Globel Warming

[Lt Kije]

The number of scientists or flat earther on that side of the argument is ever dwindling, their will always be deniers and always be people who will cling onto them, but the science for most of the scientific world is their.

 

Even with this going on the science grows more every day, you might find this interesting Asp

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/05/12/406106296/climate-denialists-in-congress-acting-as-nasas-kryptonite

[fugtifino]

They are guessing

 

They're stating their findings based on scientific research, it's you who's guessing.

 

What happened to that hole in the ozone layer?

 

Still there, obs:

 

http://biotechin.asia/2015/11/14/is-the-hole-in-the-ozone-layer-in-antarctica-recovering-or-expanding/

 

The source I quote is from NASA, I think they might have a scientist or two in their employment.

 

And the scientists concerned don't think much of law graduate James Taylor:

 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/ 

 

There's a cohort of scientists who are very adept at shouting down any opposition to their views,..

 

Heh, you make it sound like some sort of conspiracy, oh...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/08/climate-denial-linked-to-conspiratorial-thinking-in-new-study

[Coffee]

Coffee

 

Which ice sheet are you talking about ?

 

East Antarctica

 

Very good

hilarious

[Lt Kije]

Coffee

 

Is it the same for the Arctic ?

[Sha]

I for one am not convinced of the supposed threat of Global Warming, the earth's temperature and climate has fluctuated since time began. 

However I do think that the present levels of pollution are seriously damaging the earth and it's inhabitants and drastic measures are needed to control this.

 

They're stating their findings based on scientific research..............................

 

Yes, BUT,  how does one gauge the validity of the research? 

As with anything else in this materialistic world,.........."he who pays the piper calls the tune!"

 

I wonder how much the Global Warming theory is linked to the desire of those who wish to promote a worldwide nuclear / thorium fuel industry?

If our Government really believed the GW theory themselves would they really be allowing and encouraging Chinese industry (world's worst polluter) to flourish?

I really think the GW / Earth's Destruction theory is just being used as a means to get people to accept without resistance a worldwide transition from Oil and Gas to Nuclear / Thorium as the world's major fuel source. 

 

This change in fuel source will drastically alter the balance of power around the world. China, India and Brazil, sitting on the world's largest thorium sources will  be the up and coming nations whilst the present oil producing nations will become poor. Any wonder some Arab nations are revolting against it?

If we manage to live through the wars that will ensue during the fuel change-over period will life on earth be any better / cleaner? 

Thorium as fuel also has negative impacts on the earth (and vastly more long lasting than any oil as fuel produce). Myself, I can't see that there would be any significant difference / benefit.

 

To my mind. the most logical way forward for the benefit of mankind would be to use natural power sources, and to work with the natural environment rather than against it.

Sadly though,  I don't believe 'the benefit of mankind' is on any of the world's politician's agendas.   

[Bazj]

Eggs are good....eggs are bad

 

butter is bad.... butter is good

 

Pluto is a planet - Pluto isn't a planet

 

Scientists...... why would you trust them eh?

[fugtifino]

I for one am not convinced of the supposed threat of Global Warming...

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.

 

 how does one gauge the validity of the research?

 

Peer review; basically it's a bunch of scientists picking holes in each others' theories until broad agreement is reached.

 

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/peer-review.html

 

Imo, none of the big energy companies are supporters of renewable energy, and I'm not sure any governments are either; subsidies for renewables have been decreased or slowed down, while for the nuclear industry they've been increased ((£6b was the latest figure I saw suggested).

 

Then there's stuff like this:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

I agree with you about renewables, and most of the scientists now use the term climate change rather than global warming, the latter being a bit misleading to the slow of thought.

[fugtifino]

Scientists...... why would you trust them eh?

 

Ever paid a visit to a doctor, Baz?

[Bazj]

Scientists...... why would you trust them eh?

 

Ever paid a visit to a doctor, Baz?

 

Is a doctor a scientist in the sense that we are discussing here?

[fugtifino]

Certainly in the sense that any treatment he's likely to give you is based on solid, peer reviewed scientific research.

[Bazj]

Certainly in the sense that any treatment he's likely to give you is based on solid, peer reviewed scientific research.

 

But a doctor giving me a headache tablet isn't going to mean the end of the world or the complete lifestyle change and additional "green taxes" for the entire planet though....

[Evil Sid]

The scientific method.

 

1) think of a theory.

2) do experiment

3)throw out any result that does not fit theory

4) publish theory with proof.

[fugtifino]

But a doctor giving me a headache tablet isn't going to mean the end of the world or the complete lifestyle change and additional "green taxes" for the entire planet though

 

Ah, so you only trust some scientists, and so long as it doesn't cost you anything.

 

I see.

[asperity]

I wouldn't trust any scientist who claimed that the science was settled and that his theory was the only one valid.

[Bazj]

But a doctor giving me a headache tablet isn't going to mean the end of the world or the complete lifestyle change and additional "green taxes" for the entire planet though

 

Ah, so you only trust some scientists, and so long as it doesn't cost you anything.

