The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why listen to scientists? > Comments

Why listen to scientists? : Comments

By Geoff Davies, published 26/5/2008

Observations show disturbing signs that the Earth’s response to our activities is happening faster than expected.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
For all the arm-chair scientists out there or those that would criticise the scientific method or the IPCC review process - let's have your ideas.

Come up with a better system to disseminate the science other than in popular magazines, shock-jock media spots or the blogosphere.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:01:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the whole I agree with Dr. Davies. Like all human institutions the scientific enterprise is imperfect. However science has built in quality control mechanisms that make it a more reliable source of information than anything else we have.

As Einstein put it:

"All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

With that in mind let's define the global warming proposition or GWP.

"Human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing changes to climate that will have catastrophic consequences."

Question 1:

Has the GWP been proved beyond all reasonable doubt? Is it as solid as the second law of thermodynamics?

Plainly "no" as the IPCC acknowledges.

Question 2:

Does the PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE point to the truth of the GWP?

ABSOLUTELY!

The usual critics here should bear that in mind. Looking at the evidence AS A WHOLE few can doubt that it MOSTLY supports the GWP.

Question 3:

Should we wait until the GWP has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt before committing trillions of dollars (literally) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Sadly the only way to prove the GWP beyond doubt is to run the experiment and see what happens. If we had a few planets to spare, that's what we'd do.

Question 4:

Does that mean we have to commit trillions of dollars DESPITE THE UNCERTAINTY?

YES!

In the real world we ALWAYS have to make important decisions under uncertainty.

In my 40 years in business I have NEVER had the luxury of being able to make an important decision where I had perfect knowledge.

Decisions about the GWP are no different.

Once again I need to ask critics to bear this in mind.

DECISION MAKING UNDER UNCERTAINTY IS THE NORM IN THE REAL WORLD.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:39:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why pay any attention to much that is said anyway? Its all talk and 99% is rubbish.
Its a battle field in the media these days and there are thousands of bullets being fired by two sides.
One is Hollywood and the other are the scientists.
And both merge in the mind as being one after a while.
Its too much for the mind to look at.
The Holy Bible has the accurate viewpoint in everything ...this being confirmed by the Holy Spirit to Christs believers.
If mankind chops it all down, pumps it all up, shoots or fishes out evrything that moves, pollutes the air with foul fumes...and does nothiung to stop it....the planet is dead!
The scientists are become as vacant as stars and starlets.
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:48:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A somewhat idealistic view of the scientific process.

Where to start...most of the peer reviewed science in climate change science is done by a small cadre of scientists, all linked to one another.

Most scientific papers are read by an average of approximately 6 people...including the reviewers.

Very few science papers attempt to challenge or invalidate a previous paper, as there is little kudos for confirming a previous scientists work.

Observational data in climate change is a joke. Poorly maintained equipment, badly flawed proxies and short periods of observations mean that most of the raw data is considered worthless. Almost every basic temperature measurement has been 'adjusted', often by many times the observed temperature anomaly. Coincidentally, most of the adjustments add to the current periods and take away from the past, creating a warming trend out of adjustments, not raw data. The satellite data is much more reliable as 'data', but exists for a too short time period, and doesn't cover the globe (so other adjustments must be made to get a 'global' temperature)

Computer models that do not factor in major natural contributors to climate are not useful, and do not match observed reality (and also use the badly adjusted data as their basis)...Rubbish in, rubbish out.

As for the ad hominim about links to exxon, perhaps the author should also look into the links that existed between James Hansen and Enron (another energy company that saw massive profit opportunities in the global warming hoax)
Posted by Grey, Monday, 26 May 2008 10:41:10 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, stevenlmeyer, for you lucid comment.

In response to the Y2K threat the world invested 31 trillion dollars, the largest investment in any one enterprise in human history. Even now we don't know how real the threat was, but, thankfully, decision-makers had the prescience to know what may happen if nothing was done.

The curious notion that we should not act without absolute proof is just the latest straw being clutched by those in a state of climate denial.

I ask them, in reply: "If your doctor gives you a prognosis that you at extreme risk of dieing from heart failure unless you change your exercise and eating habits, what do you do?

1) Accuse him of scaremongering?

2) Tell him you won't act until he gives you absolute proof?

3) Take his advice seriously and act on it?

I know what I would do!
Posted by gecko, Monday, 26 May 2008 10:48:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff says "The most dramatic sign is a sudden acceleration of the rate of shrinkage of Arctic sea ice" to promote his perceptions of dramatic acceleration, of tipping points, chain reactions, of toppling of big dominos etc which is the language of alarmism based on this papal decree from the Goracle and an AGWer with diminished integrity, Hansen. This example by Geoff is hysteria-based and once again an example of "scientists" proclaiming something they know nothing about but then claiming it as proof of humans causing global warming.

When scientists (and i presume Geoff is one) opportunistically use such a short time frame of data to rely on, they should not make statements about hysterical arctic icemelts without some historical context. The fact that the ice is reforming at a record pace again as it did following the 1904 and 1944 major icemelts then there is no reason to assume it won't stay frozen for another 30 or 40 years. It is AGWers that, in trying to be the weathermaker, will either ignore or attempt to rewrite climate history. When political organisations like the IPCC attempt to cool the past and heat the present with their outcome based hockeystick strategies they deserve no respect.

We also need to be very careful with correlations. e.g. Tombstones are nearly always found near a dead body therefore one may conclude that tombstones are a leading cause of death. ........ Likewise a higher atmospheric CO2 is similarly linked to alarmist global warming stories where in fact there is no evidence of proof just incriminating evidence.
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 26 May 2008 10:56:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Want to save a world?
Kill the automobile.
You wont do it any other way.
Back to bikes:)
Posted by Gibo, Monday, 26 May 2008 10:57:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone with an opinion thinks that his or her opinion is the right one.

There is no point in arguing about subjects that have well a truly had a good thrashing.

Yawn!
Posted by Mr. Right, Monday, 26 May 2008 11:11:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmmm

Science!

In the medical world we get bombarded with selective-evidence-based research, the truth of which is good for a couple of years and then found to be nonsense. How does science explain that?

And how do the medical scientists explain how it is that the health of the community is inversely proportional to the amount of money poured down the medical research black hole?

80% of the science carried out in this country is a form of academic welfare, carried out in the sheltered workshops for the academically gifted. It works like this:

- spend a couple of months dreaming up how to get money from the ARC or the NHMRC. If it's medical research you'll find something that's already been researched to death and you'll put in for a grant to conduct a literature review.

- spend an other couple of months writing up a proposal

- spend 6 months waiting for a reply from the ARC or NHMRC

- spend a year conducting the experiments or collating the results of other people's research

- produce the biggest list of references in history to prove to the ARC of the NHMRC that you can read

- spend a couple of months writing it up and sending it off to a couple of journals.

- wait 6 months for an obscure African journal to publish it. Bathe in the glory and wait for the invitations to roll in.

- spend a few months swanning around the world staying in flash pubs giving poster presentations at conferences

- get a mate to invite you over to their place for a few months at his university's expense while you brown nose each other.

- Invite your mate over to your place for a couple of months at your university's expense. More brown nosing.

- prepare a joint proposal so you can fund trips back and forth until kingdom come.

Process completed with a letters to the Editor complaining government not putting enough money into research.
Posted by Frank_Blunt, Monday, 26 May 2008 11:30:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'The Australian government seems to credit only the very conservative end of climate scientists’ warnings, because it is acting as though we have many decades in which to adjust, and many years before anything serious needs to be under way.'

If Tim Flannery and his predictions are conservative then I would hate to see extreme. The man is deceived and unfortunately their are plenty of others who will cost the taxpayer millions who follow this rot in the name of science.
Posted by runner, Monday, 26 May 2008 12:35:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Right: except it's not about opinions, it's about evidence...

If you find it so boring, why clutter up discussion with a post like that?
Posted by Chade, Monday, 26 May 2008 12:41:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You camp followers who are so free with your opinions, why don't you at least have the guts to come out from behind your silly pseudonym masks and back your opinions with your real name?
Posted by Geoff Davies, Monday, 26 May 2008 1:14:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now there's a challenge Geoff.

But I would have said that using real names would lead to a more mature, less abusive debating style!

There is nothing wrong with opinions, OLO is titled 'Online Opinion' after all. Opinions are as important as facts.

The history of humankind is a history of dialectic contest between opposites. In fact that is how our parliaments and courts are set up. Even our sporting contests. There are probably better ways to advance society, but it seems that that is the way of we humans.

Hopefully, between all the hubhub comes a resolution of sorts. An evolution if ideas. Human culture is incredibly resilient, it doesn't like to change. Challenging the status quo brings on resistance. That's natural. If the challenge has legitimacy it wears down ignorant resistance. That all takes time. It takes millions of conversations.

If we appreciate pluralistic democracy then we should appreciate the diverse opinions that people hold and strive to make debates as constructive and mature as possible.

The volatile climate debate that is happening should be happening. It is going on in all parts of the world right now. Elaborate, endless debates are frustrating for those who seen an urgency for action, but there is no way to short circuit culture change. People have to own it.
Posted by gecko, Monday, 26 May 2008 2:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well who didn’t see this coming? Geoff is not interested in the climate message but the climate messenger. It only confirms AGW as political manipulation rather than being about proper science. i.e. There are hateful people who will threaten or attack you simply for who you are not what you say.

Geoff's point about "gutless" people hiding behind pseudonyms is crude, aggressive and desperate. As a nobody poster here on OLO i may even need to work harder to establish credibility rather than relying on credentials if this was a matter of importance. In my case identity isn't because the argument/opinion should be able to stand on its own merit if it makes sense.

Unfortunately what Geoff proves is that a person with a frothing delusion like this is absolutely convinced that the delusion is real when you want to be the weather maker. Who you are or think you are is of little relevance when it comes to earth's climate because our largest plasma discharge formation the sun and our galactic environment don’t go to the ballotbox and vote on anything because it doesn't care. When it comes to earth’s climate we are just a petite faaart in a hurricane not the hurricane itself.

One may suggest to Geoff to forget the politics and this outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen ........... else proper science will become the true casualty.
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 26 May 2008 2:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Geoff's opinon piece just needs a couple of words added to it...Why listen to scientists (like me)?

Group think is such an ugly process.
Posted by alzo, Monday, 26 May 2008 3:36:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, where are you citations and scientific papers?

You never provide any.

In another thread you called wikipedia, "wicked", whilst ignoring the several hundred or so citations from a huge variety of souces on an article I linked to. In fact you dismissed them out of hand.
Posted by Steel, Monday, 26 May 2008 4:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science is a generic-lable

The delusion that-all called science has-been peer-revieuwed ,is pure fantasy ,much-that-passes for peer-revieuw is-via-a-boys-club of secrecy-and-comercial-confidentiality.

That science is based on-fact is-a further delusion, the usual-way is to come-up-with a theory ,then-compare-the theory to-a placebo[ie-is my-theory better-than-nothing?

It-then enters the realm-of-accounting [not-for any-other-reason than to-prove-their point [let-me try-to prove my-point

First-the science needs-to-be funded ,[yes-its bleeding obvious science-needs-huge-ammounts-of-money] ,so-we have-to get-funds , but-from-who?

Medicine-funding can-only-come-via the drug cartels ,

[who dont want a cure , but a-steady-income from a pill or potions that-needs-to-be-taken-regularilly [to supress the-symptom, but preferable dosnt kill the cash cow and its income stream by giving us a cure]
Plus-they-get-a-nice-govt-CHECK-for-their-coorperate-WELL-fair?

So we-come-to where we-now-are ,you can-only get funding to-studdy those present fields to [not]find a cancer-cure,

not the-ones that-get rid of it[ie-THE-ONES-THAT_cure-it]
[thus-THE-hemp cure wont-get funded [reiches harmonics cure wont-get-funded,
even vitamin D cure-for-cancer WONT-GET-FUNDED.

[cause-its-so-darn-profitable-when-the-patient-dies and leaves-their -whole-estate-''to-find-a-cure-.[you-just-feel-you-died-for-a-good-reason
[even_IF_IT_IS_A_LIE}

If by-chance govt does-think to-fund it , it-will only-be under the supervision of science 'peers],[former-lobbiest-approved-industry-approved-shrills
[who most-likely will have been trained what is the go and what-is the no-go so-far-as origonal-research allowed shall-be

THen we come to university funding , the oil-buisness gets-involved with-a-grant
[is-even allowed to-set-the training adjenda ,and training curriculum ,
[then-the graduates all-parrot the oil-lobby-line ,thus has science become poluted.

Then we-come-to-the other invalid sciences [evolution ,for egsample [this-is-dispite no-science having EVER , even replicated a single evolution into a neo [new] species,

[mutating-a-plastic-eating-bacteria-isnt-by-science-act-but-by-natures-chance-discoveries,BUT_ITS_STILL_A_BACTERIA.

nor-even-been able to replicate even its own cell membrane ,sure it involves itself with other real sciences , but science is repeatable [or it aint science

We then-come to-the earth sciences [we-have a theory of continental plates [60 miles or so thick ], that supposedly run over and under each other , dispite not having 60 mile-high mountains [wethering-can-only-e-weather-down-rock-so-far]

we-have science calling fossil-fuel, yet it more correctly would-be algae fuel ,

There is a peer group of delusional nurds who think they are being scientific in fooling children with pretty graphs and charts then sending these into the world with unquestioning faith in science.

Yet-what-of medicine that-has antibiotic resistance because-no payed study is-allowed-on phages
Posted by one under god, Monday, 26 May 2008 6:23:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It can be shown by Thermodynamic Endpoint Analysis and a process of mathematical convergence that people, who in this era cling to the notion of THEIR right to have children and grandchildren, have prepared for global WAR.

The attitude of exclusionism by AGW supporters on this forum seems trite, but in reality is getting close to something less savoury. AGW-supremacists must know by now that every one of the 6 billion people on the planet have the same goals of having 'better' children who will eugenically take over the planet. Backpedalling to hide this ugliness is seen in shallow denials and evasions of the right to children and in support for unsustainable hypotheses like AGW, and renewable energy(all based on oil). The theory is, if the general populace is worried about bogus concerns they won't panic about imminent global war.

The direct conflict of this 'What About My Children(WAMC)' stance and the Thermodynamic chaos that ensues from it are 'calculable'. Make no mistake. Humans are the greatest threat to humans, not climate change and certainly not an untestable hypothesis like AGW.

By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach two billion(2Billion!), essentially deleting 16 Americas from the number of people alive today. Those dead billions won't care but the two billion living will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, thermodynamics and biology predict disease,. famine and warfare will be the preeminent concerns.

What we are doing here is examining efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits but is the INTENTION of human affairs really to seek balance or supremacy-at-any-cost.

The thing about thermodynamics in human affairs is that it is a two edged sword. The very same quantum leaps of consciousness to destrauction that history has recorded and that awaits us in this era are also available to propel human civilisation to the stars. Thermodynamics doesn't stop outside the calorimeter or the laser. It permeates our very existence. Its up to us in very simple GEOTHERMAL & One-Child choices which side of the quantum sword we wish to choose.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 26 May 2008 6:41:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science has been under attack lately, presumably because people don't like where it leads. A timely article.

