought this was enough info for the purposes of the point, but I've had another trawl for more specific info and found a good, detailed article here (along with some explanations of why some other figures you may hear are innacurate and where the errors come from). The broadest summary is that CO2 accounts for between 3-8% of the entire greenhouse effect. This may not sound like much, but don't forget that with no greenhouse effect at all, we'd be the moon. Within the range that we humans can live, this is big stuff. Hope this helps a little more.
BTW, your pub quiz link was to surface concentrations, not the troposphere.
[ 16. March 2007, 18:55: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
For example, you do understand that people have measured the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere and have noted that it has increased?
But as I understand it the actual change as a percentage of gas in the atmosphere is a very small number.
It's an increase of about 25-30%, hardly a small number.
quote:
quote:
CO2 in air acts in the same fashion as the glass in the greenhouse.
But in terms of actual temperature difference on an infinitessimaly smaller scale.
The total net anthropogenic greenhouse effect has, at present, a radiative forcing of +1.5W/m². Given that the natural greenhouse effect is about 150 W/m², that's an increase in of about 1% in the amount of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere. That energy is going to increase air, sea and land temperatures, melt ice and provide extra power to weather systems.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
That energy is going to increase air, sea and land temperatures, melt ice and provide extra power to weather systems.
Alan,
In your estimation, how much of a rise in sea levels can be expected?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fredwa:
and to Littlelady for this gem
quote:
I don't happen to believe that humankind causes global warming. I have no idea what causes global warming, since I can't verify any of the science as I'm not a scientist.
peronally I don't happen to believe that 2+2=4. I have no idea 2+2=, since I'm not a mathematician.
Fred
Ah, well, Fred, if you're going to use your very first post to mock someone, it might be wise to do it properly. I'm sure we can all see the link between basic numeracy and, what, advanced physics?
My mental maths is fine, but I'll never understand this in a million years:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The total net anthropogenic greenhouse effect has, at present, a radiative forcing of +1.5W/m˛. Given that the natural greenhouse effect is about 150 W/m˛, that's an increase in of about 1% in the amount of solar energy trapped by the atmosphere.
But I'm sure you understand it perfectly.
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
That energy is going to increase air, sea and land temperatures, melt ice and provide extra power to weather systems.
Alan,
In your estimation, how much of a rise in sea levels can be expected?
During the 20th century sea-levels rose by approximately 15cm (6 inches), most of that rise being in the last quarter of the century. Further rises of an additional 20-30cm in the 21st century are almost certain, 40-50cm are possible. These are estimates based on thermal expansion of the oceans and slow melting of continental ice sheets (for good reasons known by Archimedes, melting ice floating on water doesn't raise sea levels - try it with an ice cube or two in a glass of water). If the continental ice sheets break apart and melt more rapidly (eg: water getting under the glaciers allowing them to flow more quickly) then they could melt much more quickly and all bets are off - several metres of sea level rise are then possible.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
