Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Manmade Climate Change - the deeper agendas
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 11-01-2014 14:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
How many people in the current government have relatives profiting from wind farms and the like?

It does tremendous harm to the credibility of any argument to maintain all one side are saints and all the other side are sinners - it makes it look religious.

An interesting question. I have no idea.

Firstly, it is unwise to confuse the politics, business and technology resulting from the interpretation of the results of the science of climate change with the science of climate change itself.

Secondly, Cashing in on possible solutions to a problem is not the same as hiding the problem to maintain profits. Investing in nicotine patches and vapouriser nicotine inhalers is not the same as lying about the effects of tobacco smoke in order to keep people smoking tobacco. Insisting on the validity of the science underpinning the anti-tobacco argument does not make one a religious maniac, either.

Cochise wrote:
...

As an aside, my scepticism on this matter was started when I was in Russia - Russia would benefit considerably from global warming since huge areas would become more inhabitable, and the extraction of natural resources from those areas would be a whole lot easier. But the Russian climate people believe it is going to get colder, not warmer, at least for the next 50 years.


Huge areas of Russia are frozen permafrost. Basically, swampland and quaking bog, frozen since at least the last Ice Age.

The permafrost of the Siberian tundra has started thawing already. Not only are roads and buildings collapsing, also gas and oil pipelines. The thaw is also releasing X amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a far more efficient greenhouse gas than CO2. The scientific debate as to what the release of trapped methane in the Arctic will mean for AGW, is still continuing. That's not even taking into account the methane trapped under the thinning ice sheet of the Arctic Ocean, itself.

If you don't believe that the Arctic, including the Russian bit, is getting warmer and that the ice is melting, then the growing arguments as to who owns what up there with the whole race between oil companies to start building rigs must be very bewildering.

The Thawing Arctic: Risks and Opportunities (Council for Foreign Relations. December 16, 2013)
Back to top
View user's profile 
kamalktkOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 05 Feb 2011
Total posts: 984
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-01-2014 14:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of the 2258 peer reviewed articles published last year, 1 rejected global warming.
(includes links to the data)

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.

My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here.

Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1855
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 10:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

No-one - that I know of - is rejecting the idea that global warming or cooling is possible.

I certainly would not, since all the evidence available shows that the temperature of the planet has varied substantially over time, in both geological and historical time spans. Indeed, the evidence points to the conclusion that we are currently at an intermediate plateau (and have been for about 5000 years) between the normal warmer state and the alternative and periodic much cooler state.

Within that plateau there have been minor variations such as the medieval warm period and the several small cooling events that occurred in the Dark Ages and between about 1550 and 1850.

The questions for debate are

a) Is the next move up or down

b) what if any is the contribution of human activity to that move

c) of the various human activities, are CO2 emissions a principal driver of change?

Those questions could be subdivided - for example does animal grazing contribute? - but lets keep it relatively simple.

Most papers I have seen start with the assumption that human produced CO2 is to blame and attempt to prove that assumption by means of statistics and computer models - in which case the correct people to do the peer reviews are not other scientists but statisticians and computer software engineers.

I'm a systems software engineer concerned primarily with efficiency of data retrieval, an area in which statistical analysis of data plays a large part.

I am constantly alarmed by the misuse of statistical analysis in scientific and medical journals - not just those connected with AGW - and a computer model is useless unless you can identify (not necessarily quantify, that's what the model attempts to do) _all_ the relevant inputs.

I actually don't regard most of the mistaken use of statistics and models as deliberate conspiracy - it is more commonly down to people using tools whose limitations they don't fully understand, being from a different discipline. Such misuse then reinforces their own and their peers belief in the theory until you have a sort of mass delusion which is then forced to make the figures match what they believe or simply gloss over 'inconvenient facts'.

The EA memos made it clear that exactly this process was occurring. Self delusion is neither fraud nor necessarily evil, but it is not science either.

