On 24 Feb 2012 at 1:39pm Southover Girl wrote:
Professor Richard Lindzen is one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest. What he doesn't know about the science behind climate change probably isn't worth knowing.
Read his lecture here:
Check it out here »
On 24 Feb 2012 at 2:13pm Southover Queen wrote:
Your link's not working. But frankly any academic who has James Delingpole as his apologist is on dodgy ground.
Secondly, I salute academics who continue to question and argue and take up inconvenient and/or extreme positions, even when something like 95% of their peers completely disagree with them. It is however a mistake to leap on every pronouncement as if it were gospel.
More to the point, I cannot see why any of this should be of much concern. The fact is that we're using up the world's resources at a completely unsustainable rate while at the same time probably causing the planet's climate to change. The point is that if we wish to continue to live like this we have to find a way of doing it without exhausting and destroying our home, whether that's by causing climate change or just running out of fuel. Americans use five times as much energy as is sustainable, and they have to change. We use about half as much, but that's still nearly three time times as much as is sustainable. So why not find ways of reducing that consumption? Why is that such a terrible idea? Even if we're not frying planet earth (and I think we are) why not slow down how much of its resources we consume?
On 24 Feb 2012 at 2:13pm DFL wrote:
Somebody's gone and half inched the page SG !!
On 24 Feb 2012 at 7:32pm Independent Thinker wrote:
Couldn't follow the link, but a bit of googling shows Lindzen is a regularly debunked climate change denier. He also denied the link between smoking and cancer. And has also been a paid consultant for the oil and gas industries. Of course I hope he's right because it would be lovely if global warming was a myth. But I also hope someone will ring my doorbell and hand me a cheque for a million pounds. Both of those seem equally likely...
On 24 Feb 2012 at 7:50pm Paul Newman wrote:
Even George Moonbat admitted that the fraud perpetrated at East Anglia confirmed the instincts of everyone who has ever suspected that no-one gets a grant for " Climate ok, nothing to worry about"
Still good excuse to nab the Winter payments form those oldsters
State of emergency is it Independent think ( soi disant ) .Ooo we had all better do as we are told by the EU then.What a lovely lovely excuse for more bossy booted government .
On 24 Feb 2012 at 8:46pm Southover Queen wrote:
Which, entirely predictably, doesn't answer the more pressing question, which is why do we have to go on consuming everything? Why not try to slow down? Even if the climate isn't being destroyed (which most sane people think it is), why don't we just try to gobble up a little less? Even if we haven't been drowned by melted polar regions in 50 years time, there WON'T BE ANYTHING LEFT to burn. Those little children of yours, or their children, won't thank you and all your friends for retreating into yet more ideological claptrap. Actually, it's even more important if climate change isn't happening, because if we're not going to be fried or drowned then we'll need more fuels, won't we?
The argument about climate change is like bald men fighting over a comb. Let us moderate our behaviour. Let us leave something for the future.
On 24 Feb 2012 at 10:10pm bloke wrote:
Southover Girl says: "Professor Richard Lindzen is one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest."
This is what's know as an argument from authority. X is a great scientist therefore what X says must be true.
See the link below for a comprehensive debunking of Lindzen's claims.
The problem the denialists that they never seem to realise is that their champions, like Lindzen, Booker, Monkcton, Delingpole and Patrick Michaels are regularly shown to be misrepresenting the real science. Arguing with these people is like arguing with creationist. So much so that the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the US which formerly fought to keep the teaching of creationism out of American schools are now talking the problem of climate change denialism being taught in schools. See h++p://ncse.com/climate
Check it out here »
On 25 Feb 2012 at 3:24am Paul Newman wrote:
Bloke your "Comprehensive de bunking" seems to consist of s set of entirely unsupported assertions .Isn`t that what those terrible religious fundamentalists do I`d call it an argument from lack of authority.
On 25 Feb 2012 at 8:40am Southover Queen wrote:
Still no answer: why don't we moderate consumption anyway? Isn't it just good housekeeping (or planet keeping) not to exhaust supplies of everything through rampant bad management? Leave the question of what 95% of scientists believe to the case, and address the simple one.
On 25 Feb 2012 at 9:07am bloke wrote:
Paul your play this character of a pig-headed intellectually dishonest dunce too well.