Some of the responses demonstrate what it's up against.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 26 May 2008 6:50:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that the votaries of the global warming DELUGE, like Clive Hamilton and Geoff Davies, have disrobed themselves of their scientific mantles and donned upon their heads the hoods of the Spanish Inquisition. Anyone who is not a CONFORMIST to the conventional wisdom of global warming is a “denialist” and “contrarian” and deserves like the heretics the burning heat of the stake. Only conformists are destined to enter the garden of Eden of the Rousseuan state of nature that the supporters of climate change espouse.

Dr. Davies, parroting Clive Hamilton, puts a lot of emphasis on the peer review process. Two weeks ago 31,000 American scientists signed a petition contesting and repudiating the findings of their other scientists confreres who argue the perils of AGE. Did they do this without also being under the peer review process of their scientific colleagues?

http://daringoutlook.blogspot.com
Posted by Themistocles, Monday, 26 May 2008 7:39:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All I cn say is that I have read Geoff's book Economia: New Economic Systems To Empower People and Support the Living World.

It is easily one of the best books written on the relation between science, economics, and culture.

Geoff has done his homework.

One endorsement puts it thus:

"Imagine a much more equal and inclusive society than we have now. It has old-fashioned family values, solid local communities, and full employment in an efficient and sustainable market economy with a debt-free money supply and no executive plunder.
Impossible? Perhaps.
But Geoff Davies project is distinguished by such common sense, HARD SCIENCE, practicality, surprise, fine writing and expert contempt for orthodox economics, that its a joy to read for visionaries and sceptics alike".

By comparison the stuff that the IPA promotes via its various propaganda front groups is tacky third rate group-think---its so called sceptics who are really the most blinkered and dim-witted true believers.
Posted by Ho Hum, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:58:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STEVEN L MEYER :)

you said:

<<"However science has built in quality control mechanisms that make it a more reliable source of information than anything else we have.">>

From a human perspective, leaving aside the issue of 'inspiration'.. I hope one day, you look more closely at those same 'mechanisms' on which our text of scripture is based.

LISTEN TO SCIENTISTS? umm.. which ones? Those who are desperate for funding, and who will seek to portray their 'work' in as positive a light as possible, to attract new funding?

Or those who have built a reputation on a particular experimental outcome, and who's very life depends on the continuation of such a direction.... and who (surprise surprise) would be very defensive of that position even in spite of evidence to the contrary?

Aaah yes.. the cool fresh air of 'scientific objectivity' :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 8:20:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not surprised that antagonistic responders can't proffer a better solution on how to disseminate science to the general public.

Most posters here have shown they are incapable of engaging in constructive debate.

They just argue for the sake of argument, regardless of what is generally accepted by people with more expertise in a particular field than them.

No wonder it's getting hard to recruit people into the sciences - and no wonder it is difficult for scientists to share their findings in the public domain.

We can see in this OLO thread the resultant witch-burning - scientists are damned if they do and they are damned if they don't.

Ho Hum, the book is very good. However, not many here would read it - I think you would understand why.
Can you think of a better way to share the science? I may be wrong, but I am interpreting people not responding to this simple question as them thinking there is no better way than the IPCC process.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 8:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm hearing the spin from my Windows
I'm seeing the pain pound the sea
My feet have come loose from their scientific moorings
I'm feeling quite wonderfully free
And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Riad tonight
I probably won't fly down to Riad
But then again We just might

There's wings to the thought behind Children
The Pauli Exclusion's at play
And dancing to rhythms of Abrams
Puts the laughter Children at bay
And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Riad tonight
I probably won't fly down to Riad
But then again We just might

(Spoken:)

'This is the first call for Flight 77 to Riad Saudi Arabia
Now boarding at Gate 17, this is the first call'

I feel such a sense of well-being
The problems have come to be solved
And what I thought was proper for mankind
I see now is proper for War
And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Riad tonight
I probably won't fly down to Riad
But then again We just might

And I think I will travel to Riad
Using Globemasters for flight
There's only oil I know of in Riad
And it's something worth engaging in fight
It's only a whimsical notion
To fly down to Rio tonight
I probably won't fly down to Rio
But then again We just might

Rio? Why Rio?
Not Rio dummy
Riad, Riad Saudi Arabia
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 9:13:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel you ask for "citations and scientific papers" which is fair enough because we should start with our best information by trying to forget all the opinions. This is not easy. However, OLO is simply a forum for people's opinions based on some awareness of information. Awareness now is a unique characteristic of our lives, not so much because of how much knowledge there is and isn't, but because of how many people are becoming involved in its production. Interestingly with the evolution of the www, it's not just people finding information so much as it's about people finding people. For myself, I've found i'm starting to pay more attention to the illogics in information where there is a need to look at it consciously and try to drill down into it because one thing always leads to another.

In Geoff's article he expresses his opinion about alarmist arctic icemelts. i.e. Here we have a scientist who is demanding respect for the work of scientists but his one proof in this article for AGW is false and doesn't reference historical process. In fact, in these areas the ice extent is as much a measure of sea and wind conditions as it is temperature. The Arctic last year had a high pressure event that created a rather large patch of clear sky, hence more sunlight absorbed to heat the ocean and less ice. Not all that unusual as the complex systems in higher latitudes adjust to an eventual cooling phase. Meanwhile at the same time the antarctic had record high icecover. These are vast complex freezing systems that need to be understood historically and half a degree rise in global temperature would have no alarmist effect.
Go to these primary sources and check.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:13:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With a grain of salt:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48489/story.htm
Posted by Damir, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:17:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, I'm going to focus on this as there is no discussion i've seen. From a logical basis, this part of your comment is flawed, for example. The people behind the research on climate change do climate *modelling*, using statistical, probability and mathematics, as well as field data. They use scientific method for asserting their claims. They do not simply watch the sky/pressure system and make a conclusion like a weatherman as you have apparently done.

Keiran>"The Arctic last year had a high pressure event that created a rather large patch of clear sky, hence more sunlight absorbed to heat the ocean and less ice. Not all that unusual as the complex systems in higher latitudes adjust to an eventual cooling phase."

And high pressure events have probably been happening for decades. For your comment to be worth something, the "high pressure event" and simultaneous dissipation of ice from the arctic to such large and rapid degrees should show some corellation and fit in with climate models.

Those graphs you provided are not scientific papers and you provide no explanation for them.

You also did not explain why you dismissed the hundreds of citations included in the wikipedia article i linked to (in another thread) with such foolish ease and arrogance.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 7:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel, we can all form opinions and OLO is interesting because it attracts a wide range of personal views or funny stuff to contemplate. In most respects i try to read into people's opinions to see where they are coming from because for all perceptual, emotional, and behavioral purposes, people in fact can live in quite different realities. It is not unusual for different groups to be psychologically unable to draw compatible conclusions from the same representation or fact.

However, because the state of existence is a logical one, intelligence of any type cannot develop without primary factual information. When i say find first and ye shall seek it means just state the role of bringing your mind and perception as close as possible to the apprehension of the physical reality we all inhabit ... i.e. the world that IS. When it comes to the nature of reality, if we want truth, we absolutely must not preconceive or follow opinions but just open our eyes, our minds and OBSERVE.

Before "citations and scientific papers" full of opinions i tend to want the raw data with its context to see for myself what is happening. I'm essentially a visual person with a bit of love for forensic investigation. Many of my bookmark urls are as reliable as i can find, data sources. Cripes, i'd be broke and penniless in the gutter if i simply was not able to do my own homework but relied like yourself on the mixed assumptions of tipsters, modelers, "researchers", con artists, spivs, propagandists, worshippers, even scientists, etc. The fact is that AGW is a paradox and you only get a paradox through incorrect assumptions.

Incidentally i did explain your wicked pedia worship as mere reinterpretations and as such biased.
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 9:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Valid, Dr Davies, but my cynic says naive too. The hardest working AGW 'sceptics' well know their partiality and pretenses, yet show if anything renewed vigour as the disasterous evidence of warming accumulates. Who benefits from the market in denial - only some of the most lucrative businesses on the planet, mere shortsighted selfishness will see us done.
Posted by Liam, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 11:14:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must say I find it amazing that Geoff (Geoff who?) sees fit to give a patronising lecture on scientific method to Don Aitken, the foundation chair of the Australian Research Council.

Aitken's point is precisely that the science is not monolithic. There is a dominant group of scientists and another group who take issue with the dominant group. Every point in Aitken's paper is supported in the literature.

On Geoff's clincher, the extent of sea-ice, we need to look at the evidence without preconceptions. For example, the Southern Hemisphere sea-ice anomaly is currently at its highest level since 1978: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

Global sea-ice anomaly peaked in January and has now fallen back to the mean for the same time-period: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg.

So while the Arctic is still down, we need to look at the whole picture to see what is going on, and the whole picture doesn't support Geoff's alarm.
Posted by Michael T, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Aitken's point is precisely that the science is not monolithic. There is a dominant group of scientists and another group who take issue with the dominant group."

And thank god for that. Science fails society when it ceases to question its own results.

However, the portrayal of sceptics and their motives is mean and tricky, and clearly intended to detract from good science for the benefit of those who profit from ignoring environmental responsibility.

As Garry Newsam wrote in the Higher Education supplement of the Australian today:

"In religion and philosophy, orthodoxy is an accepted faith or set of beliefs... In contrast, all scientists are sceptics by profession, thus in science "orthodoxy" is the accepted consensus that no one has yet found a rational argument to improve or refute. This does not mean it is the ultimate truth, but until good arguments are put forward for change, it is where a rational person puts their money.

To confuse these meanings and imply that climate science is a religion while those that question it are enlightened, rational thinkers is a deliberate abuse of language and an insult to the scientists who have worked hard to establish the present baseline of knowledge, however imperfect that might be."
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We-have-been-promised-a-pig but-gotten-a-mad-cow,

That science has-all-the-answers is-a-thing taught-us-as-children ,IT-is a complete-deception ,like santa-clause.

As-children we-are unquestionably-informed-of how-great-science is [on-tv we-have the white-robed-high-priests-of-science telling us about whiter-white ][or the benefits of this or that tooth-brush or tooth-paste ,or this breakfast-cerial or this latest science-fad]

Its all part of the dumming-down process , conducted by dumbing-down education ,and-using-the-mind-numbing-media to con [neo=-con] us-all

[does science base its 'science on fact'[then how-come different interpritations based on the same facts suport such divergent theories]
or those-who-de-base it or-support-it-according-to who pays them to study it
what?.

These-same scien-trysts for-hire made aids from monkey-virus in the name of curing polio
[which one was worse

[it tells us mercury-in-fish-is-bad [but mercury-in-compulsory-child-hood-vacine is god[good][that mercury is-causing add ,and imbisility is not provable linkage]

This faux science-sellout tells-us gmo is safe , despite infertility problems being apparent to-those feeding gm corn to-their-beasts, but no-one will-pay for that-study
[indeed mon-satan-o hushes-it-up]

How far will we let these colluding sell-outs sell-out humanity [the research methodology behind the study-of-hemp [marijuana alone reveals the collusion

[ie no-studdy-allowed , and if one is permitted it-must-use-that dope as-supplied by the-one-agency-allowed to supply-it

[hemp-is-time-sensitive
its-t.h.c breaks-down
via-a three-stage-process]

[so giving old,-new or-strong or-weak pure or-adulterated is-a precondition-controlled-by the-us-drug-szar

But leave-that-aside

[we-hear science-reports-on-brain-damage [caused-by feeding 30 joints via-a-face-mask
..taped-to-the face of 7 monkies for 5 minutes
3 died from-this abuse in the 5 minutes, thatof-the-smoke-from-the 'joint-murder-machine' which-pumped-pure-concentrated-smoke-into-their-masks
[but all-had-brain-damage [go figure , try-holding-ya-breath for 5-minutes]

[But-do-tell me scien-trusts?,

did-they-get brain-damage from the-dope or the oxegen-starvation for 5 minutes?[yeah-iknow-its-a-debatable-point]

it-dosnt-even rate a response
[but media will-quote its-result [but-not the methodology]

All negative-studies on hemp use-simular flawed [scientific-?-methodoligy]

yet-its all-science

[All-sold to us as-fact

[the-latest new-zealand 'study''
didnt-even have dope-mokers in it!

[its-results are-based on pre-egsisting-conditions
[yet -his science-farce-goes-on ]

Stop this-generic-science is-good-IS-cccrappp

[which-science
[which-scientist]
which-studdy

[you-claim-all science-is-good
[i tar it-all with-the insane [same ] brush]

its so-controlled by-those seeking-the brand-of-science to decieve the-people so-as-to be-all totally-fraud

How-good the-science-that builds buildings [911] that fall-down?

[building 7 never-got-hit by a damm plane]but-media [and-science-silence lets-the dumbing-down lead-the-sheep into-armogeddon

[faith-in-faulse-gods of zion-tryst's indeed]
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 1:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael T

If you put energy into a system, the system tries to adjust or equilibrate.
For example, a warming atmosphere contains more moisture. This moisture must precipitate out as rain or snow. The NH has a lot of land mass, the SH much less. Regionally, the Arctic is warming at a much faster rate than the Antarctic (as the Inuits living on melting permafrost will attest).

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html

I agree that we do need to look at the evidence without preconceptions (it would help if people are familiar with the science, but most are not). However, too many people have preconceptions based on ideological perspective – evidenced in the stoush between ‘humanities’ and the ‘natural sciences’, as we see between Aitken and Davies.

You may not agree with Davies, but that does not make the science wrong. Geoff Davies is alarmed because of what the science is telling him/us.

There is a vast preponderance of scientific evidence and literature that have led to countries’ concerns the world over. They are not debating the science; they are debating how to deal with the problems of global warming in a diverse econometric and political framework.

This is where Aitken could really contribute, but he can’t or he won’t – preferring to ‘stir the pot’ in the popular media and on blogspots. Aitken calls for a Royal Commission on Climate Change – this is totally myopic – we already have an ongoing world-wide commission, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 2:28:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, if an AGWer said that the sky was blue, I feel i'd go out and check. Is that a preconception?

This report suggests that there was less ice in the arctic in august 1922 than there was during the so called ‘record setting’ melt of 2007. Was this one in 1922 a first breath of warm CO2 passing from the lips of an early AGWer AND that AGW started much sooner than originally thought? Cripes we have 5 minutes to act. lol
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

OR

Even back to the time of Captain Cook with ...... the opening of the Northwest Passage?
The Letters of Sir Joseph Banks: A Selection, 1768-1820
http://books.google.com/books?id=_-5rQMHKLi8C&pg=PA334&dq=%22the+cold+that+has+for+centuries+past+enclosed+the+seas%22&sig=_9Iyy4d8NVxnctLuL-rwQXMJcPE#PPA334,M1
Look for letter 132.

Cripes the pollen is bursting, the critters are stirring, the buds are swelling, we live in unprecedented times. ..... the biologists are getting worried. e.g. "The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast,” Stanford University biologist Terry Root. Cripes Run for your lives! lol
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 8:19:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran
I think it’s great you have found a library on the internet … or was it ‘misinformed spin’ from a so called ‘denialist’ blog web site? No matter.

Unfortunately, you do not apply the principles of scientific enquiry (which you clearly would like to emulate with your erudite but flawed cosmic ray, solar irradiance and sun-spot musings). You continually take things out of context, either wilfully or in ignorance.

Keiran, you are demonstrating preconceived bias (that’s ok, you have not been trained in science) but just because you found an 86 year old weather report does not change the facts.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/14/3/pdf/i1520-0442-14-3-255.pdf

This is no preconception … go and check (I mean really check) all you like. Try and understand the abstract, look at the graphs and put 1922 in perspective, read the conclusion and check out the references (which are primary sources, not like your “primary sources” given to Steel).
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:00:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YES Science is about OBSERVATIONS. But you have to test the bloody things. AGW won't be testable for over 50 years and statistical modelling is flawed by the adage "lies, damn-lies and statistics".

ITM anomalies exist, both cooling and warming.

The science of climate is governed strictly by Thermodynamics. One observation we can test is the disasterous effect of staggering increases in thermodynamic wastes(solids,liquis&gases) emitted by humans. This is roughly 6.5billion times the average-PCF(per capita carbon-footprint). To just register gases is a huge flaw in the IPCC modelling & ruins the IPCC 'cut-CO2-for-insurance' cries as they should be saying the same thing about landfill and sewage.

Now the best way to deal with 6.5 billion carbon-footprints is to legislate people have no more than one child per woman. At least this ensures all thermodynamic wastes(TW) are capped at today's levels. That is the proper insurance for sustainable climate on ALL available observations.

The reason why this is not done is best summed up by an American comment about SUV's: "You'll have to prise my dead hands off the steering wheel before I will give it up". This is nojoke. And I suggest that women and their opportunity beaus are taking the exact same attitude to having children. Perhaps it goes like this: Women-"You will never have sex again if you think you can stop me having kids" and Men-"You will have to prise her dead hands off my c##k before I will give up sex. So don't mess with me, she can have all the kids she wants and I will kill for that right".

Continued..
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continuing..

So OBSERVATION is showing its not fossil fuels that are the problem. The problem is OUR re-production of carbon footprints. And quite frankly only war will take those hands off their beloved objects of affection and lust.

Strangely enough when her lawyer takes his woman and 2/3 of everything he owns he just rolls over like a puppy.
Are people OBSERVING the real problem now? . Its not carbon we have to cap. Its CHILDREN! And again observation of China shows remarkable growth and prosperity from one-chld policy and with 1-child there is less chance of her lawyer taking YOU to the cleaners.

The bias is not in the science. Its just well ... I am not a mysogynist but women are the problem. And that girly Rudd and Iemma are just feather-nesting & poncing with child friendly policy and immigration. They know or Ought to know they are the culprits in climate problems & shortages of oil, water, fisheries and food. Because they are too drunk on power and post-office-kickbacks & too weak or stupid to cease frameworking for more footprints.

So why us with the one-child policy? Why not the rest of the world?

It has to start somewhere and OBSERVATION shows our leaders are always telling us we are world morality leaders. Like our freedom&democracy fighting in Iraq or our opera house or our million and one other clever country ego trips. So there is precedent for Australia doing its bit with a 1-child policy.

However when it REALLY counts about whether we live or die over imminent wars for oil and climate catastrophes, OBSERVATION tells us our leaders are out to lunch or on the nest.

It is worth noting that science does not end at politics or human affairs. Perhaps the most important scientific OBSERVATIONS for our long term survival and that of our CHILD, are in those domains.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:57:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DEAR q+a you asked for other ideas
ok try these bro

clearly big BUISNESS lobby is paid to stay on top of this info
to ridicule it where they can
or suppress it where they cant

but for the alternative [free] energy
is based on science that your regular scientists are forbidden to explore
that of which you speak is thus unspeakable
so
try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykGZ2tRY4kY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ulOvJl46U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqBWk9YRu7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czZ9kn70Y7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8LaVH-pn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZR4C9gqOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrDdJotz0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Lnhs7caCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-O7WNvKSvY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMcBHGMZzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCjM-ZOqQF0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTr3ZgKwsiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXv6sO52xFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAiTv0IpHWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FhADUZjx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLev-ijMLME

as to how try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21D3ATgMHuE
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=zp_XHfylwPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4RZqQujqDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YnnTzyidNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGhPgEDcKXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v76amxA9x1cA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uTy9Uq0K0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSBxEZoNfQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_APNsERXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqw59XfG04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLR7-jdF3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14yDP0GKrUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muQRIUVd6Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kp24ZeHtv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_MHVw1Zz-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzUNDaF00U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9MQ88NEO7Q

well we could nationalise 'big oil [and big pharma [then join the suppressed research to gether [AND HEAL THE WORLD}
but we wont [cant] cause we arnt allowed to see the big picture
[cause of privatised proffit's]

noting we are spending billions subsidising these multinationals with our taxes [all ready ]

billions spent pills and potions that dont cure us
[are owned by the same cartel's]

[and are making us sicker ,by treating the symptom
[BUT NEVER cure THE DISEASE]
why
because they have an active lobby
have bought out govt
and

they CAN pay BLOGGERS to blog
[and to rubbish any one trying to reveal the truth]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 29 May 2008 8:16:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why listen to scientists?

Subtext - why not ignore them.

For the same reasons you do or dont listen to anyone.

You are free to speak.
Sometimes its hard not to hear it as noise.
But you arent obligated to listen.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 29 May 2008 3:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, my last post was a bit of tongue in cheek if you didn't realise. Sorry if it stirred you up a bit but it did ask the question "Was this one in 1922 a first breath of warm CO2 passing from the lips of an early AGWer?".

I can only say no because if we look at your referenced scientific report for the far north Atlantic ice extent we see that most of the 33% reduction variation over 1860 to 2000 actually occurred from 1860 to 1940. This makes sense with the natural historical temperature up trend basically coming out of the Little Ice Age.

Again looking at your referenced scientific report, since 1940 (i.e. the three first graphs) there is a slight trend to less sea ice based on April. The Eastern Area from 1920 to 2000 is practically flat/trendless so it is yourself that should put 1922 in perspective. This is as expected and there is no way you or anyone else can slot CO2 emissions into that trend.

Are you not just a tad naive when you suggest context, abstraction and preconceived bias? The 1922 newspaper article can hardly be called "misinformed spin" because it was observed but if you put a different date on it like 2008 with little editing it would be practically identical to the spin we hear today. i.e. Geoff or the ABC 'Corse my mention of Sir Joseph Banks would be a tad abstract to AGWers because he was hoping to find the NW Passage open which eventually brought Captain Cook undone. You will find context mentioned many times in my posts ..... sea and wind conditions, temperature, high pressure events, clear sky and albedo, etc, in complex freezing systems as historically/global i.e. antarctic
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 29 May 2008 9:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god

Wow ... you have been busy! Looked at some ... brings back memories and really stirs the neurones. Thanks.
Will be off-line till next week when I hope to get back to you.
Question: If you have 2 movable points at opposite ends of a straight line, where on that line do you think they can join as one under "God"?
____________

Keiran

I admire your tenacity, and thirst for knowledge.
You ask some very pertinent questions, raise some very good points and are sometimes off-the-planet ... some of which I can answer, some bettered answered by others. Either way, I will give some thought to a response and get back next week.

In the mean time ... maybe Geoff Davies would like to make comment?
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 29 May 2008 10:58:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All scientists need to be listened to but

All scientists are also men and women with feet of clay and

some scientists have

Suggested that AGW needs to be curtailed, without knowing if it really influences anything at all.

