Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Why have the Norwich academics carried on with their deception for decades?
Why does the Met Office only quote data over the last 150 years?
Why aren't 1000 year-old trees or ice-cores used to exterpolate climate data?.

If you can invade an oil-rich country over non-existant WMD, you can also put heavy sanctions on a coal-burning country.

---

I'm really not sure what you are saying here.

--------------------
The Power of Christ compels you.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Why have the Norwich academics carried on with their deception for decades?
Why does the Met Office only quote data over the last 150 years?

---

quote:

---

Why aren't 1000 year-old trees or ice-cores used to exterpolate climate data?.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Why does the Met Office only quote data over the last 150 years?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Just placing on record that although I live in Norfolk, I do not work for the CRU.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by brackenrigg:
Why does the Met Office only quote data over the last 150 years?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I researched this subject in a very particular way. I deliberately chose not speak directly to any climate experts or leading scientists in the field. I used only publicly available web sources.

Why? Because I wanted to simulate what it’s like for people trying to learn about climate change online.

My conclusion is “what a nightmare”. I was generally shocked and appalled by how difficult it was to source counter arguments. The data was often tucked away on extremely ancient or byzantine websites. The key counter arguments I often found, 16 scrolls down, on comment 342 on a far flung realclimate.org post from three years ago. And even when I found an answer, the answers were excessively jargonized or technical.

Most of the info for this image is sourced from Realclimate.org. It’s an amazing blog staffed tirelessly by some of the world’s leading climatologists.

Unfortunately, the majority of the writing on there is so scientific and so technical, it makes the website nigh on useless to the casual, curious reader.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Barnabas said: ''Mix them all up together and one arrives at the current somewhat "noisy" situation. I don't believe human beings have lost any of their individual and corporate capacity to learn and understand. But the noise gets in the way a lot.''

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:

Having said all of that, the initial thread was about global governance and no one has really commented on the wider implications of Ban Ki Moon's own words about...''global governance''.

Saul

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
ken did.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
* Then there is the ongoing pomo effect - "this is my truth, tell me yours" - which tends to make truth a matter of opinion. Which opens the question "why should opinion A be more significant, or more correct, than opinion B - doesn't everyone have an axe to grind?"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
ken did.

---

So did I.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
But you'll admit surely, the above statement would have conspiracy theorists rubbing their hands with a perverse glee, yes?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
* Then there is the ongoing pomo effect - "this is my truth, tell me yours" - which tends to make truth a matter of opinion. Which opens the question "why should opinion A be more significant, or more correct, than opinion B - doesn't everyone have an axe to grind?"

---

This one has always struck me as a load of tripe. In philosophy or history you can have alternative putative truths. But you cannot willy-nilly transfer that post-modern view to mathematics and science. But it seems that non-scientists try to do so without any understanding of what science is or how it works.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dal Segno:
What do you make of David McCandless' comment about how difficult it is for a non-expert to understand expert opinion on climate change? Does this throw any light on this thread's problems?

quote:

---

I wanted to simulate what it’s like for people trying to learn about climate change online.

My conclusion is “what a nightmare”. I was generally shocked and appalled by how difficult it was to source counter arguments.
[...]
the majority of the writing on [Real Climate] is so scientific and so technical, it makes the website nigh on useless to the casual, curious reader.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think my concerns about the CC/GW area is that the bandwagon seems to have grown and changed into something far beyond what our understanding is of climate change and even if GW/CC is as serious as they say, our responses seem disproportianate and the analogy, for me, of 'The Emperors New Clothes'' seems apposite.

So you have Al Gore pontificating and making unproven statements ; he might as well be selling ''miracle cure for mens hair loss'' as far as I can see. He makes whopper statements that bear little relation to the facts.

When solid scientists who are sceptical say anything they are pooh poohed and written off as 'retired., 'crank' or 'unqualified'.

The whole climate change thing is like evolutionary theory...say something loud and long enough and people start to believe it.

Saul

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Hang on Saul.... rewind

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think my concerns about the CC/GW area is that the bandwagon seems to have grown and changed into something far beyond what our understanding is of climate change and even if GW/CC is as serious as they say, our responses seem disproportianate and the analogy, for me, of 'The Emperors New Clothes'' seems apposite.

So you have Al Gore pontificating and making unproven statements ; he might as well be selling ''miracle cure for mens hair loss'' as far as I can see. He makes whopper statements that bear little relation to the facts.

When solid scientists who are sceptical say anything they are pooh poohed and written off as 'retired., 'crank' or 'unqualified'.

The whole climate change thing is like evolutionary theory...say something loud and long enough and people start to believe it.

Saul

---

So you're discounting it as a "bandwagon" purely on the basis that almost all scientists in the field accept AGW? That's ridiculous - is gravity a bandwagon?

Re: Al Gore on "unproven" statements and telling "whoppers"; you'll need to provide something rather more convincing than your assertion. AIUI, Gore made some minor errors in the film but the basics are in line with the scientific consensus. If you know better please show us where he was proven materially wrong.

Where did you hear that scientists are discounted if they are sceptical? Examples please.

The repetition of the AGW case is because the experts are very concerned about the climate. They have convinced government leaders of many nations but there are still large numbers of ordinary people who don't accept AGW. If it's true, OF COURSE they're going to keep mentioning it until it's been drummed into the thick skull of every truth-denying, knuckle-dragging US senator.
.

---

Even the true climate change believer is a little sceptical about the Al Gore roadshow surely?

Try this one for starters...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-5XwlcBqF0&feature=player_embedded#

Then this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fooYtalS9Gc&feature=player_embedded#

His 'Inconvenient Truth' film makes great scaremongering hyperbole and the hockey stick curve has been discounted many many times by other folk far more qualified than I (just google 'hockey stick curve controversy') .

Like I said the whole thing is a ''bandwagon'' now and Gordon Brown ''we need to save the planet'', come on Gordon, he'll be wearing his underpants outside his trousers next...more Flash Gordon than Prime Minister Gordon.

Saul

PS enjoy the big freeze here in the UK and mainland Europe, all part of the 'global warming'

--------------------
A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Saul - who would have expected snow and ice in winter? Stop the press!

If you're interested in something with a bit more credibility in regard to An Inconvenient Truth, would a court case do and the judge's decision? He ruled that the film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact".

The ruling

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Even the true climate change believer is a little sceptical about the Al Gore roadshow surely?

---

quote:

---

His 'Inconvenient Truth' film makes great scaremongering hyperbole and the hockey stick curve has been discounted many many times by other folk far more qualified than I (just google 'hockey stick curve controversy') .

Like I said the whole thing is a ''bandwagon'' now and Gordon Brown ''we need to save the planet'', come on Gordon, he'll be wearing his underpants outside his trousers next...more Flash Gordon than Prime Minister Gordon.

Saul

PS enjoy the big freeze here in the UK and mainland Europe, all part of the 'global warming'

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Saul, I beginning to think that dialogue is not possible with you. I have provided a link to the actual court ruling and a quote from it in which the judge found the science in the film to be accurate. Look at the ruling. Not what a newspaper will try and say to you.

What's a main point of AIT - that AGW is happening; the judge ruled that 9 of the many smaller points of the film could not be supported by the science but that on the big picture of AGW the film was balanced.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I actually teach in a UK secondary school

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Poppycock. To my mind saying Gore is "scaremongering" puts you definitely in the denier class, not the sceptic. It shifts my view of you from being an honest seeker of the genuine truth to someone who's accepted the denier argument and is fighting against the acceptance of AGW.

If your politics lead you to automatically discount anything from Gore or Brown, just admit it.

Your very basic objections have already been covered earlier in this thread. I do note that holding your views do get one a lot attention here!

---

I have replied in the last post. But this is Purgatory and people DO hold different points of view to yourself....shock horror gasp.

As a ''denier'' should I be put in the stocks, thumbscrews, or hung drawn and quartered? Is being a 'denier' such a terrible thing then? Anyway I say to you: ''Honi soit qui mal y pense'' .

On a less flippant note, I thought this chart was a good one:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

Saul the denier and heretic off to the stocks....maybe?

[ 23. December 2009, 16:27: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]

--------------------
A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
...I do try not to ''rubbish'' the other side, so we'll just have to agree on some things & disagree on others, but in this instance I feel Al Gore's treatment in ''The Inconvenient Truth'' is both partisan and inaccurate. See the attached:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk./Goreacknowledgederrors.htm

This was posted by another shipmate earlier, but worth a look at.

Saul

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
Saul - I like Hiro would like to know what you teach.

Perhaps if two of us ask the same question we may have a chance of getting an answer

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
PS enjoy the big freeze here in the UK and mainland Europe, all part of the 'global warming'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I actually teach in a UK secondary school, what i do try and do is to put both sides of an argument or perspective (I don't push one side against another and vice versa..... in the classroom on SOF its a different story eh!).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I actually teach in a UK secondary school, what i do try and do is to put both sides of an argument or perspective (I don't push one side against another and vice versa..... in the classroom on SOF its a different story eh!).

---

There are still people who believe the earth is flat. So do you treat both sides of the "is the earth flat or a sphere?" controversy equally?

How about heliocentrism? Surely you treat the two hypotheses as being equally valid?

Now that you know the controversy exists, you will be teaching that an equally valid belief to the mixing of gases in the atmosphere is the belief that CO2 always falls to the bottom and doesn't mix?

You can't treat two rival hypotheses equally if they are not really equal. You have to point out that the vast majority of the scientific community finds the evidence for the one compelling, and a small handful of cranks, crackpots, and malcontents believe the other. Otherwise you're not really reporting the truth.

---

quote:

---

''Teaching staff will be aware that a minority of scientists disagree with the central thesis that climate change over the past half-century is mainly attributable to man-made greenhouse gases. However, the High Court has made clear the law does not require teaching staff to adopt a position of neutrality between views which accord with the great majority of scientific opinion and those which do not.''

---

You can understand another persons point of view and also not neccesarily accept it. What a few readers of this thread don't seem to understand is that there is a growing number of people who are questioning the orthodoxy and veracity of CC/GW.

Those who do not accept the status quo may do so for a number of reasons, there will be scientific ones, philosphical ones and a mix of the two and yes plain good old ''flat earthers'' too.

The original thread referred to Lord Monkton and whilst I am unsure whether the 'bandwagon' of eco-fascism will usher in a 'new world order' and a global government; it is right to question and to challenge said bandwagon IMO.

Personally I am not a scientist, but as a young man I instinctively felt uncomfortable with evolution and the social and human consequences that its views elicited. So I have a sceptical predisposition anyway. My feeling is that mans influence on the planet whilst significant, is not as large as the Goreites would have us believe; but like I said much of my reactionary attitude is instinctive and ''knee jerk'' to a degree. I feel Gore et al are not the 'holders of truth' and Gore and his chums could well be causing people to go on an uneccesary guilt trip.

I am clear that we should be good stewards of God's creation and the traditional western capitalist (should I say protestant work ethic)view has often disregarded the planet as a throwaway exploitable commodity. We must look after God's gift to us, but equally we mustn't be running around scared sh**less, accepting IMO unproven science and also accepting the social programmes and legislation that seem to follow on from the GW/CC bandwagon.

As i said previously, I don't see an Illuminati conspiracies under every bed; but equally, I am aware that unbelieving man needs a 'cause' and a 'belief' and if that cause or belief is not divine, well, it can then be based on man and man alone (secular humanism). I would argue that say fascism and Marxism are examples of where God was put out of the equation so to speak and you can see the results in the 20th century.

Thus I am just adding a note of caution to the bandwagon as it rolls onward and upward. Thats all. I feel uncomfortable with it all and I lodge a personal note of caution to Gore and his ilk. I respect others views, but don't necessarily accept them.

Saul

--------------------
A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luigi:
I am almost tempted to take Saul to the main library of any university in the UK, clear off the shelves of all the science books and papers that his position totally writes off (as a YECie and Climate Change Denier).

---