"your "Comprehensive de bunking" seems to consist of s set of entirely unsupported assertions ."
What .. ON EARTH .. are you talking about?
There are 5 tabs on that page. The first one shows two columns with 30-odd statements made by Lindzen in the left column (with a link to the source of this statement), and what the actual science say in the right column. I can only assume the right column of this tab is what you are referring to as "unsupported assertions". I take it therefore that you didn't bother clicking on these statements. Each one takes you to an article on the site which gives you the a detailed rebuttal of the point citing the relevant scientific papers.
It also appears that not only did you not bother to click on these links, you didn't bother to look at the other 4 tabs either, which ave further responses to claims by Lindzen, including a tab showing how many times he has repeated the same already debunked arguments, links to articles on the site specifically addressing in details various articles Lindzen, and a page of links to articles on other sites that address the false claims by Lindzen.
If your lazy assessment of the link I provided is typical of how you treat this subject no wonder you take the Daily Mails (it's a big scam) attitude.
Climate change should not be a political issue. it's a scientifically established fact. You seem to have a one-dimensional view of the world where everything has to fit somewhere on the left-right wing axis. It's moronic.
On 25 Feb 2012 at 9:22am Paul Newman wrote:
You are suggesting a go for shrink policy? I can see it now George Osborne announced to a thrilled House tonight that he had successfully shrunk the economy by a 5%. He promised further impoverishment during a speech in which the failure if the Labour Party to make us all poorer was repeatedly mocked . Ed Balls claimed this level of shrink was unsustainable and the scourge of prosperity was undefeated ..." Many people in this supposedly miserable country have two cars and take holidays abroad " he said , try telling them they are suffering". Film at 10.
On 25 Feb 2012 at 9:39am Southover Queen wrote:
So you're saying that we need to keep on consuming in a way everyone, even the most immovable climate change sceptic, would agree will exhaust the current fuels available in 50-100 years (although frankly it doesn't terribly matter when it will happen). And you're saying that we should do this because to attempt to modify the way that we consume resources would damage economic growth?
It sounds an awful lot like borrowing to cover up recession, except that money and growth are economic concepts. Fossil fuels aren't: once the coal and the gas and the oil is finished there won't be any more. So how do you plan to avoid this?
On 25 Feb 2012 at 10:10am Paul Newman wrote:
Its an interesting subject SQ but I find the tone adopted by some a bit " enthusiastic " for comfort. Stuff to do, rugby to watch must be going
On 25 Feb 2012 at 1:51pm Southover Queen wrote:
Oh dear, I'm sorry to hear that, Paul.
Perhaps Southover Girl has a view? Or are you "watching the rugby" as well?
On 25 Feb 2012 at 2:46pm Southover Girl wrote:
Ooops. Sorry about the link. Still having trouble with it, but the first paragraph should give you an idea that he is not denying scientific proof of warming, he is puting it into context and de-politicising it.
"I wish to thank the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Change Act for the opportunity to present my views on the issue of climate change ‚?? or as it was once referred to: global warming. Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak ‚?? and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest."
On 25 Feb 2012 at 2:56pm Southover Girl wrote:
I shall try a different link. From the Independent this time, to apease those of you who may think think that I only read the Telegraph.
Check it out here »
On 25 Feb 2012 at 2:57pm bloke wrote:
Let's see if the link to Lindzen's presentation works for me - see below. This was a presentation to member of the house of Commons. I look forward to the complete debunking that will undoubtedly appear soon. I wonder how many of the falsified claims list on Skeptical Science can be found in there.
I notice that PN does not acknowledge my correction about a "set of entirely unsupported assertions"!
I found the link via Delingpole's blog. Southover Girl is directly copying Delingpole who said s "Professor Richard Lindzen is one of the world's greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest. What he doesn't know about the science behind climate change probably isn't worth knowing." He only says this because the number of climate scientists who, like Lindzen, don't support the consensus is feebly low and Lindzen is among most prominent.
Check it out here »
On 25 Feb 2012 at 5:52pm Dingo wrote:
I thought you only read the Beano, Southover Girl.