And other scientists told us

Thalidomide was good

Lead in petrol is a good thing

DDT cures all ills

Butter bad, Margarine Good (and forty years on, oops, transfats not so good)

All scientists need to be listened too and all scientists need to be scrutinized.

They need to be scrutinized particularly when the action they promote to resolve what they think, but cannot prove, is happening

will radically influence the life quality of every one on earth,

particularly those of the developed nations, who will be taxed for carbon emissions under a “Socialism by Stealth” arrangement to diminish individual rights in the name of governments.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 29 May 2008 11:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear q+a
re question ;

If you have 2 movable points at opposite ends of a straight line,
where on that line do you think they can join as one under "God"?

the imediate reply is in the middle
but
you dont say in which direction they are moving or able to move[together or appart]
[one direction or any[of own volition or by some controling law

or if the line is level or inclined so they are stationary or both falling left or right

then if they are moving of their own violition do they [or are they capable of meeting
or if they are capable of moving to a set middle point to join
[one could have the same polarity as the other which means they would naturally repel each other

in short there are too many variables that are unstated [thus unkown]
____________
say we are talking about believers [they could be believing in divergent beliefs in god,
or one is athiest ,and the other believer ,
that can only meet in a time where the truth become undenyable

further no distance is given [if infinate even moving they would [could never meet]

then are we talking about sold out sciene types and those observing pure science
or politics where the elites have it all
or law where justice depends on who has the best lawyer[and barrister ] or the right judge

i wont even get into dimensions ,or quantum mechanics
but i guess the easy reply is they can only meet in the middle
Posted by one under god, Friday, 30 May 2008 9:12:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because we spend our lives continually immersed in cause and effect situations we hold fast to a belief in causalty. We are all scientists is some respect. But when we cannot continue to seek answers, sometimes because there are none that we can prove or we want to remain ignorant, we tend to say that some effects may not have material causes, i.e. indeterminism. For this reason I go with determinism and on the balance of probabilities I’m prepared to assume that we evolved miraculously like everything else. It would be an even more extraordinary notion to the point of pure absurdity that life was somehow created separately from evolution and then allowed to evolve or even quite absurdly never evolve.

I might add that I prefer a new understanding of determinism, where determinism encourages us to seek answers and knowledge, while indeterminism says there are none and maintains ignorance. I may also say that determinism and indeterminism both seem necessary to our survival BUT there needs to be a connection and it is this connection/relationship "line" that counts. BUT do you think someone’s all-powerful teddy (god) has confiscated it?
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 30 May 2008 10:41:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ke-iran
your use of words confuses me
determisim[= having-determined-a-cause?]

non? [indetermism]
[no-decern-able ;cause?]

thus your statement;

>>'I-may-also-say that determinism and indeterminism both-seem necessary-to-our-survival BUT-there-needs to-be a-connection <<

I agree every cause has an action/o\ reaction ,

[i feel science logic is based on it] thus they have the THEORY of evolution
[even hypothitysing on the creation of the first cell, [dispite never via science replicating it] ,nor indeed confirming their natural selection evolution-THEORY into a new species.]

natural selection actually induces species stasis [arround its wild type speci genus genomic complimment according to its speci type]

but human cause [ie human selection has 'created' expression of species genomic variation ,
but all yet within it specie genome boundries

[witness the divergent breed in dogs , cats , cattle ,live stock poultry]
yet each breed of chicken is yet a chicken [or a duck , or a cow etc]

If my definitions at the top are correct every 'thing' has an underlying 'cause' ,
nothing could egsist sans a cause ,

the universe itself is said to be 'caused ' by god saying be [or the big bang] depending if your theist or athiest.

i agree with your statement >>]and-it-is-this-connection/relationship-"line"-that-counts.<<

that life alone can make life ?
that 'life' cannot spontainiously-appear sans logical-reason?

>>BUT-do-you-think-someone’s-all-powerful-teddy-(god)-has-confiscated-it?'<<
If you mean caused us?
[yes i do ]
life breathed life into the dust

[god is logus that created life [sustained by the light]

even you and i were 'breathed' [aspirated] as a 'living' sperm ,that our mothers caused to become [grow] us

ie we live because our parents [ie our cause] did live before us
i write be-cause you wrote

we write be-cause words devel-oped through time
[but that all decended into our minds via various 'causes']

ok it is not for us to know what 'cause ' caused 'god' but he is eternal [allways was [allways will be ]

thus him alone would need no 'cause' because every thing has to have an absolute definative cause [even ; indeterminism thus has its cause ]
Posted by one under god, Friday, 30 May 2008 11:40:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff, the glaring problem in Australia is that there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of carbon guilt, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue.

Go to Australia's tax funded national broadcaster the ABC, and you will see that it disgracefully fails to report proper science because all it offers is a sneak view into the madness, power, politics, funding and control of the global warming industry which is best understood as a religious calling.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

This “Professor Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator" is an inexorable and schemingly designed piece of propaganda targeting young impressionable minds. It crudely promotes the worship of a fictional view of life with the monstrous lie that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. This is a paradox and when you find every paradox you also find incorrect assumptions.

It is now not education at the ABC because it is deceptive, ugly, damaging, indoctrination and a place where young people learn to be stupid and get proselytised by being relieved of their commonsense.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 1 June 2008 12:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly, AGW has spilled over into circles with little, if any, knowledge and experience in science and its methods.
Also sadly, many scientists and related professionals (mostly in US) fell for entirely non-scientific sentiment.
Scientists should be aware that publishing unbalanced views WILL be used and abused. And this tarnishes the image and credibility of science.
Unbalanced views WILL be pointed at as “science” at will for totally unscientific purposes; ideological, economical… you name it. And this debate proves the point.
Posted by Damir, Monday, 2 June 2008 12:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's truly impressive that so many people have been conned into conflating corporate profit margins with scientific rationalism.

It's true that many "believers" in AGW are uninformed of the science underpinning it, but they ARE aware that a solid majority of relevant scientists confirm the existence of AGW.

Skeptics, on the other hand, are also mostly ignorant of the science, but they take the skeptical position because their preferred political parties - bankrolled by high-carbon-emmitting industries - tell them to.

I'll put my money with the underpaid scientists over the cash-deluged conservative think tanks.
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 2 June 2008 1:41:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god
Have been back since early in the week but curled up in a ball with a bad dose of food poisoning.

My question was to draw attention to the differences between things philosophical (race, culture, religion, politics, law, etc) and science – I think you have identified where I was coming from.

There are many issues that plague societies today and if we are to effectively address them we have to meet in the middle first, with mutual respect and a preparedness to listen and negotiate a sustainable outcome for the benefit of all – it may even culminate in moving towards the other end of the string.

In terms of the climate change debate, this is exactly what is happening in the forum of the UNFCCC. We have divergent parties that represent opposite ends of that straight line and as we have seen, some parties find it difficult to meet in the middle; they want it their way alone.

Science is different. It is not a religion, culture, law or economic paradigm. Outcomes are based on the probabilities of certain things happening – but it is not absolute. The Sun will probably rise tomorrow, but one day it won’t. In the context of the climate change debate, it is not about meeting in the middle. We have say 99% of scientists/scientific academies at one end of that string saying that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to life as we know it – but, it is not absolute.

In terms of Geoff Davies’ article, it never ceases to amaze me how those not trained in the specialities of science are prepared to dismiss the science as wrong.

In terms of my original post, those that have criticised the science (or the IPCC process) have not proffered any better way to disseminate the science to the general public. One has to question their motives.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 6 June 2008 7:54:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran,
You questioned the paper I linked to; contact the author (address in the paper). He can better answer you.

