The Science & Skepticism Thread

[Ricardodaforce]

Maybe thats what he was talking about, or not talking about. Not even heard of the big crunch myself.

Before it was discovered that the universe continues to expand at fast than light speed, the theory that its expansion would ultimately slow down, stop, then collapse under the gravitational influence of its own mass has been discarded.

Incidentally, the scientist you spoke to probably appears on their Jodcast podcast. It's good too.

 

[kendo1]

Is this a significant finding then?

I have never been convinced myself, although the change in the polar ice caps is dramatic, but some say its a shift rather than change? Its all very conflicting and one one side a scientific body says one thing in conclusion, and another says the opposite or a less definite scenario. Why wont they agree if the figures don't lie I mean mathematical models cant be interpreted in multiple ways can they? They either say we are in trouble or not. What is it? Very confusing for the layman.

It doesn't really matter if you are convinced or not.
When 99% (apparently only 97%, I was trying to remember what the correct figure was but couldn't be bothered looking it up) of the world's climate scientists think something is happening from their observations done under scientific conditions, it is unlikely that they will ask your opinion so that you can pass judgement on them.

 

[Cobra]

When 99% of the world's climate scientists think something is happening

Google say 97% but what's 2% among friends, 0.13 of a degree?

You could also argue that they are protecting their jobs,
they are not gonna own up and say, its a naturally re-occurring phenomenon that has been happening, since the dawn of time, and there is b****r all we can do about it, are they?

 

[kendo1]

Google say 97% but what's 2% among friends, 0.13 of a degree?

You could also argue that they are protecting their jobs,
they are not gonna own up and say, its a naturally re-occurring phenomenon that has been happening, since the dawn of time, and there is b****r all we can do about it, are they?

I wouldn't argue that, maybe you would. Personally, I find it a bit crass to suggest that - just another way to cast doubt on scientists just doing their jobs when you can't refute the science.

 

[OldCarlos]

When 99% (apparently only 97%, I was trying to remember what the correct figure was.....

There's a problem with the `97%` which is always quoted. Within that figure there are climatologists & scientists with many differing views. Can't remember the exact definition used, but it was something on the lines of, if they thought the climate was changing/warming, then they were lumped in the 97%, whether they agreed man was to blame or not & whether they thought we could do anything about it.

 

[OldCarlos]

You could also argue that they are protecting their jobs,
they are not gonna own up and say, its a naturally re-occurring phenomenon that has been happening, since the dawn of time, and there is b****r all we can do about it, are they?

Spot on.

A chap I knew until about 4 yrs ago was a marine biologist & also studied the climate & weather patterns as part of his work travelling around the globe, said the same as quoted above.

He also believed man had very little, if any, effect on climate change, but also added `shhhh, I didn't say that` Apparently being a heretic wouldn't help his career.

 

[kendo1]

There's a problem with the `97%` which is always quoted. Within that figure there are climatologists & scientists with many differing views. Can't remember the exact definition used, but it was something on the lines of, if they thought the climate was changing/warming, then they were lumped in the 97%, whether they agreed man was to blame or not & whether they thought we could do anything about it.

Source?



Just saying that does not make it so.

 

[OldCarlos]

....although the change in the polar ice caps is dramatic, but some say its a shift rather than change?

Depends on a persons definition of dramatic I suppose.

The Northern polar ice has grown & decreased over millennia, as has Antarctica which in comparison is mahoosive & holds over 60% of all the fresh water on the planet.

Oh BTW, even NASA agree that Antarctica is actually growing.

 

[OldCarlos]

Source?



Just saying that does not make it so.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Apparently the `97%` was first stated around 2009 but wasn't a very large survey, in respect that 100% didn't reply & other views weren't considered.


This is quite enlightening if you'd care to watch.
It just shows how the `facts` can be interpreted to suit, then convince everyone that it must be true because a certain group says so & how easy it is to perpetuate, especially if debate is not allowed.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw#t=166

Edit to add, even NASA say Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: (my bold)

 

[kendo1]

Denial

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZPoKCWwc4w

 

[Phil V]

The idea that 'there's nothing we can do' or that 'nothing we have done has caused a change' is something I find quite bizarre.

As a child I easily came to understand the concept of 'cause and effect' and that my actions had consequences, like saying 'please' ensured I got to eat sweets as a treat, then later in life the unintended consequence that eating those sweets might make me put on weight.

I appreciate that climate is hugely complicated compared to my eating sweets, but that doesn't alter the simple principal of 'cause and effect', it's obvious we are changing the composition of the atmosphere, we can calculate what the likely effect of that change will be, and when evidence appears that supports those calculations, I'd suggest case closed.

 

[OldCarlos]

I'd suggest case closed.

That is exactly the problem with trying to debate on here. Heck even the BBC have all but curtailed opposing views & discussion on the subject.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Google say 97% but what's 2% among friends, 0.13 of a degree?

You could also argue that they are protecting their jobs,
they are not gonna own up and say, its a naturally re-occurring phenomenon that has been happening, since the dawn of time, and there is b****r all we can do about it, are they?

Why would they lose their jobs if there is found to be no anthropogenic global warming?

 

[OldCarlos]

Source?

Presumably some truth in this article?; http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

 

[OldCarlos]

Why would they lose their jobs if there is found to be no anthropogenic global warming?

The amount of money thrown at this & the jobs that depend on it are astronomical. Also being a heretic in that line of work won't win you any friends or promotions. The whole subject of scepticism re man made global warming is taboo.

 

[Phil V]

That is exactly the problem with trying to debate on here. Heck even the BBC have all but curtailed opposing views & discussion on the subject.

So, I offer a point for debate and say 'I'd suggest' and you hear that as closing debate.

There certainly is some filtering of evidence going on here.

Let's be serious, the loudest voices opposing the 97% of experts are coming from politicians and scientists in the pay of the oil industry, that's not exactly impartial, in fact given the numbers involved, the amount of say they have in balance is somewhat disproportionate.

In fact you'll probably find there's a greater proportion of creationists, but they're rightly seen by scientists as fruitcakes and I personally don't expect scientists to have to debate them as its a waste of resource. Fortunately they don't have the same resource to back them, otherwise we would end up debating that and all kinds of other nonsense too.

 

[kendo1]

Scepticism is the basis of science.
Science nowadays is very niche orientated. I'd be very surprised if any physicists/cosmologists/astronomers/etc had any professional know how in climate science.
Just because they are scientists?

But of course you know better, as does Mr Cruz- a lawyer.

I'm quite happy to think that climate scientists know their subject. It's the science that matters, not the results.
Scientists are not paid to make up results.

Scepticism is the basis of science.

 

[OldCarlos]

????????????

You said

I'd suggest case closed.

After using the analogy of eating sweets to `cause & effect`. (Also bringing `fruitcakes` into the debate, which tends to dumb down & belittle others when stifling debates)

I think the vast majority of folk understand `cause & effect` & I'm not denying our (mankind) treatment of our planet, the only home we have, has gone beyond a joke, but I'm not being brainwashed into being charged extra taxes, having freedom curtailed etc while politicians, big businesses, The Greens etc gain more control while making a fortune.

 

[Phil V]

????????????

You said


After using the analogy of eating sweets to `cause & effect`. (Also bringing `fruitcakes` into the debate, which tends to dumb down & belittle others when stifling debates)

I think the vast majority of folk understand `cause & effect` & I'm not denying our (mankind) treatment of our planet, the only home we have, has gone beyond a joke, but I'm not being brainwashed into being charged extra taxes, having freedom curtailed etc while politicians, big businesses, The Greens etc gain more control while making a fortune.

It's that last bit that's the 'conspiracy theorist' bit that's laughable: here's the point, you're already under the control of the other side of this debate, politicians aren't after gleaning power from green taxes, they're trying to alter your behaviour.

Whilst the oil industry has successfully brainwashed you into believing that it's the other guys who are at fault. Meanwhile your money is going to both camps, but you're upset at one of them, because the other is telling you to be.

Of course you're free to believe whatever you like, but wherever I see a conspiracy theory I look for the person who has something to gain from the disruption. With this one, it's a bit easy.

 

[LASTOLITE]

Depends on a persons definition of dramatic I suppose.

The Northern polar ice has grown & decreased over millennia, as has Antarctica which in comparison is mahoosive & holds over 60% of all the fresh water on the planet.

Oh BTW, even NASA agree that Antarctica is actually growing.

Indeed I didnt say it was shrinking Just changing

 

[LASTOLITE]

It doesn't really matter if you are convinced or not.
When 99% (apparently only 97%, I was trying to remember what the correct figure was but couldn't be bothered looking it up) of the world's climate scientists think something is happening from their observations done under scientific conditions, it is unlikely that they will ask your opinion so that you can pass judgement on them.