On 26 Feb 2012 at 1:08pm Paul Newman wrote:
Oh but I did Bloke, the words "Click the link" were what was required, not your embarrassing drone I can`t be bothered with loons, and that is what you sound like.
I don`t see that in this case the majority view of scientists is any more important than the majority view of Economists shortly before the entire profession was shown to be swapping models without any reliable basis. It is an academic pressure group and the con rests on a confusion about what is meant by/" The science is established"
Whilst it is the true that the science of carbon and its green house effect is established , it is also true that the science behind passive smoking is established
Whether or not it is a risk that justifies shutting down the Nations pubs and much of its community life as well as the working men`s clubs quite aside form an assault on individual choice is not established
The scientific community spews out death dealing emergencies like Catherine wheel , avian flu, new ice age , over population , peak oil , ozone layer depletion , water scarcity, AIDS, and if you go back in time we were all supposed to be submerged in horse manure by now.
We know they are prepared to lie and I think we can all make our own minds up. I have seen nothing to convince me as yet that it is not a vastly exaggerated risk being propagated by far left statists as the means of grabbing power
The Green Party scare me to death for many reasons and the use of the phrase " New World Order!"is only one
On 26 Feb 2012 at 5:41pm bloke wrote:
"I don`t see that in this case the majority view of scientists is any more important than the majority view of Economists"
Wow. I might have to start a new thread titled "Paul Newman's laughable take on science.".
On 26 Feb 2012 at 6:21pm Paul Newman wrote:
Be my guest .I`d start by thinking about the difference between a model and a proof .
On 26 Feb 2012 at 10:32pm Mercian wrote:
I started playing a game a while ago - it involves looking at the thread title, and then seeing if Paul's name is under it, and then guessing what he is saying.
Looks like I win another 10 points - more banality from PN. This is getting boring.
On 26 Feb 2012 at 11:49pm bloke wrote:
Paul, Science doesn't do proofs. That's left for mathematics where we say something is proven when the left of an equation matches what's on the right. In science theories that match observation are tentatively accepted as valid (but not proven) until falsified (disproven). This is central to the Scientific Method.
All science is about models. Any mathematical representation of a real-life system is a model. When you want to know what force you need to apply to a pulley to move something attached to other end you make a mathematical model using imprecise ideal representations. Atomic theory is based upon models (Dalton, Thompson,Rutherford, Bohr etc) that have been modified and discarded as evidence falsified their assumptions. We use a wave model of electromagnetism when it suits us and a particle model when that suits us. Neither tell us what's actually going on, because they are just models using concepts from the macroscopic world we evolved in to represented the quantum world.
The climate is affected by forcing agents of which CO2 is but one. You test a climate model by running it against the historical record for these forgings and seeing if it matches the historical record for global temperatures. To get predictions you run it into the future using anticipated levels for these forcings. Running the models and reducing the historical CO2 does not lead to the increases in temperature that we have seen since the later third of the 20th century. Running the models forward using current projections of CO2 output indicates disastrous consequences.
See link below for more detail on modelling and accuracy.
Check it out here »
On 27 Feb 2012 at 5:40am Paul Newman wrote:
Stop playing with yourself then Mercian.
Bloke ; can you accept that to say the science of CO2 causing warming, is established, is in itself a meaningless statement, or at least no more meaningful than to say the link between passive smoking and cancer is established ( yes but how important is it ). Any prediction is based on a model in some sense but there is a great deal between the model that predicts that water will boil than the one that predicts the weather.The historical record is very short , unreliable and itself based on unreliable science using indirect evidence.
So what is sold to people as hard science is in fact close to soft science akin to Economics and subject to revision, in fact it has been revised, perhaps you recall the terrifying sea levels we were supposed to be experiencing by now
What happened to that proven science ? These hard facts ?
We seem to have reached a point where both the absence of any warming or its presence is proof of our impending judgement day and I return to the tampering and dishonesty that was uncovered at East Anglia . Can you not accept that this gives the lie to the always preposterous suggestion that scientists were any less prone to finding what they want to find than anyone else.