I think the ABC site was wrong in its caricature and have written hard copy to them, have you?

If you want to have more input, you should look at this site:

http://network.nature.com/boston/news/articles/2008/04/10/bringing-order-to-online-discussions-about-climate-change

It goes to the heart of my original post and while problematic (as Gavin Schmidt indicates) people like you would probably get some benefit out of the interaction.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 6 June 2008 7:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, your AGW is a paradox and you can only have a paradox if you adopt wrong assumptions. The facts are so obviously positive because CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients ... carbon is the building block of life. We see biomass is booming and our earth is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

From my perspective the question is why we can have so many poor sods infected with the AGW mind virus, a serious psychotic disorder of perception all frothing with delusion and false assumptions. Also, why should we be so damned respectful of this lying, superstitious belief with its weird respect for lazy minds living in ratbaggery? Are people just so naive or stooopid not to comprehend?

This ABC's “Professor Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator" effort is no surprise. It quite clearly exposes the underbelly of the AGW faith where it instructs the paradox that CO2 emissions are evil, when you should die, that you are not welcome to this world, that you are a burden until you die, that we are all guilty of this carbon sin, you should never use a car, never fly anywhere, use no energy, eat grass, etc. One of the weirdest notions promoted here is that in life we are allowed or given quotas for everything? Cripes this AGW is an extraordinary, twisted, religious playpen.

I find it hillarious that you mention this fool Gavin Schmidt from UNrealclimate as someone you respect. I'd say Q&A, that as a scientist the first rule is that you should not fool yourself but this Schmidt has easily found himself and cleverly attempts to fool others. Also i did not question the paper you linked to at all ..... merely interpreted their graphs and repeated some of their findings for your benefit. Comprehend?
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 7 June 2008 12:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Keiran.
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 7 June 2008 12:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients ... carbon is the building block of life"

But that's a matter of the Earth, the biosphere. I have no doubt that whatever we do, life on Earth will continue. Most likely humans also will continue.

It seems to me the question is whether our society/civilisation will survive. And I think there are many indications that our current system is not sustainable. AGW, if it exists, is just one symptom of that, but is the major symptom that has made it to public consciousness.

We can ignore (or debate without acting) what we are doing to the Earth until climate change destroys our society, or we can act now to change our society to one that suits both us and the Earth.
Posted by timbp, Saturday, 7 June 2008 7:17:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran
You've convinced me … you haven't a clue, you're wasted space and you're consuming more time than I am prepared to keep giving, bye-bye.

_______________________

timbp

An example of “ignoring or debating without acting”:-

In April last year the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Massachusetts vs the United States Environmental Protection Authority and determined that the USEPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles as a pollutant under the United States Clean Air Act, and must regulate under that law if the agency determines that CO2 emissions lead to an endangerment of public health or welfare.

Six months ago the USEPA informed the White House of its finding that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public welfare in the United States and, pursuant to that endangerment finding, proposed to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles.

Due to the Bush Administration’s deny, delay and obfuscate agenda, the EPA took no further action.

Three months ago, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman, Henry Waxman, wrote a letter …

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080312110250.pdf

… to the EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, citing information provided to the Committee by several senior EPA officials on how a major effort to comply with the Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs EPA had been, well … *blocked*.

The EPA “endangerment” document has not been released publicly.

However, a reading of the US Climate Change Science Program report, ‘The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States’

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm

… released on May 27, provides all the evidence that should be required in order to trigger significant steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,both through the Clean Air Act and via the implementation of emissions cap and trade legislation.

Two days ago we have a US Senate filibuster,

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-warming7-2008jun07,0,4903933.story

Now, whoever becomes the next US President, McCain (R) or Obama (D), neither intends to ignore/silence the scientists like Bush et al and the deny/delay brigade here on OLO.

For this I am cautiously optimistic, for the US, then China/India and the rest of world.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 8 June 2008 6:17:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, cannot differentiate climate change from pollution issues nor science from politics .... so it is not surprising he confuses fact from fiction because it doesn't matter. Facts have never mattered to the AGW believer but is this simple muddle-headedness or devious, deliberate manipulation? I suspect more the latter with this typical Professor Schpinkee statement of "you're wasted space".

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole AGW milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason, coupled with systematic manipulation in the media by fraudsters.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 8 June 2008 11:16:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah. The whole friggin' world's got it wrong.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 9 June 2008 12:16:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran “The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole AGW milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason, coupled with systematic manipulation in the media by fraudsters.”

I have said similar and have been confronted with the pretentious and arrogant assertions of my right to express a view by Q&A and his ilk.

Good work Keiran.

Stand up for what you believe, ultimately, your view is as valid as Q&As view and is likely better reasoned.

I still await for Q&A to evidence the “misguided” statements I have made and his acolytes claim I have supported cartels and when challenged, these men on mud are hosed away, like silt down the gutter.

Bennie “Yeah. The whole friggin' world's got it wrong.”

Well alot of kids with no arms or legs think the world, when lead by “scientists”, got it wrong over thalidomide.

The issue of supposed AGW, even if it were established (distinct from natural GW or merely the figment of bodgy modeling) is too important to be left to a bunch of scientific ego-maniacs to decide.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 9 June 2008 10:35:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not going to play your inane "bait and switch" games Col Rouge.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:05:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A “I am not going to play your inane "bait and switch" games Col Rouge.”

Ah Q&A, talking down to we common fellows, from your lofty academic . . . . loft.

Well in making your post, you have already played it.

But that you have neither the tenacity or wit to playon simply means you default the match.

I guess it is now away from the real world and back to the cloisters, where you can contemplate your elevation, some day in the future.

Tell me what is someone who describes themselves as “nearing status emeritus” apart from, obviously not “emeritus”?
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:33:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread asks ... why listen to scientists? Well here is a home grown group of scientists that helps to provide the answer. Read this article in the SMH and see how this AGW crowd are shifting from temperature to environment alarm in a typically mindless religious mode.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/06/1212259115421.html?feed=fairfaxdigitalxml

There are those people, naive or otherwise, who accept these public pronouncements because they have great trust in science and scientists ... particularly home grown scientists connected to the CSIRO. From my perspective this is as good an example to highlight what i call "this whole AGW milieu as a contrived and twisted unreason, coupled with systematic manipulation in the media by fraudsters.” In this case we see that scientists can be just as venal as anyone else in the community when it comes to seeking funding.

e.g. Get a junior "scientist" to weigh the shell of a tiny sea snail and hold her breath, then exclaim "Wow, what is going on?" Then in comes her collaborator, one Dr Will Howard, to convene an extraordinary meeting of 50 of Australia's leading marine scientists. Then promote the acidification of our oceans threat. Then it moves to human CO2 emissions as the culprit. Then it is all dramatic anxieties of time running out, delicate hotspots, krill and whales, acidification and more acidification,, , etc with immeasurable consequences.

It is not difficult to see this as deliberately misleading and alarmist. With seawater having a pH of around 8.1, it would take a monstrous amount of CO2 to move it anywhere near a neutral pH of 7 let alone to get to acidic levels less than 7. With the pre-industrial atmospheric C02 at 335ppm and todays’ level at 390ppm we get an increase of about 55ppm, or a 16.4% increase in C02, about 1/2 what the alarmists claim. If our contribution is 3% and half is what gets absorbed into oceans then its effect is meaningless.

These are pseudo-scientists behaving fraudulently. Also, if young Donna Roberts should actually be allowed to do proper science she will find the real wow factor.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 12:25:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...and asbestos and n-bombs and Vioxx and combustion engines and countless other technologies, Kieran. There are many contributors to human suffering but I suggest the main one is the pursuit of $.