Must be dark where you are.

I am of the mind that the climate is going to be the least of this screwed up worlds problems with all that is going on with some of its inhabitants

 

[kendo1]

Must be dark where you are.

I am of the mind that the climate is going to be the least of this screwed up worlds problems with all that is going on with some of its inhabitants

Coming up for 1.00am

 

[OldCarlos]

It's that last bit that's the 'conspiracy theorist' bit that's laughable: here's the point, you're already under the control of the other side of this debate, politicians aren't after gleaning power from green taxes, they're trying to alter your behaviour.

Whilst the oil industry has successfully brainwashed you into believing that it's the other guys who are at fault. Meanwhile your money is going to both camps, but you're upset at one of them, because the other is telling you to be.

Of course you're free to believe whatever you like, but wherever I see a conspiracy theory I look for the person who has something to gain from the disruption. With this one, it's a bit easy.

TBH, your whole post is reversible & could actually apply to yourself.


Why is it everytime the weather is different from the norm/average, the news is quick to report, even the weather forecasters (ad nauseam) it must be down to global warming?

Several years ago when there were reservoirs almost dry & we were told the water table was so low it would maybe take a generation to recover. This was also something we would have to get more used to in the future because of...........global warming!
Then shortly after we had the floodings in the West country which soon sorted the water table.

About 5 years ago we had a so called hard Winter, but that was just a blip.

We've just had another very wet period......... because of global warming.

Next time we have a hot Summer it will be because of ...... global warming.

If it's too hot, too cold, to dry or too wet, you can bet it's global warming!


The Northern ice cap is melting & seas are rising, yet Antarctica which is much larger is actually growing.

 

[Phil V]

TBH, your whole post is reversible & could actually apply to yourself.


Why is it everytime the weather is different from the norm/average, the news is quick to report, even the weather forecasters (ad nauseam) it must be down to global warming?

Several years ago when there were reservoirs almost dry & we were told the water table was so low it would maybe take a generation to recover. This was also something we would have to get more used to in the future because of...........global warming!
Then shortly after we had the floodings in the West country which soon sorted the water table.

About 5 years ago we had a so called hard Winter, but that was just a blip.

We've just had another very wet period......... because of global warming.

Next time we have a hot Summer it will be because of ...... global warming.

If it's too hot, too cold, to dry or too wet, you can bet it's global warming!


The Northern ice cap is melting & seas are rising, yet Antarctica which is much larger is actually growing.

I'm not an expert, I like to think I'm 'open minded' which means I listen to 'experts' and when I look at 2 sides of an argument and look for 'vested interests', the idea that a load of scientists are prepared to lie 'to protect their jobs' compared to a small number of scientists employed by the oil industry to protect the oil industry; I know the likely truth.

I know an employee of Coca Cola, and the amount of money they pay 'doctors' to lobby on behalf of the sugar industry is phenomenal, fortunately for us, they have lost the media momentum on that and no sensible person is hearing that message and thinking 'it's obvious sugar isn't linked to obesity, people are just getting fatter, there's nothing we can do'.

 

[OldCarlos]

Phil, I'm not trying to say I'm an expert either. I'm also open minded, but when we are told debate or criticism of a subject is not acceptable, there's obviously a problem & the longer that goes on the more people will eventually just accept it as `proof`. The drip drip effect.

I remember the early-mid 70's when we were in a cold period, but we also had the Summer of 76

I remember the long cold Winter of 63.

The differences in certain years from the average during my life time are quite high/low.

We probably all see half a dozen exceptionally hot, cold, wet or dry years during our life times & so it will continue.


When Govts get together to set a limit of 1.5 deg on further warming, which is unlikely to work, I just wonder why. 95% of the greenhouse gasses is water/vapour.

There are scientists who say that we will be able to grow more food as the climate warms, which we will need to feed the growing numbers in populations around the world.

 

[StewartR]

There are scientists who say that we will be able to grow more food as the climate warms, which we will need to feed the growing numbers in populations around the world.

Well, yeah. Climate change won't necessarily make things worse everywhere. For example the British wine industry may benefit. And warmer weather would do wonders for the tourism industry in places like the Outer Hebrides, which have some of the best beaches in the world.