On 27 Feb 2012 at 10:31am Southover Queen wrote:
Einstein's theory of relativity is just a theory. Newton's theories are theories too: ie, they're what science offers to explain observed phenomena. They'll stand until someone comes up with another explanation which explains the science better. That is the essence of science: enquiring minds which examine evidence sceptically and squabble loudly over neutrinos or the Higgs Boson. Or indeed climate science. What distinguishes Newton and Einstein from other lesser mortals is the fact that so far no-one has disproved the big ideas, and the fundamentals of their theories allow scientists to construct other hypotheses using them.
Both Einstein and Newton are probably right, but they can't be proven. A little while ago you said you'd studied Chomsky, so you'll know about his theory of child language acquisition. Chomsky first showed that BF Skinner's explanation of language acquisition (essentially learned behaviour acquired from observing other language users) was completely inadequate - so he disproved it. He then hypothesised that humans must have an innate capacity for language and he proposed a model. In the 55 years since then it has been subject to much argument and testing and many other linguistic scientists say they've disproved it. That's how everyone learns: find a robust model and then test it to destruction. Whether Chomsky is right in every detail is irrelevant: his hypothesis opened up a whole new scientific discipline. It doesn't make Chomsky dishonest either (and as it happens I think the theory is beautiful).
Your post here betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole process of modelling and testing in science, whether it's astrophysics, climate science or medicine.
On 27 Feb 2012 at 11:46am Paul Newman wrote:
Silly woman. Newtonian physics may not be divine truth but it is strongly predictive enbough to get you to the moon and back. How would you fancy getting on plane designed with the sort of room for debate a climate change model allows. Its not bad science or necesarrily dishonest but it is not the same thing at all and this distinction has been blurred .. and lets not even get into the presentation of data.
On 27 Feb 2012 at 11:52am bloke wrote:
Your boiling kettle example is interesting. It's an example of something we can repeat to test whether the mathematical model is correct. But we've only got one planet. We can't do that in climate science. So you're making a demand of climate science that is impossible to meet. Creationists do exactly the same claiming that because you can't repeat the evolution of man from apes it can't get proven.
From your analogy with passive smoking it would seem the sticking point for you is the same as Lindzen. Ie.the sensitivity. I have already provided links above dealing with this issue. To avoid repeating myself I'll just say this. Paul you're wrong! Go look at the sensitivity stuff linked above.
But then, you change tack - instead of arguing about future sensitivity you make a claim about a lack of warming. "the absence of any warming" you say.
Paul See - h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warming_in_the_instrumental_temperature_record . using mean average temperatures from the instrumental record. Here are the 20 warmest years id order since the instrumental records of 1880 (and, as established via proxy data, probably for the last few thousand years ) - 1:2005, 2:2010, 3:1998, 4:2003, 5:2002, 6:2006, 7:2009, 8:2007, 9:2004, 10:2001, 11:2011, 12:2008, 13:1997, 14:1999, 15:1995, 16:2000, 17:1990, 18:1991, 19:1988, 20:1987.
Absence of warming!?
"the tampering and dishonesty that was uncovered at East Anglia ... Can you not accept that this gives the lie to the always preposterous suggestion that scientists were any less prone to finding what they want to find than anyone else."
On noes. not ClimateGate - h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate#Inquiries_and_reports - "Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."
There's no doubt that scientists have egos and cognitive biasses the everyone else, but when a scientific paper is presented to the public via a peer reviewed journal it gives details of the data, the method of experimentation and the conclusions. It's presented to the scientific community so that is can be tested in order to find a flaw in the argument. The consensus on climate change comes about because scientists examine other scientists work, they examine the data and methodology, they test and repeat and draw their own conclusion and make corrections. Last year Richard Muller led the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project to did just that. ( h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature) Initially the climate change sceptics welcomed this analysis. It would finally vindicate they scepticism they though. But what were BEST team's conclusions?
"Global temperatures closely matched previous studies from NASA GISS, NOAA and the Hadley Centre, that have found global warming trends. The Berkely Earth group estimates that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911¬įC, just 2% less than NOAA‚??s estimate. The team scientific director stated that "...this confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
So now instead of three data sets showing warming due to Co2 we now have four!! What did the Climate sceptics do in response?? They ignored the results and attacked Richard Muller and his team instead. Prving the the term "climate change denial" apt than ever.
On 27 Feb 2012 at 1:50pm Paul Newman wrote:
Are you seriously comparing me to a creationist because I am not signed up to your theory about global warming? Wrong in so many ways.