Medical science, by the way, is unlike all others since no two human physiologies are the same. But there's only one climate.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 1:14:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran

Thanks for the link, a good article. You should read what the technical papers have to say!

Where did you get the pre-industrial [CO2] of 335 ppm from? You should be using 280 ppm in your maths.

“Acidification” does NOT mean acid. Absorption of CO2 in rain makes it more acid (carbonic acid) and in sea-water makes the water less alkaline (more acidic). It does not make sea-water acid, comprehend?

Carbonates will dissolve in these less alkaline (more acidic) waters, even at a pH greater than 7.

CO2 is a heat trapping gas, it absorbs and re-irradiates heat. As you put energy into a system it warms. A warming atmosphere means more rain and snow – which must fall somewhere. CO2 stays in the atmosphere much, much longer than water or snow.

The oceans are a heat sink.

If you want to play science, you should at least understand basic school chemistry and physics. You have the gall to argue and challenge simple physics and chemistry with real scientists … give us a break!
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 1:15:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gaaawd, this Professor Schpinkee Q&A, says one minute "you're wasted space" and the next he's teach twisting the meaning of “acidification” or parroting something else to do with putting heat into a system. However, he says my link is to "a good article" and i fully concur because it demonstrates brilliantly how pseudo-science in Australia takes hold. It's all about funding at any cost.

Just see how this report creates alarm with all the expedient gosh, golly, geewiz typical scheming ..... e.g. It clearly sucks and misleads with ... "When carbon dioxide sucked in from the atmosphere dissolves in sea water, it forms a weak acid, making the ocean more acidic." because it is not acidic at all but alkaline.

When you have people off their face with CO2 original sin there can be no implied understanding in any report or "technical papers" that this is normal and natural or simply a case of nature self-regulating in this fashion as it has always done and to be expected? When we have long warming periods such as 20thC we know for a fact that the oceans that contain the bulk of the surface CO2, release this gas and when the climate cycle turns down cooler it just gets re-absorbed. Our emissions of this minuscule amount will have next to no effect on the earth’s CO2 quota let alone it’s temperature. i.e. Oceans reaching a saturation point or turning acidic from minute human CO2 release is misleading nonsense.

ps Professor Schpinkee, go find 335 ppm and don't be such a rote learner.
Posted by Keiran, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 3:51:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, your understanding of maths, chemistry, physics and now comprehension is, umm … telling.
Can you shed any more light on your cosmic ray hypothesis to discount AGW? You were much more credible with your cone hat on.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 12 June 2008 8:27:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Schpinkee Q&A said at the top of this thread ... "Come up with a better system to disseminate the science other than in popular magazines, shock-jock media spots or the blogosphere." LOL

With this propagandist SMH article I'm simply insisting that scientists honour their profession by seeking to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means. History also teaches us to be cautious of deductive processes like relying on mathematical models or religious bandwagons like AGW as a starting point. It is so obvious that these Australian scientists here are pushing the alarmist AGW pseudo-science bandwagon to secure funding.

Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this political IPCC, and the alarmist bandwagon behind it, is phony. Their whole process is a swindle but perhaps more shocking is how it thwarts and suppresses legitimate scientific inquiry.

Well the word is not now with some exclusive and powerful group but with people who wish to unravel some exclusive knots. Scientists who genuinely believe in their expertise, have with the internet, an easy, economical and excellent platform to communicate their findings, thoughts, hypotheses, etc and to have them examined quite openly.
Posted by Keiran, Friday, 13 June 2008 2:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I'm simply insisting that scientists honour their profession by seeking to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge obtained through other means”

What non-scientific methods of obtaining knowledge are acceptable, Kieran? And how might a scientist present such non-scientific research?
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 14 June 2008 11:03:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie, what I'm saying is that we haven't seen any society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. Just as there is nothing to prevent reason from challenging reason, why not understand assumptions like fragmentation, provisionality, chaos, ambiguity, skepticism, conflict, vastness, disorientation, confusion, incoherence and coax out of chaos the rudiments of a civility without borders with a greater consciousness. Sensitivity, judgment, initiative, imagination, reasoning, communication and even persuasion are part of consciousness and necessary for consciousness building in a democracy.

Some people get a bit precious when it comes to science but we are all scientists in some respects because we live our lives immersed in a cause and effect environment. We the public, who fund much science, should not hold scientists above criticism and unaccountable to anyone but their peers because this old system will simply develop a compliant lazy media feeding passive consumers.

As many of my postings on OLO will attest, the internet is interactivity and our new 360 degree medium of communication because it is many to many and beyond the 20th century dictatorship of the modern and beyond the superficial, lateral post-modern.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 15 June 2008 5:07:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This doesn't tie in well with your criticisms of the IPCC, which you characterise as a political rather than scientific body. This has been a common claim from polemicists and the energy industry, and one that casts doubt upon the findings by the majority of the world's governments and scientific community.

Perhaps it's a case of knowing when to listen and to whom? Or what constitutes pseudo-science as opposed to useful research? The general population is not that literate in scientific matters and its presentation in the popular media does it no justice.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 16 June 2008 10:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keiran, 'play scientists' all you want, but that doesn't make you one, it certainly doesn't change the science.

I agree, the internet can be a great resource, but that doesn't make a scientist, particularly when you have demonstrated your lack of understanding of basic school chemistry and physics.

What you are saying amounts to trolling the internet gives anyone the expertise to argue the nuances of the science with someone who has probably excelled at school, excelled at university and most probably has excelled in post-doctoral work and has achieved a long-standing career in a specialised scientific field. It has got nothing to do with pedestals.

You dump crap on the IPCC but fail to understand the IPCC do not do the scientific research itself. Many thousands of scientists from the many different sciences do - and you want to argue and say you know better than them all, that they have got it wrong.

Most people now believe the real debate is what to do in light of what the science is telling us - as is evidenced by the UNFCCC song and dance act. It really is up to our political leaders and economists to give us direction - they must get it right.

Due to the nature of my work I subscribe to various scientific journals (giving me direct access to a plethora of papers on current research) but I still find it difficult to keep up with it all. Scientific academies and organisations make this task easier. However, I would agree that these institutions could do a better job of disseminating the science but please, don't blame the scientists - they have an otherwise normal life to live.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Check out what these people have to say.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 9:53:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, i can "dump crap" on the IPCC if that is what i see in an organisation. I have said it is political and it enlists scientists to do the "science" who may of necessity need to accept this political process. It stands to reason, particularly to an outsider, that if no alarmist human caused climate change can be found then this political organisation with its scientists would be out of business. So one aspect is its motivation and when one sees obviously dodgy assumptions, data manipulations, absurd selective modeling schemes, etc all coupled with a group mindset and inhouse peer review processes ....... then it deserves the utmost skepticism.

I view science to have its proper epistemological place as part of philosophy or the "why" and in this respect to be a posteriori ... i.e. empirical or find and ye shall seek or inductive. This is most important with questions about the universe and indeed earth's climate. Q&A, i'm not sure you can understand this point because your mechanical attitude is quite the opposite and much that i see from proponents of AGW. By the way it's unscientific and quite impossible to prove a negative. You can't. i.e. I do not need to prove anything against AGW because it is the AGW bandwagon that NEED to constructively/positively prove it correct or abandon this perception as false. Good luck here because from what i've ever seen it doesn't seem to be obeying your instructions.

Q&A, perhaps you can comment on why historically rising atmospheric CO2 can have falling temperatures or why CO2 is bad or why the IPCC exaggerates unnatural positive feedbacks for CO2 and Clouds. If this was the case the earth would have overheated eons ago and we wouldn't be debating AGW.
Posted by Keiran, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 4:56:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy