The Science & Skepticism Thread

OldCarlos said:
tbh, I could say the same about everyone who has been conned into believing the opposite.
Click to expand...

indeed you could and i'd agree on anyone who has been 'conned' by media hype rather than understanding the science, but that doesnt apply to any of the pro posters here as far as i can see
 
OldCarlos said:
lol. Pot & kettle, spring to mind. :D
Click to expand...

No need for that!

I am happy to consider the counter argument. But there hasn't been one presented in this thread in any meaningful way.

Those in this thread who don't think there is a significant impact by man on the climate are using hopelessly undefined arguments and logic - and whenever those arguments are rebutted and shown to be incorrect, move on and ignore the rebuttal saying 'what about this, what about that'. It makes adult discussion difficult, as there is never any point where you say, 'OK that last point I made was wrong, can we talk about this...'. The discussion is always a moving target without any chance of clarifying points. However, if you do want to join the debate and talk in detail about some points and get to a conclusion on something specific, I am happy to look in detail at this or one of your other points.

PS this thread really highlights those with and without a fundamental understanding of how science works. You look at the world (research), get an idea of how things may work (define a hypothesis), do an experiment (test that hypothesis), analyse the data and from that draw a conclusion. Finally, those results and method are communicated in detail for others to critique. Then refinements to that conclusion may be drawn, and another hypothesis tested and on and on...
 
OldCarlos said:
Next time we get an unseasonable cold snap, or a bad Winter...............it will be because of global warming.
Click to expand...
No. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science.
No single meteorological event can be attributed to ACC - what is predicted is an increase in the frequency of unusual events - especially dry or wet years, larger floods etc.
There is some evidence of this happening already although we will need more years data to be completely certain as there are known natural cycles (El Niño being a famous one) that mean averages would really be taken over a multi-year rather than single year basis. (Which is why using a single year as reference point for comparisons is nonsense).

The rest of your post seems to rely on the assumption that because climate change has occurred naturally in the past, any future change must be natural and cannot be attributed in any way to ACC.
This is risible, because it applies an incorrect inductive reasoning (cf Vickers' white swan).

Put it this way - my office is light at the moment because of the sun coming in through the window. It was like that an hour ago and an hour before that. Is it reasonable to conclude at 8pm that it is still light because of the sun and ignore the strip light
over my head? If I were to shut the blind, should I take this as evidence that the sun has turned off?
To dismiss my interference in the system as irrelevant without enquiry is to lead to false conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
No need for that!
Click to expand...

I posted in reply to you posting;

Rapscallion said:
Its a shame that you don't want to consider the counter argument. And I don't get that you will feel the need to go on forever looking for counter arguments regardless.

Surely a rational argument backed with evidence should convince you that the viewpoint of the quotes you have provided may be wrong, unless you have an almost religious belief in those arguments.
Click to expand...

Why are some folk getting so heated (excuse the pun ;) ) over a discussion about a topic that can't be proved one way or t'other. :rolleyes:
 
Llamaman said:
what is predicted is an increase in the frequency of unusual events - especially dry or wet years, larger floods etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying it, simply saying, the Earth goes through cycles as it always has. Wet & warm. Wet & cold, Warm & wet. Warm & dry........
My argument is (from the beginning) is it can't be proved that man is at fault for global warming.
 
OldCarlos said:
Why are some folk getting so heated (excuse the pun ;) ) over a discussion about a topic that can't be proved one way or t'other. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by proof.

If you mean deductive proof you're in the wrong thread - try creating a 'mathematics' thread.

If you mean inductive reasoning, then we have something to discuss, although it appears you set the bar much higher than most - possibly at a level that, by the time the evidence is convincing to you, it may be too late to do anything about it. That has some merit from a scientific viewpoint (it would at least strengthen consensus), but as we all have to live here, we may need to lower our expectations and accept a higher risk of being wrong.
 
