The Science & Skepticism Thread

OldCarlos said:
If politicians & greens were around at the same time...........they'd have blamed it on the dinosaurs. ;)
Click to expand...
PMSL no doubt about that, I can hear the spin Dr's now ... the meteor strike was just a co-incidence :D
 
kendo1 said:
Aah, the scientific paper: The Express.
Click to expand...

I knew someone would post something similar :rolleyes: Does it really matter which `paper` they are published in? If it was in the Mail? Guardian, Times?......would that then be OK?
 
I think some of us perhaps have not understood the science behind the theory of global warming. For a start it is not linear process - by that I mean if the planet warms by one degree ( or more) then everything get hotter. What we do know is that weather systems are instead chaotic systems within which there are boundaries of stability. For example the UK weather has remained temperate for thousands of years. Global warming could disrupt this resulting in our weather becoming much colder as the Gulf Stream carrying wet and warm(ish) weather to us is cut off. It could be that ocean currents near the Antarctic are being disrupted. The problem is that the global warming theory can only be tested on computer models - or we wait the outcome and see if we really did make our home planet inhabitable.
James
 
OldCarlos said:
I knew someone would post something similar :rolleyes: Does it really matter which `paper` they are published in? If it was in the Mail? Guardian, Times?......would that then be OK?
Click to expand...
I was thinking more along the lines of Journal of Science, Journal of Climate, Science, Climate Dynamics, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management...
 
OldCarlos said:
This was from nearly 4 years ago & the last paragraph sums it up for me; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Click to expand...
Good points made there. But I think that illustrates my point - you have complex cycles going on in the planet, within the solar system and there are suspicions our own sun is a variable star with multiple cycles of output - all these interplay with one another and you have the recipe for a very complex non-linear system that is going to be almost beyond out present ability to understand. That doesn't mean global warming isn't having effect but it is masked by the complex chaotic variations of weather, sun output, orbital variations, the wobble in the earths tilt,etc etc.- personally I think those who definitely believe in global warming are as bad as this that definitely don't - the answer is we don't really know. It's all about probability - are we damaging our planets weather systems - probably yes - maybe not.
The conundrum is do we wait and do nothing while we collect more data.
James
James
 
jbw said:
I think some of us perhaps have not understood the science behind the theory of global warming
Click to expand...

I think a big issue with the theory was calling it global warming, rather than natural climate change.

Scientists believe the ocean current strengthens and weakens on a natural cycle with a 70 to 80-year period. When the current is strong, it brings warmer water and a milder climate to northern regions.

If it's too warm for ice to form in the North Atlantic because the Gulf Stream is too warm, icebergs won't form and expel salt into the water creating the salty, cold dense water which is needed to sink to drive what's known as the Thermohaline Circulation system driving and linking together the major ocean currents.

If this doesn't happen the currents will slow and so the gulf stream will slow, hence the surface temperatures in the North Atlantic will decrease and so more icebergs will form.

Just possibly another one of Earth's many feedback mechanisms.
 
kendo1 said:
I was thinking more along the lines of Journal of Science, Journal of Climate, Science, Climate Dynamics, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management...
Click to expand...

The problem with some of the `warming` publications is they don't allow an alternative view. They are right & that's it. Anyone daring to disagree is belittled.
 
jbw said:
personally I think those who definitely believe in global warming are as bad as this that definitely don't - the answer is we don't really know. It's all about probability
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
I just detest the way it's all going re being brainwashed into accepting the extra taxes as a cure all. Also the role of big businesses & carbon credits etc. :mad:
 
OldCarlos said:
The problem with some of the `warming` publications is they don't allow an alternative view. They are right & that's it. Anyone daring to disagree is belittled.
Click to expand...
LOL
they are not 'pro-warming', they are scientific journals.
 
Cobra said:
I just checked and no one is locked out of there, strange.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I could read the thread but neither post, nor look at the details of other members by clicking on their handle. Will go back & recheck.

I can like a post but cannot comment in the thread - tried on 2 different computers with different OSs (both firefox as a browser). It doesn't matter now since the points I had to make are long gone.
 
Last edited:
OldCarlos said:
Just possibly another one of Earth's many feedback mechanisms.
Click to expand...
Ah - somebody who understands feedback ! You of course know that negative feedback results in stable systems - the more you try to disturb the system the more it resists that disturbance - hence very stable. Rather like a marble rolling inside a bowl.
Positive feedback is very unstable. The more you disturb the system the more it moves away from its point of balance. Rather like a marble balanced on a knife edge.
Which is our climate ? Most scientist say there is strong evidence that it is chaotic - in that we live within local negative feedback systems( stable) but push it too far & it flips into a positive feedback syste. The point at which it flips is not well defined but when it is crossed the system changes very quickly and dramatically - very scary indeed !
James
 
kendo1 said:
LOL
they are not 'pro-warming', they are scientific journals.
Click to expand...