I do not expect climate science to be testable as people suppose science ordinarily is. I just think that when they say "The science is established" they ought to make it clear that they do not mean the sort that we rely on to make aeroplanes chemicals and plastic stuff ,the sort of thing people respect .They mean a far woolier set of competing models based on interpreting the past, and quite likely to all contain the same errors.
I like this email that was leaked from east Anglia
: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Uhuh ..trick ‚?¶ hide ‚?¶.. tsk tsk
George Moonbat , High Priest of lefty enviro-loons , yes even he said :
‚??But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.‚?Ě
Of course he does not ditch his overall view but if he was concerned then an ordinary sane person may, quite rationally, take their own view about how reliable this soft science is when science itself clearly has a vested interest in exaggerating the threat as do bodies seeking to extend some sort of global or supernational governance
On 27 Feb 2012 at 2:05pm Brainy Scientist wrote:
You are a total arse. Get back to school and learn some science.
Yours with affection,
On 27 Feb 2012 at 2:46pm Brainy Scientist wrote:
PS: You do realize that they will be no Artic in 30 years?
On 27 Feb 2012 at 3:57pm Southover Queen wrote:
Stupid man: missing the point so entirely it's laughable. And patronising with it.
On 27 Feb 2012 at 4:46pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Paul Nobrain is turning into such a splendid caricature of a right-wing loon that I'm wondering if someone has hi-jacked his user name.
I'm with you, SQ. Even if the apparent changes turn out to be weather rather than climate, I don't think it's wise to keep using up fossil fuels faster than the planet can replace them. I certainly don't care if Americans have to get rid of their 20mpg SUVs and start driving sensible cars. It will do them good. Any country that considers you eccentric for hanging washing out in the sun instead of putting it in a tumble drier needs to come to its collective senses.
On 27 Feb 2012 at 4:53pm Southover Queen wrote:
Quite, ACT. Which, you will notice, neither of these twits has even attempted to address because it's unanswerable. (I may be wrong, but I think the rugby's finished now)
On 27 Feb 2012 at 8:04pm bloke wrote:
"Are you seriously comparing me to a creationist"
What I'm saying is that you are using exactly the same arguments that they use and the funny thing is that in trying to defend yourself you do it again!
Paul Newman: "climate science [is not] testable as people suppose science ordinarily is"
CreationistWiki (h++p://creationwiki.org/Evolution): "evolution [is] untestable, and as such violates the usual rules of scientific inquiry"
PN: they ought to make it clear that they do not mean the sort that we rely on to make aeroplanes chemicals and plastic stuff ,the sort of thing people respect"
Project Creation (h++p://bit.ly/yMCvre): "... evolutionists that have no basis in observable reality. True science, science that has brought about airplanes, computers and modern medicine is based on the Christian worldview".
PN: "They mean a far woolier set of competing models based on interpreting the past, and quite likely to all contain the same errors."
Answers in Genesis (h++tp://bit.ly/wY8TgB): "by using the present to interpret the past, evolutionary geologists have no more true scientific certainty of their version of the unobservable, unique historic events which they claim produced the geologic record."
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
Oh noes! Not Mike's Nature trick! Not Hide the decline!
Point 1: The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.
Point 2: "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.
Point 3: The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.
In July 2010, six months after suggesting that Phil jones resign. Mnbiot wrote the following in the Guardian (h++p://bit.ly/xuDI52)
"So was I wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones's resignation? I think, on balance, that I was. He said some very stupid things. At times he squelched the scientific principles of transparency and openness. He might have broken the law. But he was also provoked beyond endurance. I think, in the light of everything I've now seen and read, that if I were to write that article again I'd conclude that Phil Jones should hang on ‚?? but only just. I hope the last review gives him some peace."
Loonies for company
Paul please watch the video below, which covers the climategate emails and also shows loonies you're choosing to side with when you spout this anti-science rhetoric.
Watch the video »
On 27 Feb 2012 at 10:13pm Paul Newman wrote:
For Creationists to be right everything we know would have to be wrong .That is not true of the apocalyptic visions of the Environmental lobby .The comparison with evolution is specious, we have a fossil record, genetics, diverging species, observed fact ad infinitum which fits, and for which some other non magical mechanism would have to be found. Impossible. Nonetheless there are fierce debates within this established framework.
Competing models of evolution( punctuated equilibrium I vaguely remember) gather and lose support . The scientific community were highly resistant to the place of catastrophic events ( asteroid collision) on the basis that it was arbitrary. It looks stronger now but that could change. Not all science is established science and the scale and importance of man-made input into climate change is not established; but you tell me‚?¶
Would you say that the hockey stick graph ( showing warming to be man made ) was, or was not, established science, in the same sense that evolution as the mechanism of adaptation is? Yes or no bloke?
Moonbat only acknowledged the seriousness of the East Anglia incident for the purposes of inoculating the rest of it ,but this was not the first such incident there was previously correspondence in which eliminating the problem of the medieval warm period was discussed . This was for the purposes of producing a ‚?? Hockey stick‚?Ě graph to scare people with . The main evidence used to produce said scary graph suggesting direct correlation were Tree rings. Do I have to spell out the implications of suppressing evidence that such data was unreliable ? I hope not ,
As for loons for company the Green Party want public money spent on alternative medicine ( for cancer fcs) oppose Free Trade , GM crops and peddle a schmorgesborg of nutty culet ideas all with a wiff of nature worship .Don`t fancy yours much ands thats without the Palaeozoic anti capitalism ( didn`t watch the vid assume it is some mad Americans..yeah nice one )
On 27 Feb 2012 at 11:12pm Southover Queen wrote:
Shame, because it might puncture some of your absurd certainties.
But it would spoil our fun if you stopped being Lewes' pantomime libertarian villain, I suppose.
On 28 Feb 2012 at 5:35am Paul Newman wrote:
SQ to be a Conservative is to be constantly apologising for mistakes in the past. The opportunity to regret deeply the failure of South Africa, is yet to arrive and the resistance to gay rights is also on the role of shame, just for starters .
The people who think ,not that they have a view, but that they are a force of historical rightness are the ones with the certainties , that is why public adoption agencies openly place children along racial lines, that is why Eugenics is swept under the carpet as is the genesis if Fascism, on the left and I could go on and on and on and on...
On 28 Feb 2012 at 7:54am Southover Queen wrote:
On 28 Feb 2012 at 9:27am Dr Placebo wrote:
I would hate to be stuck in a lift with you Paul....you do go on rather my dear. Have you considered counselling? I do try to read your posts all the way through but usually I'm losing to will to live after the 2nd line.
You latest above post is total tosh and doesn't even make sense...get a grip
On 28 Feb 2012 at 9:49am bloke wrote:
Paul, if we're having a debate about this subject you allow me no room to assume good faith on your part if you simply refuse to examine the evidence presented. Please watch the video. It deals with the climategate emails.
I am with you on GM food and Alt med. No side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on loonies (note the House of Common's most prominent advocate for homeopathy and astrology is Tory MP for Bosworth David Tredinnick), but it seems to me you dismiss as crazy ANY idea from the political left, and indeed dismiss the theory of anthropogenic climate change first and foremost because you think its some kind of a left wing conspiracy and false before you even consider the scientific evidence.
I'll repeat what I said. So that it is clear. I did not say not accepting the AGW consensus is as mental as denying evolution. I said that you are using exactly the same arguments for your position on climate change that creationists use to deny evolution. I might go further. It's the same argument that AIDS denialsts (those who don't think AIDS is cause by HIV) use too!
From article by Tara Smith & Steve Novella (famous for blog Neurologica among other things) in the journal PLoS-Medicine h++p://bit.ly/wP9qpH:
" That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community, based upon over two decades of robust research. Deniers must therefore reject this consensus, either by denigrating the notion of scientific authority in general, or by arguing that the mainstream HIV community is intellectually compromised. It is therefore not surprising that much of the newer denial literature reflects a basic distrust of authority and of the institutions of science and medicine. "
That one claim might be more plausible to you than another is not the point. To a Bible literalist the truth of the Bible appears self-evident and any all apparently contradictory evidence is re-interpreted by them so as to be compatible with that view. The point is that their denial manifests itself as
1: The automatic dismissal of an uncomfortable idea.
2: An inability to subjectively assess the evidence
3 : An assumption that those promoting the uncomfortable idea are somehow either fools, fraudsters or fronts for an ideology opposed to their own.
You appear to me to be guilty of viewing the climate change issue in just such a way.
PN: "Not all science is established science"
Scientific theories represent our best attempt at understanding how or why something behaves the way it does. If the theory makes a prediction which is subsequently falsified you had better adapt it or get a completely new theory. Newton's Laws of Motion were falsified with respect to the orbit of Mercury and correct predictions for its orbit were only possible after Einstein's General Relativity was applied to the problem.
PN: "Would you say that the hockey stick graph ( showing warming to be man made ) was, or was not, established science, in the same sense that evolution as the mechanism of adaptation is? Yes or no bloke?"
It would help if you knew what you were talking about!!
The hockey stick shows the global temperature reconstructions from proxy data over the last 1000 years and instrumental data from the last 120 or so. The original graph only went up to they year 2000. It is only showing the temperatures from these sources it doesn't in and of itself indicate what's causing it. So your question makes no sense.
The calculations that generate the hockey stick from the temperature data have been independently verified about 10 times now (see Wikipedia about the 4th IPCC report. I can't be bothered to link if you're not going to read it) and as I indicated above there are now 4 datasets from which the hockey stick data can be generated. We have an instrumental temperature record for a large part of Europe, the Americas and the former colonial territories in Africa and Asia going back over a hundred years. And for the last 50 years or so for much more of land surface of the planet and now in order to study climate change buoys at sea and satellite measurements. This is the data that gives us the most recent significant part (i.e. the steep rise at the end) on the hockey stick. We've been on the rising part for decades now. Look at that list of warmest years from above again. Look at how many are after millennium.
The warming effect of CO2 has been established for centuries and the mechanism behind it is clearer and more accurately measurable than ever. That we are pumping out vastly more CO2 than the biosphere is absorbing is incontrovertible. Atmospheric c02 is now at 393ppm (h++p://co2now.org/) and it is higher now than it has been for 3 million years!
Whether there is a causal link to correlation between c02 and the current warming (please don't lie and say there's been no warming again) is what is at issue. But please Paul, ask yourself a simple question. What else could possibly be generating the rising temperatures that we've seen over the few decades eh? What's you best guess?
On 28 Feb 2012 at 10:19am Southover Queen wrote:
Ooops, there you go, bloke. Suggesting that Newtonian physics might be theoretical rather than absolute established proven fact got me labelled a "silly woman".
I think we have established that Paul has the very shakiest grasp of scientific method which does make it difficult to have a meaningful debate. I also heartily agree with you that Paul seems to live in a world where everything is nuanced by a curious left-right continuum which causes him to reject anything he regards as "left wing" as simple conspiracy. In fact I think the sobbing man in your video is probably our very own PN.
On 28 Feb 2012 at 10:24am some0ne else wrote:
Bloke - this is the thing I genuinely don't understand about sideshow freaks like Newman, in that his 'scientific' understanding of AGW is determined a priori by his terror of state regulation:
Suppose the state were to require massive reduction in energy use. Clowns like PN cite this absurd myth that we would all disappear back to the Dark Ages and the free market would die. However, what would actually happen is that infinite opportunities would be presented for good ol' capitalism to generate solutions. As a banal example, we live in a country with - compared to China, say - highly complex and demanding state-dictated regulations to stop buildings burning down. Those regulations (besides keeping us safe) generate requirements for building materials, sprinkler systems etc etc.
The way we use energy in the UK is stupidly profligate, and it will have to stop sooner or later. In Germany, thousands of houses have been built which do not require heating systems at all, because they are appropriately designed and insulated. In the UK, each time it is proposed that Building Regs are updated, the big housebuilders lobbying machine goes into overdrive and we get nowhere. So we end up dependent on Russian gas and take fracking seriously. And continue belching out CO2. It's insane.
On 28 Feb 2012 at 2:38pm bloke wrote:
For those not bored to death yet.
Here's the videos of Lindzen at the HoC last week. I wont have time to watch or comment on this till at least tomorrow evening.
Pt 1: h++p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy50yaBIDPE (this is red link below)
Pt 2: h++p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz_EYi2U3Wg
Watch the video »