I don't think anyone claims that there are no potential upsides to warming / climate change. I think the issue is that the potential downsides outweigh them.

 

[StewartR]

Incidentally, for anyone who's interested, I just came across an excellent article about how global temperature series are constructed, and why there's no conspiracy to manipulate them into exaggerating the warming trend.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

 

[Cobra]

just another way to cast doubt on scientists just doing their jobs when you can't refute the science.

For every argument there is a counter argument, be that science or Canon v Nikon PC v Mac,
and that's a life of death argument for some too

It just shows how the `facts` can be interpreted to suit, then convince everyone that it must be true because a certain group says so & how easy it is to perpetuate, especially if debate is not allowed.

Exactly

The idea that 'there's nothing we can do' or that 'nothing we have done has caused a change' is something I find quite bizarre..

I don't think anyone could disagree, that for every action there is a re-action.

As a child I easily came to understand the concept of 'cause and effect' and that my actions had consequences, like saying 'please' ensured I got to eat sweets as a treat

Its called Operant training / conditioning

The amount of money thrown at this & the jobs that depend on it are astronomical. Also being a heretic in that line of work won't win you any friends or promotions. .

Yep that was my point too

Scientists are not paid to make up results. .

No but they are happy to interpret the results to make them "look good"
And yes it does happen I've seen it first hand when I worked in medical research, twist the odd result here, interpret the odd action here in a way that fits the theory or "expected" conclusion.
To be conclusive a result must be able to be reproduced, by a fellow scientist, that is in no way connected to that field of science.

I remember the long cold Winter of 63.

I was gutted I got a new bike for Christmas, it stated snowing boxing day and I couldn't ride the bike till almost easter due to the amount of snow and ice laying on the paths locally

Why would they lose their jobs if there is found to be no anthropogenic global warming?

Well I suppose they could read the weather forecast, as there is nothing to prove ( or disprove) anymore

 

[OldCarlos]

Cobra, That last `quote` wasn't me btw.

 

[Cobra]

Cobra, That last `quote` wasn't me btw.

Sorted
I edited out a "]" and it combined the quotes sorry

 

[kendo1]

 

[Cobra]

View attachment 55212

There's something kinda weird about using an image of a mythical being to try and make a statement in a science thread,
don't you think? .

 

[kendo1]

There's something kinda weird about using an image of a mythical being to try and make a statement in a science thread,
don't you think? .

I thought so, that's why I did it

 

[kendo1]

The X Files returns tonight.

Just the thing for sceptics and those who believe in government conspiracies.

 

[Cobra]

The X Files returns tonight. Just the thing for sceptics and those who believe in government conspiracies.

And now a fictional TV programme to try and discredit the "opposition" ?

I thought so, that's why I did it

Ah well, it was a good discussion while it lasted anyway

 

[Deleted member 49549]

The amount of money thrown at this & the jobs that depend on it are astronomical. Also being a heretic in that line of work won't win you any friends or promotions. The whole subject of scepticism re man made global warming is taboo.

I think if you are looking at the money aspect, and conclude that the scientists are on the wealthy side of the discussion as opposed to the oil companies....

2 questions:-
Do you think the evidence shows there is global warming?
What evidence will lead you to believe that there is a significant human contribution to global warming?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

No but they are happy to interpret the results to make them "look good"
And yes it does happen I've seen it first hand when I worked in medical research, twist the odd result here, interpret the odd action here in a way that fits the theory or "expected" conclusion.

The comparison you make is more aligned to the scientists funded by the oil companies and their conclusions, and I have to agree with that point that they can be pushed to re-interpret the results to an agenda.

 

[kendo1]

And now a fictional TV programme to try and discredit the "opposition" ?

Nope, I just enjoy it , but it is kind of relevant
It's strange that the actor's beliefs are the opposite to their characters.
I wonder if flat earthers think it is true?

 

[Cobra]

The comparison you make is more aligned to the scientists funded by the oil companies and their conclusions, and I have to agree with that point that they can be pushed to re-interpret the results to an agenda.

You pointed to the oil companies, I pointed to "medical"
Two very important fields I would have said.
And I'm damned sure it doesn't stop there.

 

[nilagin]

I was gutted I got a new bike for Christmas, it stated snowing boxing day

I'd have been quite chuffed to have got a bike that could talk. Mind you I'd have only been 1yr old so I daresay, I would have been indifferent.