That may equate to the same thing if the facts appear to support a different opinion from the one you know to be right. Said without mocking.
 
OldCarlos said:
The problem with some of the `warming` publications is they don't allow an alternative view. They are right & that's it. Anyone daring to disagree is belittled.
Click to expand...

I think you may find that the author of the Express article you linked to (James Dellingpole) was at the front of the queue in not allowing or listening to alternative views. He has no experience or education in science, so I am surprised that you choose to reference him in this thread.
 
Ken, if you believe everything you read just because it suits or is in a scientific journal, that's fine.

You mentioned NASA earlier. Do you believe everything they say?
It was reported several years ago that there were efforts by NASA scientists to obscure and alter some of their own data.
They had a look & re visited previous published figures and decided that 1934 was `the warmest year on record`, which didn't fit in with the agenda at the time, so had another go and came up with 1998. They were refusing FOI requests in America to explain how & why they felt obliged to alter their findings.
 
Rapscallion said:
so I am surprised that you choose to reference him in this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not referencing him per say, more linking to the apparent fact that figures seem to show we aren't losing the icy poles, as many believe.
 
OldCarlos said:
Ken, if you believe everything you read just because it suits or is in a scientific journal, that's fine.

You mentioned NASA earlier. Do you believe everything they say?
It was reported several years ago that there were efforts by NASA scientists to obscure and alter some of their own data.
They had a look & re visited previous published figures and decided that 1934 was `the warmest year on record`, which didn't fit in with the agenda at the time, so had another go and came up with 1998. They were refusing FOI requests in America to explain how & why they felt obliged to alter their findings.
Click to expand...
Where are your sources?
I give up with you, unfortunately. You are not persuaded by experts in their field. You pay no attention to 97% of climate scientists.

As for Praxis posting something from 'Prager University', give me a break!
Mickey Mouse wouldn't have gone to that! LOL
 
Professor Phil Jones, the academic whose data has been the bedrock of much of the hype/cr@p, conceded some time ago that there has been no statistically significant warming during the past 20 yrs & that there were two other periods of warming during the 1900's.
Also, at least parts of the world, were probably warmer in medieval times than now ....centuries before the industrial revolution even began!
 
So much aggression in here, I can smell the testosterone


Maybe I'll write a paper on the subject
 
OldCarlos said:
What? The most important thing that threatens the world & you don't want to discuss it? :wideyed:
Click to expand...

It doesn't threaten the world one bit.
It might threaten the stupidest creature on it, but once they're culled, the world will recover perfectly well.
 
Rapscallion said:
He has no experience or education in science, so I am surprised that you choose to reference him in this thread.
Click to expand...
I'm not in the least surprised. Seen way too many of these foil hat threads to be surprised by reference to the authority of 'Journal of Dubious Methodology' or 'Wishful Thinking Papers'.
Even the major oil companies (well, the European ones) haven given up publicly challenging it now.
 
viv1969 said:
It doesn't threaten the world one bit.
It might threaten the stupidest creature on it, but once they're culled, the world will recover perfectly well.
Click to expand...

:agree:

But in the mean time, we are being taken for a ride & paying a fortune for the privilege. ;)
 
Llamaman said:
I'm not in the least surprised. Seen way too many of these foil hat threads to be surprised by reference to the authority of 'Journal of Dubious Methodology' or 'Wishful Thinking Papers'.
Even the major oil companies (well, the European ones) haven given up publicly challenging it now.
Click to expand...

Maybe because they can make a fortune with `cap and trade` which is a really big issue and some stand to make billions from it. Lakshmi Mittal was given a massive excess of carbon credits which he'll be able to trade. The Danes have already been caught fiddling their own market. The Green envangelist Al Gore also stands to make billions from a cap-and-trade scheme devised by Kenneth Lay, the man behind the Enron fraud.
 
OldCarlos said:
The problem with some of the `warming` publications is they don't allow an alternative view. They are right & that's it. Anyone daring to disagree is belittled.
Click to expand...

Nowt new there then...

Its just Climate Shift......Nowt to worry about.;)
 
OldCarlos said:
Maybe because they can make a fortune with `cap and trade` which is a really big issue and some stand to make billions from it. Lakshmi Mittal was given a massive excess of carbon credits which he'll be able to trade. The Danes have already been caught fiddling their own market. The Green envangelist Al Gore also stands to make billions from a cap-and-trade scheme devised by Kenneth Lay, the man behind the Enron fraud.
Click to expand...

Carl, how about you start a thread about this? I (and it seems other in this thread) were hoping for this to be nice place to come and have a chat about all things sciency. You are more than entitled to voice your opinion, but what about choosing the best place to do that?
 
Rapscallion said:
Carl, how about you start a thread about this? I (and it seems other in this thread) were hoping for this to be nice place to come and have a chat about all things sciency. You are more than entitled to voice your opinion, but what about choosing the best place to do that?
Click to expand...

The Science & Skepticism Thread - seems like the best place to do that to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top