I have seen first-hand the exact same process occur in other fields, not least in large computer system development. I had better not name examples, but I am talking about failed UK government projects. And as a consequence I know that, even if you demonstrate physically to the committed that the system does not match their assumptions in front of their faces, they cannot change those assumptions. My company was thrown out of one such project - which eventually failed for exactly the reasons we had prophesied - after one such demonstration.

Of course, they may just have thought we were arrogant clever dicks who could be safely ignored.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 14:25    Post subject: Reply with quote

Round and round the garden
Like a teddy bear
One step, two step...


Round and round we go. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 21528
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 14:33    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ring a Ring a Rosies might be more appropriate in this case. Eventually we all fall down, dead.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 14:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise wrote:
...

Most papers I have seen start with the assumption that human produced CO2 is to blame and attempt to prove that assumption by means of statistics and computer models - in which case the correct people to do the peer reviews are not other scientists but statisticians and computer software engineers.

I'm a systems software engineer concerned primarily with efficiency of data retrieval, an area in which statistical analysis of data plays a large part.

...


disdain for science as such is displayed with greatest impunity by the technicians themselves.

José Ortega y Gasset: The Revolt of the Masses (1929)
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9700
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 20:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cochise raises some relevant points. I mean - has an expert (or experts) in statistical modelling examined the climate scientists' methods in great detail? To ensure that they are not flawed?
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 21:17    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:
Cochise raises some relevant points. ...

Only, if you overlook the apparent complete inability to grasp or accept the basic chemistry physics, or math. Something understood since the middle of the 19th century and which has been covered on these threads many, many, times. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9700
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 21:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nevertheless, a quality check never goes amiss. Scientific rigour, etc.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26262
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 21:34    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:
Nevertheless, a quality check never goes amiss. Scientific rigour, etc.

Or CC Denier nit-picking! Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9700
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 21:35    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
Mythopoeika wrote:
Nevertheless, a quality check never goes amiss. Scientific rigour, etc.

Or CC Denier nit-picking! Twisted Evil


Or the inability to join a religion. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 22:04    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:
rynner2 wrote:
Mythopoeika wrote:
Nevertheless, a quality check never goes amiss. Scientific rigour, etc.

Or CC Denier nit-picking! Twisted Evil


Or the inability to join a religion. Wink

Climate change deniers, the tobacco lobby and Creationists do all use very similar arguments.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/A_comparative_guide_to_science_denial yeay
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26262
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 22:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:
Or the inability to join a religion. Wink

Eh! Wot! You lost me there. Confused

But when I was at Uni in the 60's studying physics and maths, statistics were included in the courses. For example, in physics practicals we had to conduct experiments, recording our readings of various parameters, and then combine the average readings in such a way as to produce a final figure for some parameter that couldn't be measured directly.

But this final figure had to have error limits specified, which were calculated according to statistical rules. So we couldn't say the result of our experiment was just 9.811 (whatever units), but had to specify the accuracy, eg, 9.811 +- 0.015 units (or some such, which referred to the spread of the possible results). Now, most of the details escape me - I'd need a refresher course just to get back to what I once knew!

Anyhow, this is what undergraduates learned in the 60s. Those with doctorates and professorships obviously knew a lot more. So to suggest that modern scientists, in whatever field, don't have a good grasp of statistics is probably libellous!

Plus, there are many computer programs now that simplify all the statistical calculations (it was pen, paper, and log tables in my day!), and scientists are not so compartmentalised that thay can't turn to colleagues with more specialised knowledge when necessary.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Ronson8Offline
Things can only get better.
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Total posts: 5945
Location: MK
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 14-01-2014 23:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regardless of whether climate change is real or man made, whatever we do to mitigate the situation in this country is meaningless if countries like China and India keep churning out poison into the atmosphere, it's a lost cause.
Back to top
View user's profile 
CochiseOffline
Great Old One
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Total posts: 1855
Location: Gwynedd, Wales
Age: 59
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 15-01-2014 07:16    Post subject: Reply with quote

Climate change is inevitable anyway, anthropologically generated or no. Far better to prepare for it than keep pretending we can stop it. I'd use Canute as an example, but most people didn't listen to him either.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> Conspiracy - general All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Page 31 of 35

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group