OldCarlos said:
I'm not denying it, simply saying, the Earth goes through cycles as it always has. Wet & warm. Wet & cold, Warm & wet. Warm & dry........
My argument is (from the beginning) is it can't be proved that man is at fault for global warming.
Click to expand...
Oops, tripped yourself up there with 'as it always has'. As another poster already pointing out (think it was BSM) the current rate of change is believed to be much faster than any previously recorded change.
In the absence of any natural explanation for this (the solar driver argument falls down here) we must consider alternative explanations.
 
OldCarlos said:
I'm not denying it, simply saying, the Earth goes through cycles as it always has. Wet & warm. Wet & cold, Warm & wet. Warm & dry........
My argument is (from the beginning) is it can't be proved that man is at fault for global warming.
Click to expand...

No one (with any sense) denies that natural global warming happens - however the logic that because natural global warming happens anthropoegenicly influenced global warming doesnt happen or can't be proved is flawed

to be clear which of the premises are you challenging as incorrect

a) That CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas (that can be proved)
b) That CO2 is released when we burn coal/oil (as can that) or
c) That the release of CO2 by burning coal and oil leads to an increase in the greenhouse event (that is a logical dediction if a & b are true) , or
d) That this increase is significant ... that can't be proved 100% except by waiting to see what the results are... however if you are standing in the middle of a road and you see a car coming do you wait for it to run over you as proof that the consequences will be bad, or do you move out of the way ?
 
Llamaman said:
Depends what you mean by proof.

If you mean deductive proof you're in the wrong thread - try creating a 'mathematics' thread.

If you mean inductive reasoning, then we have something to discuss, although it appears you set the bar much higher than most - possibly at a level that, by the time the evidence is convincing to you, it may be too late to do anything about it. That has some merit from a scientific viewpoint (it would at least strengthen consensus), but as we all have to live here, we may need to lower our expectations and accept a higher risk of being wrong.
Click to expand...

You're just being pedantic, you know what I meant by `proof`.

As previously stated, we should stop abusing our planet!

We need to get population under control, because as someone else posted, feeding 7-8 billions mouths is going to become increasingly difficult, maybe worse if the planet warms.
 
Llamaman said:
Oops, tripped yourself up there with 'as it always has'. As another poster already pointing out (think it was BSM) the current rate of change is believed to be much faster than any previously recorded change.
In the absence of any natural explanation for this (the solar driver argument falls down here) we must consider alternative explanations.
Click to expand...

One of the problems we have in discussing this stuff is that in the MWP they didnt have thermometers, which is why the biolipid method (per my link above) is so interesting
 
OldCarlos said:
As previously stated, we should stop abusing our planet!

.
Click to expand...

I think we are all in agreement there

and we can't win on the population front - feeding 7.3 billion plus will get harder if the planet warms (rising sea levels, more storm episodes, desertification in the tropical zone, more fungal infections in crops due to fewer frosts etc) but it will also get harder if the planet cools significantly (colder winters, shorter growing season and so forth)

so regardless of who is right about GW getting the population under control is a no brainer - except that our system of economy requires an every growing workforce and market so it will never happen - until we get to the point of a malthusian population crash
 
Last edited:
Many other factors will no doubt add to the problems too, Pete. Antibiotic resistance being another.

I remember reading somewhere not so long ago, that the population would probably peak at around 11 billions then stabilise. Can't remember the estimated timescale, but it wasn't TOO far in the distance.

I just find it hard to understand how we/the Earth could cope with that number.

I find it appalling that in the 21st Century we still have millions of people dying through lack of water/food/medicines.

Politics has a lot to answer for!
 
IMO at 11 billion we'll be well beyond carrying capacity and we all know what happens next at that point - crash due to conflict over limited resources, disease, famine etc .. then stabilisation at a much lower figure. (the other option in ecological terms is migration , but considering the world as a whole and the state of technology, the chances of reaching the point of interplanetary migration being viable before a population crash are slim.)
 
OldCarlos said:
You're just being pedantic, you know what I meant by `proof`.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I have no idea what you mean by proof. You reject evidence that many others accept, so I'm intrigued as to what burden of proof you think ACC needs to overcome.
 
big soft moose said:
until we get to the point of a malthusian population crash
Click to expand...
Malthus has been wrong for every generation thus far. We already have sufficient production capacity to feed everyone on Earth - the problem is distribution not capacity.
We would be foolish to underestimate the capacity of science and technology to overcome problems we face. The fertiliser revolution ultimately proved Malthus' prediction to be be wrong - are we not repeating the same error with similar doomsday predictions?
 
Llamaman said:
Malthus has been wrong for every generation thus far. We already have sufficient production capacity to feed everyone on Earth - the problem is distribution not capacity.
We would be foolish to underestimate the capacity of science and technology to overcome problems we face. The fertiliser revolution ultimately proved Malthus' prediction to be be wrong - are we not repeating the same error with similar doomsday predictions?
Click to expand...

His prediction may have been wrong for the human race at the time , but his basic premise was right - you see that in animal populations all the time , when the population exceeds the carrying capacity of the habitat it readjusts itself through starvation and increased disease (assuming it can't spread out or migrate to new teriritory)

Essentially we have a finite resource and while tech can overcome problems to an extent, we can't bank on it doing so indefinitely...

If you look at things like the recent ebola outbreak in west africa it could be said that population readjustment is already happening on a localised scale
 
We've had disease outbreaks with much lower population densities in the past (bubonic plague for instance) so it would be wrong to make that link without some evidence of a causal link.
The outbreak took place in areas with a far lower population density than most urban areas - certainly lower than Hong Kong, New York, London.
The Ebola outbreak appears to have been more down to local burial customs, combined with poor local healthcare.
Most of the privations of overcrowded cities from the Victorian era were overcome with improved sanitation and healthcare.
We are seeing some increased mortality from air pollution etc, but these are lower than the increase in population. We might see a plateauing out of life expectancy, but there's nothing to suggest a massive population crash is impending.

The greatest threat would appear to be complacency leading to a lack of new antibiotics, but thankfully this is now on the political agenda so hopefully we nip this threat in the bud.
As ever, the greatest threat is not the challenge itself, but human stupidity in not applying ourselves to a solution!
 
jbw said:
Yes of course - some vaccines use live but very much weakened bacteria and hence it promotes the growth of effective antibodies without risking infection of the subject. However, it's very different if you are under dosing antibiotics because those pathogens which are not killed by the weak dose, survive, replicate and pass on their immunity. This is could lead to zoonosis and possibly start a pandemic.
Click to expand...
Yep I was agreeing with you :thumbs:

Llamaman said:
Comedy gold.
Seriously, can a mod please move that post to a new thread, locked and stickied, so we can use it to instruct new members on what to expect in OOF?
Click to expand...
Ooo Sarcasm I like a like a little sarcasm now and again, unfortunately request denied :p

Rapscallion said:
Its a shame that you don't want to consider the counter argument. And I don't get that you will feel the need to go on forever looking for counter arguments regardless..
Surely a rational argument backed with evidence should convince you that the viewpoint of the quotes you have provided may be wrong,
Click to expand...
I have no wish to play google the facts table tennis with you, just like you , I know the truth I have seen the evidence, I have seen scientific papers that proves I'm right.
As I said life is too short :thumbs:
Rapscallion said:
unless you have an almost religious belief in those arguments.
Click to expand...
Even Satan has a restraining order against me, so I can't see what religion has to do with it?
Unless you believe that God has decided to tear us (it) all down and start again.
I wonder how many times that has happened in past?
( Have you seen the Matrix?)

Rapscallion said:
PS this thread really highlights those with and without a fundamental understanding of how science works. You look at the world (research), get an idea of how things may work (define a hypothesis), do an experiment (test that hypothesis), analyse the data and from that draw a conclusion. Finally, those results and method are communicated in detail for others to critique. Then refinements to that conclusion may be drawn, and another hypothesis tested and on and on...
Click to expand...
I worked in the research industry for a good 10 years, I am fully aware of how results and data have been and can manipulated to serve the ends ( or is that grants? ) of the so called scientists, researchers and their underlings.
99% of the time statistics prove nothing except what you want them to prove
 
Cobra said:
Even Satan has a restraining order against me,
Click to expand...

Damn and I thought when he took that one out on me it assured some escape :(
 
Llamaman said:
Malthus has been wrong for every generation thus far. We already have sufficient production capacity to feed everyone on Earth - the problem is distribution not capacity.
We would be foolish to underestimate the capacity of science and technology to overcome problems we face. The fertiliser revolution ultimately proved Malthus' prediction to be be wrong - are we not repeating the same error with similar doomsday predictions?
Click to expand...
That's akin to saying you're going to live forever - every day you have woken up and you're still alive. Every data point you have collected up until now suggests you're going to live forever - but you know you're not. So too with Malthus - he will continue to be disproven only until he isn't. He will be right once, and that's all that's required.

Can we feed 10 billion? Even if we can, will we like the lifestyle that imposes (eating insects, and otherwise vegan diet, or whatever that entails)? More antibiotics pumped into animals to get them to grow faster, feed more people, make more money. We have literally no idea what we're doing - sure, in each individual field people have vision of that, but add all of those streams together and we have no clue where it's taking us, or if we will like it when we get there. Fertiliser alone predominantly comes from fossil fuels, and we know they're going to last forever. It's not as if we're burning them hand over fist, or fighting wars in the middle east over them.... So what happens when they run out? Maybe technology will save us - maybe it won't. Does it seem a good idea to keep getting bigger and bigger, pursuing quantity, meanwhile constantly diminishing the individual quality of life? I reckon it's mad - keep pushing the accelerator when you've no idea if the brakes work - but it seems the model the world is following. Hopefully someone, somewhere knows what the heck we're doing!
 
Moadib said:
That's akin to saying you're going to live forever - every day you have woken up and you're still alive. Every data point you have collected up until now suggests you're going to live forever - but you know you're not.
Click to expand...
Yes, Vickers' 'White Swan' which I already referenced.
The difference is that my rejection of Malthus is based not just on experience, but upon the principles upon which his prediction rests.
Malthus' prediction was based on two key factors - arithmetic growth in food production, but exponential growth in population. He was wrong.
Food production rocketed with discovery of fertilisers - first South American guano, then industrially produced nitrates through the Haber process.
Population growth is already declining globally and the plateau is in sight. We'll get there quicker if we stay focused on the goals of female education and emancipation (the biggest drivers of birth rate).
The exact numbers involve a lot of assumptions - but I'd heartily recommend Matt Ridley's 'The Rational Optimist' for a sober debunking of Malthus' dismal proclamation.

Moadib said:
So too with Malthus - he will continue to be disproven only until he isn't. He will be right once, and that's all that's required.
Click to expand...
You cannot be certain that he will ever be right. That's as big a logical fallacy as the one you claimed in my own post.
To put it back into Vickers' analogy, an orange swan would debunk the 'White Swan' theory, but you can't assume that because no-one's ever seen one that there is one just around the corner.
 
Llamaman said:
You cannot be certain that he will ever be right. That's as big a logical fallacy as the one you claimed in my own post.
Click to expand...
Sorry - removed post. Broke my own rules
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
Population growth is already declining globally and the plateau is in sight.
Click to expand...

Maybe (depends what you call `already in sight` though)
Don't forget, Chine are lifting the 1 baby only rule.

If extreme poverty can be reduced & living standards increased in the developing world, together with medical help, we have a good chance.
So yes, there's much hope, but it depends on how serious politicians/govts actually act.
 
Last edited:
Anyone see the meteorologist on tv last night, after Question Time, with Andrew Neil? (This Week? prog)
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Wow that is.....just wow!
Click to expand...

Serious question, What is it about that you think is worthy of the word Wow? explain it to me please. No agaenda No angle Not looking for an argument at all, Just honest answer wanted from you.

If you dont want to no worries....
 
LASTOLITE said:
Serious question, What is it about that you think is worthy of the word Wow? explain it to me please. No agaenda No angle Not looking for an argument at all, Just honest answer wanted from you.

If you dont want to no worries....
Click to expand...

As I posted earlier "All the stuff that we can detect in the universe, you, me, planets, interstellar gas, stars, galaxies, EVERYTHING accounts for less that 5% of what's actually there. The so called dark energy is forcing the expansion of the universe at faster than light speed, and dark matter, which is the most common type of matter in the universe, but cannot be detected visually or by radio telescopes. We only know of it's presence through the gravitational effect it has on matter that we can detect, for example galaxies.". That APOD photo and text explains the future of the universe. That itself is wow in my opinion. Endless expansion. There will be a point when no stars can be created. There will be a point when all stars have died. There will a point when there is nothing.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
As I posted earlier "All the stuff that we can detect in the universe, you, me, planets, interstellar gas, stars, galaxies, EVERYTHING accounts for less that 5% of what's actually there. The so called dark energy is forcing the expansion of the universe at faster than light speed, and dark matter, which is the most common type of matter in the universe, but cannot be detected visually or by radio telescopes. We only know of it's presence through the gravitational effect it has on matter that we can detect, for example galaxies.". That APOD photo and text explains the future of the universe. That itself is wow in my opinion. Endless expansion. There will be a point when no stars can be created. There will be a point when all stars have died. There will a point when there is nothing.
Click to expand...


You seem to be very certain about this when as I read it is not fact but an extrapolation of a larger universal expansion theory that is still as yet a theory. I know thats simplification...:rolleyes: Best I can make out though from the article, bit of a brain bender.......
 
I love it when people misunderstand the term 'theory'.

A theory isn't just some idea someone cooked up. Many scientific 'theories' are testable and provable. The theory of gravity? Are you about to disprove Gravity? Are we all about to fall off because gravity is just an idea that you're about to show us is ridiculous?

A theory is not what you understand as 'theoretical' at all.
 
I love it when people misunderstand their own explanation of the term 'theory'! :whistle:

NO scientific theory is provable! All that any scientist can ever say about any theory is that it hasn't been disproved yet!

A scientific theory is the best explanation of all the observations and data. Just occasionally a new observation shows up an anomaly that disproves a previously believed theory. A nice simple example from history is Gallileo's theory that the earth revolves around the sun which contradicted the politically correct "Scientific Consensus" at the time that the sun revolved round the earth.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
As I posted earlier "All the stuff that we can detect in the universe, you, me, planets, interstellar gas, stars, galaxies, EVERYTHING accounts for less that 5% of what's actually there. The so called dark energy is forcing the expansion of the universe at faster than light speed, and dark matter, which is the most common type of matter in the universe, but cannot be detected visually or by radio telescopes. We only know of it's presence through the gravitational effect it has on matter that we can detect, for example galaxies.". That APOD photo and text explains the future of the universe. That itself is wow in my opinion. Endless expansion. There will be a point when no stars can be created. There will be a point when all stars have died. There will a point when there is nothing.
Click to expand...
I've always thought Entropic Death would be a great name for a heavy metal band.
 
Llamaman said:
I've always thought Entropic Death would be a great name for a heavy metal band.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I remember reading an awesome explanation of universal entropy by Steven Baxter. Can't recall which book though.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Agreed. I remember reading an awesome explanation of universal entropy by Steven Baxter. Can't recall which book though.
Click to expand...
Manifold:Time.
The rest if the series was good too.

Reef.... Reef.... Reef.... ;)
 
Llamaman said:
I've always thought Entropic Death would be a great name for a heavy metal band.
Click to expand...
Excellent. They'd be on my playlist alongside Liquid Tension Experiment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top