 

I see.

 

Do you know how much a prescription costs these days? Get a few of those and you would pay enough to keep a family of Romanian gypsies in benefits for a day or two

[Lt Kije]

Hello Coffee

 

What's hsppening in the Arctic ?

[P J]

Hello Coffee

 

What's hsppening in the Arctic ?

[Lt Kije]

Brilliant

[Lt Kije]

Hmmmmm, think coffee is avoiding this thread

[fugtifino]

I wouldn't trust any scientist who claimed that the science was settled and that his theory was the only one valid

 

And I wouldn’t really blame you, that’s not what’s happening here though, it’s not one scientist, it’s the overwhelming majority of them, and you seem to be getting hung up on the idea of “settled” in terms of science. I’m quite the sceptic myself but when I start to look more like some conspiraloon rather than asking justified questions, then I’d be checking myself.

 

Science is dynamic by nature and doesn’t really stand still. In terms of research the best that scientists can usually offer is to say that “judging by all the evidence we have so far, this is what we believe to be true”. What’s new recently is that the earth’s average global temperature has risen by 1 degree centigrade since the pre-industrial age. You can disbelieve this if you want but that’s what the evidence says. You may even complain that the met office and The Engineer publications are well known hotbeds of liberal leftyism (and you'd be wrong, of course). You can bleat on about this being all down to natural causes (in your opinion), but you haven’t got a shred of evidence for it.

 

There’s perhaps much we still don’t understand about things like gravity, for example, but if I happened to be unlucky enough to be next to one of those many buildings in Warrington that was about to fall down, I wouldn’t start contemplating about whether Newton used the right data sets for his research or whether his samples were broad enough, or even if he had a pinko lefty liberal agenda, I’d just get the hell out of there as quick as I could. That’s ‘cos the theory of gravity is about as “settled” as it gets and I'm happy to live by it.

 

Hmmmmm, think coffee is avoiding this thread

 

Trolling doesn't pay, just say no, folks.

[Coffee]

I wouldn't trust any scientist who claimed that the science was settled and that his theory was the only one valid

 

And I wouldn’t really blame you, that’s not what’s happening here though, it’s not one scientist, it’s the overwhelming majority of them, and you seem to be getting hung up on the idea of “settled” in terms of science. I’m quite the sceptic myself but when I start to look more like some conspiraloon rather than asking justified questions, then I’d be checking myself.

 

Science is dynamic by nature and doesn’t really stand still. In terms of research the best that scientists can usually offer is to say that “judging by all the evidence we have so far, this is what we believe to be true”. What’s new recently is that the earth’s average global temperature has risen by 1 degree centigrade since the pre-industrial age. You can disbelieve this if you want but that’s what the evidence says. You may even complain that the met office and The Engineer publications are well known hotbeds of liberal leftyism (and you'd be wrong, of course). You can bleat on about this being all down to natural causes (in your opinion), but you haven’t got a shred of evidence for it.

 

There’s perhaps much we still don’t understand about things like gravity, for example, but if I happened to be unlucky enough to be next to one of those many buildings in Warrington that was about to fall down, I wouldn’t start contemplating about whether Newton used the right data sets for his research or whether his samples were broad enough, or even if he had a pinko lefty liberal agenda, I’d just get the hell out of there as quick as I could. That’s ‘cos the theory of gravity is about as “settled” as it gets and I'm happy to live by it.

 

Hmmmmm, think coffee is avoiding this thread

 

Trolling doesn't pay, just say no, folks.

Coffee did not answer because coffee had no time, apart from that how should  I answer Kije's post?

 

So I make spelling mistakes, grow up and get over it

[Lt Kije]

Coffee

 

You could answer with the truth on the Arctic ice

[fugtifino]

This is pretty recent, Kije:

 

http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/2015-arctic-sea-ice-minimum

 

Though I'm sure the barman in my local knows better, I'll ask him tonight.

[Coffee]

Coffee

 

You could answer with the truth on the Arctic ice

 

I have no idea what truth is! I can give my opinion nd my view, what the truth I do not know.

 

While the overwhelming majority of scientist do agree that the world is warming slightly, there is huge disagreement as to long term effects, reasons and even if it will continue to  warm. The BBC, Sky, ITV are mostly showing one side of it, rising seas, melting glaciers, stormier weather as if it was fact, which it is not.

 

You can see this one sided reporting in other subjects too, the immigration crisis were fo, r ages the mass media told us it was families that were coming over, that they were all Doctors and engineers and misleading  editing of photos and news footage.

 

Health issues especially the passive smoking reporting is another example were watching TV, reading the Sun you would think every scientist thinks the same and there were only negative studies, yet there are huge divisions in views. I mean has anyone heard of the study that suggested that children who lived with smokers are 22% less likely to get lung cancer then these that have not, that is a study carried out by the WHO but quickly got buried.

[fugtifino]

...as if it was fact, which it is not...

 

So, who's telling us THE TRUTH, the UFO Channel?

 

I'll post this again 'cos it addresses the issue around fact/opinion and, well, it's funny:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg