[Closed] Horizon last night climate sceptic pwned - anyone else see it

saw some comment about him griping on about it.

from what I read of stuff he does for the Telegraph he deserves everything he gets, tbh.

some comments on here are most amusing

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100073116/oh-no-not-another-unbiased-bbc-documentary-about-climate-change/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/jan/25/horizon-science-under-attack-review

yep it was a funny moment. Total "pwnage" as they say

I "recommended" your comment over there...assuming it was you...seems like a safe assumption!

cheers ive found a new hobby - baiting telegraph readers

it is a bit easy though

Funny, there seems to be a bit of a backlash on already formulated ideas at the moment. In fact i think it was Horizon a few months ago that was putting forward the idea that the Big Bang Theory is flawed.

There is a woman at my work who has a microbiology degree and admitted herself that science is all basically theory, until another theory comes along.

There is a woman at my work who has a microbiology degree and admitted herself that science is all basically theory, until another theory comes along.

Think of it as a logical and rational way to look at everyday things around you.

That's the trouble - when you're actually working in a subject area you know that all you've got is a 'best fit theory' and half the challenge is to prove that wrong and come up with a new one. But by the time things reach the media they're reported as facts, so Mr Average understandably gets confused when all the facts he'd been told (by scientists) get changed (by scientists).

Love the way on his blog he mentions a couple of harsh winters as evidence there is no such thing as climate change.

Is that all Delingpole had to offer? Jesus, they should have just sent along any first year undergraduate studying climate science to show him up.

I loved his baffled silence as the cancer analogy was put up he looked like a fish out of water.

So manmade global warming is a foregone conclusion on STW?

dunno about that 4banger but it is the overall consensus within the scientific community, but as the programme was pointing out last night scientists have failed to get this accross to the public and a few very vocal opponents (clarckson, foxnews, the oil industry, the telegraph, the daily mail etc) mean that the public dont accept this

Nope, just the general scientific concensus.

There's a massive difference between [i]weather[/i] and [i]climate[/i] as any fule kno.

We're staring down the barrel (no pun intended) of Peak Oil over the next few years, surely carbon emissions are going to fall as a result anyway?

Not at all I'm still open minded about it. There are so many factors that influence GW however I think that polluting less and being more efficient are probably good things to aim for. It's always good to see a **** from the shit sheets getting his nuts handed to him on a plate. I especially liked "my job is to interpet the interpreter" shyster, that's all he is.

Nah, I was picking holes in that program all over the place last night[*], but I thought it was using GW as a vehicle for the argument about 'why people don't trust science' rather than being explicitly about 'why people don't trust climate science'.

[*] for instance the wonderfully predictive cloud model - 'looking right' and 'being right' are two very different things.

thepurist - Member
That's the trouble - when you're actually working in a subject area you know that all you've got is a 'best fit theory' and half the challenge is to prove that wrong and come up with a new one. But by the time things reach the media they're reported as facts, so Mr Average understandably gets confused when all the facts he'd been told (by scientists) get changed (by scientists).

The problem is also giving correct weighting to different theories. E.G. theory X may have may have one paper on a small sample size and theory Y might have 10 years and 100s of papers e.t.c.

The suggestion at the end of the horizon program about scientist talking to the press more wouldn't really solve the problem IMO. The press will take a statement out of context and twist it e.t.c to show what they want. The problem is that day to day journalism is never going to report any science that has the possibility to be used for political gain in fair and balanced manor. It's at odds with what they are trying to achieve; which is of course anger, fear, hysteria, all things which sell papers.

PJM1974 - Member

We're staring down the barrel (no pun intended) of Peak Oil over the next few years, surely carbon emissions are going to fall as a result anyway?

there's plenty of coal that we'll be very happy to burn the moment it looks like peak oil is biting.

deforestation is a major source of CO2, watch how quickly the worlds forests get burned once 7billion people starting running out of heating/cooking fuel.

CO2 emissions aren't coming down any time soon.

So manmade global warming is a foregone conclusion on STW?

No it's just the most likely interpretation of all the current information available, as agreed by most scientists.

Still, Clarkson knows best eh?

Nope, just the general scientific concensus.

Talking with friends about this over dinner Saturday night. He (phd in stats, UCL stats lecturer, doing research on the climate change models) says the models are largely verified on a global scale despite their incredible complexity and that the trends are apparent. I think he said 'it's just thermodynamics'. It's at smaller, more local scales that the effects are still impossible to predict due to lack of understanding of how factors interact. He also said climate scientists haven't done themselves too many favours, but thinks that the manipulation of data while wrong was still within allowable tolerances.
HIs wife (phd in stats, works in industry) disputes climate change. The stoniness in her face during the discussion was a picture, with her comments limited to things along the lines of 'Are you sure about that?'. I'd bet they've had some nice 'discussions' about this. Unity in the scientific community?

* A lot of the above may be incorrect- I have no understanding of the subject, and it was over a few bottles of wine.

We're staring down the barrel (no pun intended) of Peak Oil over the next few years

Naaaaaaaa, I'll be long dead before oil is used up, we might find something better to replace it with, but I dont think we'll leave it behind just becasue theres none left.

Look at history, we had an oil 'crisis' in the 70's, 40 years later we're still building bigger and bigger refineries like there's no tomorrow.

 

[url=

Christ he got hammered in it, 2:40 to 3:20 is classic

Talking with friends about this over dinner Saturday night.

I reckon that's one of those dinner party subjects that's probably best avoided!

best estimates put the world's oil reserves at around 3,000,000,000,000 barrels.

we're using around 80,000,000 barrels per day.

that's...

about 100 years left, if we can continue to extract it at the current rate (80,000,000 barrels per day)

we, can't, it's getting harder and harder to extract.

assuming a roughly linear fall in oil-consumption until it's exhausted, we've got 200 years before the oil is gone - but the last few decades will see next to zero oil-use by today's standards.

in 100 years' we'll still be using about 40,000,000 barrels per day.

in other words, we've got 100 years to get used to using half the amount we do today.

we'd be fine if it wasn't for all the pesky CO2...

(and the catastrophic environmental damage incurred from extracting oil from tar-sands etc.)

Wow he really comes across as an idiot in that interview!

No it's just the most likely interpretation of all the current information available, as agreed by most scientists.

Still, Clarkson knows best eh?

A lot of people will make a lot of money off the back of climate change. I could be viewed as a bit of a fence sitter but I think a healthy degree of skepticism is a good thing. I don't really see what Clarkson has to do with anything though.

A lot of people will make a lot of money off the back of climate change.

Undoubtedly. Just like a lot of people make a lot of money off the back of suggesting it is a myth. James Delingpole probably does ok out of it despite seemingly being a complete moron.

Skepticism is good.

skeptics ask good questions like; 'are you sure?' - 'have you double checked that?' - 'let me have a look at that'

skeptics make good scientists, as long as they don't fall from; 'are you sure?' to 'i don't care about the facts'

It's not how much oil is left, it is how much it costs to extract. We are nearing the end of cheap oil. The theory about peak oil is that our world economy depends on cheap oil, and so we will soon start to see the problems begin, as opposed to having to wait until the oil runs out.

After saying that, Brazil has recently made some more discoveries which has increased the totals, but hey, I guess that means we can soon expect to see Al Qaeda in action here and the US invade 🙁

And Peter Sissons has written a good account of his time at the BBC and their attitude to Climate Change:
http://www.****/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

For me, I want to be able to consider the possibility that we are entering a period of climate instability, and that this may have a number of causes, e.g. sun spots etc as well as man made causes, but I resent the fact that I am cynically being branded a "denier", a deliberately emotive word, just for wanting to question the science and not be duped by scientists faking results because of the money involved.

ahwiles - Member
best estimates put the world's oil reserves at around 3,000,000,000,000 barrels.

we're using around 80,000,000 barrels per day.

Use is increasing though, that makes a big difference.

scientists faking results because of the money involved.

Ha!

Scientist don't make money out of this.

not be duped by scientists faking results

A lot of people will make a lot of money off the back of climate change. I could be viewed as a bit of a fence sitter but I think a healthy degree of skepticism is a good thing. I don't really see what Clarkson has to do with anything though

It is a really poor argument to suggest the world scientists made up this theory - with all the supporting divergent evidence - just to make money - it is just mud throwing as you haveno actual data whilst ebing an open minded fence sitting skeptic. They could all probably earn much more by leaving their current jobs anyway - say by being apopulist journalist with a poor grasp of the subject you write on for example. Scientists genreally do it for a thirts for knowledge not money

I want to be able to consider the possibility that we are entering a period of climate instability, and that this may have a number of causes, e.g. sun spots etc as well as man made causes, but I resent the fact that I am cynically being branded a "denier", a deliberately emotive word, just for wanting to question the science and not be duped by scientists faking results because of the money involved

not be duped by scientists faking results because of the money involved

We were fairly shocked at Delingpole - first of all he says he's not got a scientific background, and then he says its not his job to look at the scientific literature to back up his writing. So what the heck is his job? Does he not feel any responsibility towards his readership? Surely journalists are taught to follow up more on their story - check the facts - speak to people on both sides. But oh.. hold on a minute... that would spoil the story... I do hope that many many people were able to see just how inadequate mr bellendpoles responses were. I'm sure he'll claim the program was biased... not that his viewpoint is biased - oh no.

I do agree that part of the responsibility lies with climate scientists (like me) and that we must work harder at discussing our science with the general public. But I also think journalists should work harder at understanding the science before publishing about a 'scandal' that doesn't actually exist. There has to be a bit of give and effort on both sides if we are to make progress in educating the public about what we do, how we do it, and why it is important... As it is, scientists are constantly on the back foot because of over-reactions like that one. Now we have to meet the challenge square on rather than complaining about it (which I just did - oops).

from john sissons

It’s the lack of simple curiosity about one of the great issues of our time[global warming] that I find so puzzling about the BBC. When the topic first came to ­prominence, the first thing I did was trawl the internet to find out as much as possible about it.

[url= http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5387305485_ca40f3f3bd.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5387305485_ca40f3f3bd.jp g"/> [/img][/url]

Whether climate change is man-made or not, these poor sods are facing a bleak future

and that we must work harder at discussing our science with the general public

Quote of the night from Bellendpole*:

"My job is to be an interpreter of interpretations"

*I like that S-The-S 🙂

subject I will just head straight ot Google and read what non scientists think scientists are wrong

Ah but you're forgetting that Bellendpole sees this as the future - "peer to peer" reviews for people to write whatever BS they like and post it on their blog, the ideal solution for those who don't have time to go through all that pesky time spent gathering data, analysing it, comparing it to previous research and then submitting their findings to peer review by other people knowledgeable in their field, just to get a credible paper published by a respected journal.

Just for the record, and I apologise for the ambiguity, I was not lumping all scientists together. I want to be able to be free to question any study that I may come across, as some scientists, for example those who are sponsored by commercial interests, could well be under pressure to mis-represent their findings. I want to be able to question things without having a cynical label applied to me. The greater proportion of scientists may well be upright and above board, I was trying to make the point that I want to be able to be a sceptic and feel that to be able to question things is a right, and not be labelled as such.

If the science is beyond suspicion then it should be able to speak for itself without having to resort to such cheap and nasty tactics.

some scientists, for example those who are sponsored by commercial interests, could well be under pressure to mis-represent their findings

Name three.

nickf - Member
Whether climate change is man-made or not, these poor sods are facing a bleak future

I think most of the concern is because they are seen as cute and cuddly by some.

Still if their numbers go down it'll be good for baby seals which will now be able to pop their noses safely out of a hole in the ice without having the risk of getting scooped out by huge claws and then having their guts eaten out while they're still alive and screaming.

Just a few bits and pieces

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-scientist-plants-false-story-that.html

http://newsbusters.org/node/11879

Strange locations for temperature monitoring devices

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

http://theintelhub.com/2011/01/24/it’s-all-just-coincidental-vaccines-continue-to-damage-children/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8223165/The-green-hijack-of-the-Met-Office-is-crippling-Britain.html

Nice peer reviewed stuff there Simon... 🙄

want to be able to be a sceptic and feel that to be able to question things is a right, and not be labelled as such.

The polar bear pic relevance - have scintist used it as data ort lazy non scientists used it to publicise stuff to laymen?

the telegraph one is a journo discussing weathe r in the uk and using t tpo explain global warming - do i need ot point out whay that is a silly thing to do - we have had warmer winters globally
again cheery pics

But in 2007, the computer models got caught out, failing to predict a temporary plunge in global temperatures of 0.7C, more than the net warming of the 20th century. Much of the northern hemisphere suffered what was called in North America “the winter from hell”. Even though temperatures did rise again, in the winter of 2008/9 this happened again, only worse.

I read somewhere that there are at least 50,000 more of them than 50 years ago. Anyone else seen that?

You may want to check your source - look at the conclusions here and make up your mind

The polar bear pic relevance - have scintist used it as data ort lazy non scientists used it to publicise stuff to laymen?

No, I'm not a scientist (just a BA in Economics, you see), but I used it as:

(a) I like polar bears. They're cute and cuddly

(b) It focusses the mind. 2/3 of polar bears will be gone in my lifetime. There's a reason for this, and that, principally, is climate change. We could debate the extent to which it's man-made, but the fact is, it's happening.

Like Paul Nurse said on the program, we need to be able to discuss probabilities more openly - that is the key part. Science, as a discipline, does not allow a 'yes' or 'no' answer. This is difficult to get over to the public and the government and therefore, it causes difficulty when decisions are being made on something that is 'uncertain' even if the uncertainty is absolutely tiny. So thats got to be a key focal point for us science bods - help people understand about uncertainty, why uncertainty is healthy. People need to make their own choices about man-made climate change, but can be easily swayed by uninformed argument - its not their fault as without a scientific background its a difficult thing to interpret. Journalists surely have a responsibility (at least a moral one?) to be as rigorous as most scientists are, but I get the impression that some are happy to write only about the 'facts' he found on the internet without referring back to the peer reviewed literature. FAIL. I think it was plain for all to see just how poorly Delingpole stood up to even the lightest of questioning/probing. This year's Durkin award for crap cliched climate conspiracy goes to...

nickf my comment was at simon who linked to a pic of a Polar bear on an iceberg saying that it was taken in the summer melts rather than winter - aparently another weakness in the argument of those who believe,. It was not aimed at you at all and I dont disagree with what you have said.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
this one btw

There is a woman at my work who has a microbiology degree and admitted herself that science is all basically theory, until another theory comes along.

You say 'admitted' as if it's something that scientists are trying to hide.

I've had some time to think about my previous remarks and I think emotions probably got the better of me. Having had a think, I think I get more wound up about the [b]presentation[/b] of what is still an inexact science.

If you look at comments from 2000:

the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

This leads the lay person to expect no snow. However, as well as this year, 2009 had much snow too. One winter maybe but two winters in a row makes comments like this seem like scaremongering.

It is not enough for the scientists such as Viner to admit that their models were wrong. They then say that snow is in fact a sing of global warming, or alternatively, that weather should not be confused with climate, and yet berate laypeople for suggesting that maybe the last few years have not shown overall warming. They are extremely inconsistent.

This hideous near-religious like propaganda is now doing humanity no favours, as yes, I do believe that we are experiencing a new era of unstable climates, and we are living through changes.

Another bugbear of mine is this total focus on the carbon cycle, and no mention of any other system that contributes to the overall stability of the earth's atmospheric temperature. This to me reeks of financial racket, led by politicians and business people who see it purely as a money making scheme, and another way to induce fear in order to control the population. Look at their actions as opposed to their words and I see no sign of any personal changes in their lives which suggest that they really believe in this, for example, reducing their own personal consumption of consumable products.

As for consensus science, and the peer process of reviewing, well just look at what happened to James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, who developed the Gaia theory, and then the Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s. This suggests that life on earth, and the constant atmospheric temperature, is the result of positive and feedback loops consisting of interactions between living plants, animals and micro-organisms, and non-living systems such as the oceans, rocks and air. Lovelock initially could not get any of his papers published in any scientific journals, and he was accused of developing a teleological theory, since how could such a non-living system be self-regulating.

However, today Gaia theory forms a fundamental part of our understanding of the climate, and is now widely accepted. So much for the consensus. Science always seems be full of people who assume that they know everything, from Aristotle, to Newton, to Young, to science today. It could be said that the peer review process rewards conservative submissions which support the status quo - but that is another discussion all together.

And finally, with so much emphasis on global warming, we are ignoring other weather systems at our peril. As this article in The Telegraph suggests, those who preach global warming could have contributed to the lack of flood preparation in Australia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8262064/What-was-the-role-of-warmists-in-the-Queensland-flood-disaster.html

What am I doing? I have been involved in the transition town movement, which emerged to help cities become more resilient to both climate change and peak oil. However, what I want personally is the right to ask questions without being labelled in such derogatory terms, and the right to be wrong is important too.

I want to be able to ask questions about the very fabric of reality, about how explorations into quantum physics is teaching us about how "particles" are in fact more like units of meaning, or consciousness. I want to be able to ask questions about deeper levels of reality, that physicists are now developing models of, and I want to be able to do this without fear of persecution.

I hope this clarifies my thinking, and I do regret maybe writing at speed without deeper though for my words.

Peace all

This hideous near-religious like propaganda is now doing humanity no favours,

However, today Gaia theory forms a fundamental part of our understanding of the climate, and is now widely accepted

skeptisimis a good thing but ignoring the videnc eis not being a skeptic it is being ignorant
It is a really poor argument to suggest the world scientists made up this theory - with all the supporting divergent evidence - just to make money - it is just mud throwing as you haveno actual data whilst ebing an open minded fence sitting skeptic. They could all probably earn much more by leaving their current jobs anyway - say by being apopulist journalist with a poor grasp of the subject you write on for example. Scientists genreally do it for a thirts for knowledge not money

Back up there sparky. Nowhere have I suggested that scientist are making up a theory to make money.... Read what I've actually put into words, not what you think my opinion might be.

Ah right, I understood that the carbon cycle was now generally accepted as one of life's major systems.

And yeah, you are right to pick me up using emotive language. To paraphrase myself, I do not think that scientists should be using emotive language designed to invoke images of holocaust deniers. They should stick to science.

As for "meaning" well you may have made your mind up but I would say the jury is still out and we would be wise to keep an open mind. 😀

This hideous near-religious like propaganda is now doing humanity no favours,

Kind of like all that anti vaccination stuff you posted.

It is not enough for the scientists such as Viner to admit that their models were wrong. They then say that snow is in fact a sing of global warming, or alternatively, that weather should not be confused with climate, and yet berate laypeople for suggesting that maybe the last few years have not shown overall warming. They are extremely inconsistent.

Who said the model was wrong. [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/last-year-was-second-hottest-on-record-say-scientists-2190326.html ]2010 was the second hottest year on record.[/url]

As this article in The Telegraph suggests, those who preach global warming could have contributed to the lack of flood preparation in Australia:

That would be the same people who say that global warming means more extreme weather (the telegraph site doesn't seem to want to open at the moment so I can't read the article)

Edit. I've opened it now, and what a load of guff it is.

Asking questions is good. Assuming that you know better because you are not an expert is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, one of the simpler logical fallacies to avoid.

I missed the programme (well, skyplussed but not watched yet), but I'd like to pick up on something here that got a bit lost.

I also think journalists should work harder at understanding the science before publishing about a 'scandal' that doesn't actually exist.

This. I don't expect journalists to understand anything, but I expect them to do some basic research before running a story. Hell, how hard is it these days with the Web?

Scandal sells newspapers, is the problem. Which is annoying and dangerous, as people tend to believe what they read in 'traditional' media more so that on the Internet (and that's prevalent enough). Journos wield a lot of power and it's irresponsible just to run stories to grab headlines.

Case in point, the whole "MMR vaccine causes autism / other ailments" scare. A generation of new parents have had to "make a decision" on whether they should vaccinate their kids.

Except, the risk doesn't exist. It came out of the "research" of one quack (Andrew Wakefield) who published a report based on anecdotal evidence from a study(*) of [i]twelve[/i] kids. He was shot down in short order, but the media latched on to it and whipped it up into a national scare story.

I don't mean to derail the conversation, but I think it's worth mentioning in passing as an important lesson in questioning what you read and doing a bit of legwork before forming an opinion. I'm not entering a debate about climate change because I don't believe that I know enough about it to take an informed stance. I'm reading this thread with interest.

(* and by 'study' I mean 'series of questionable, unpleasant and invasive tests')

Except, the risk doesn't exist. It came out of the "research" of one quack (Andrew Wakefield) who published a report based on anecdotal evidence from a study(*) of twelve kids.

Which passed peer review!

Think about that one 😉

Whether climate change is happening or not who knows and we may never know. My father in law is convinced the issue is all to do with the movement of the magnetic poles - which I think are moving the fastest they ever have (but will stand corrected!) which is the key driver and from memory one of the reasons we have a climate and life on the planet is the fact we have a magnetic field so it's purty important.

All that might be boll@@ks who knows!

I work in utilities and what I do know is it's not easy planning for stuff but you need to make sure society and my kids can survive in 80 years time when I'm dead

Anyway, any pictures of kylie?!

Climate always has changed and always will. So far though there has been no unprecendented climate change. There has only been an 0.8C increase in temp since 1850. Which is to be expected as the climate recovered from the little ice age and isn't out of step with climate change in previous centuries.

Increased atmospheric CO2 will cause some increase in temp but the numbers are just guesses and computer models. The past record for climate predictions isn't good.

If CO2 was the main driver of temp changes then why was there similar increases between 1910 and 1940 and between 1970 and 2000 despite CO2 levels being far higher during the second period?

And of course there was no statistically significant global warming between 2002 and 2010.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

and from memory one of the reasons we have a climate and life on the planet is the fact we have a magnetic field so it's purty important.

Not sure as to how it affects the weather patterns, but it certainly is important. Without the magnetosphere, the earths atmosphere would have dissipated off into space due to solar winds, leaving just a baron, lifeless rock. Off topic slightly, but I'm a bit of a science geek and I never remember being taught this - fundamental to life on earth - fact at school. does anyone else?

Can't be bothered reading all that but I watched a bit of that video, and lost interest after about 10 seconds, but I loved this comment:

If Delingpole loses his job at? the Telegraph, he could make a few quid as a Gareth Southgate impersonator.

😆

Sorry. I know it's not at all intelligent or constructive, but it made me laugh, and that's all that matters in my book really. 🙂

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Except, the risk doesn't exist. It came out of the "research" of one quack (Andrew Wakefield) who published a report based on anecdotal evidence from a study(*) of twelve kids.

Which passed peer review!

Lancet?

If man made climate change is so clear cut then why do they need to manipulate data at all? There surely is no need. That graph was a joke.

For the use of "air quotation marks" alone Delingpole should be shot!

I'm sure it's all fine.

When Watt developed the steam engine, and Brunel developed steamships, and Henry Ford developed the car, they had all done extensive research on CO2 and how it could affect the climate.

They had steam-powered computers, and coal-fired satellites that gathered huge amounts of data from a network of telegraph linked data monitors.

They developed highly accurate models that would tell us how much we could each burn, and how it may affect the atmosphere for hundreds of years in the future. And gee what do you know - it's exactly the same amount as we can get our grubby little hands on!

Yes, I really don't know why people worry. This was all planned for, very early on, in the design process of the industrial revolution.

"Scientists" come up with a theory.

They embrace any evidence that supports it.

They ignore any evidence that discredits it.

Who is making money out of this?

They ignore any evidence that discredits it.

No, they don't.

Which passed peer review!

Peer review isn't always a great measure of trapping fraudulent research, as it often assumes that the original researcher isn't a lying turd. Perhaps this needs addressing.

Without repeating the tests, reviewers would have had no way of knowing that he'd falsified data. They wouldn't have known that test results were negative if he didn't declare those results (which is exactly what happened in this case with his PCR tests).

deadlydarcy - Member
They ignore any evidence that discredits it.
No, they don't.

Reading this thread I'd beg to differ.

What evidence discredits the theory of AGW?

Precisely Cougar

So relying upon peer review and consensus science as a defence of AGW theory is pointless isn't it?

For me the killer is quite simple - the level of detected change is less than the level of accuracy in the measuring devices and process (devices which in turn, have seldom been calibrated) which makes all raw data collected pretty much useless!

"Scientists" come up with a theory.

They embrace any evidence that supports it.

They ignore any evidence that discredits it.

Who is making money out of this?

That's rubbish. Like any human endeavour, a scientist with a long career based on a particular theory will be resistant to change and more demanding of evidence, but to say they will ignore it is completely wrong. Obviously there will occasionally be cases of fraud - as I pointed out, it's a human endeavour - but sooner or later they get discovered, and science moves on.

What evidence proves it?

Note the inverted commas I put on "scientist"

Did I put forward a view either way? For or against AGW?

No, I didn't.

Zulu-Eleven - Member
Precisely Cougar

So relying upon peer review and consensus science as a defence of AGW theory is pointless isn't it?

For me the killer is quite simple - the level of detected change is less than the level of accuracy in the measuring devices (which in turn, have seldom been calibrated) which makes all raw data collected pretty much pointless!

You're comparing one paper based on the research of one man to hundreds based on the research of thousands.

allmountainventure - Member
What evidence proves it?

Nothing proves it, it's a theory! You first.

So relying upon peer review and consensus science as a defence of AGW theory is pointless isn't it?

Not at all - the fact is that the MMR results were countered by the scientific method, the original paper was refuted by scientists, and all thanks to the peer review process which requires the inclusion of the experiments carried out and their methodology, which in turn guarantees the possibility of repeating the experiment to confirm its results.

Note the inverted commas I put on "scientist"

Did I put forward a view either way? For or against AGW?

No, I didn't.

Weasel words, from the context of the thread you are clearly unconvinced by AGW.

Peer review is not the same as consensus. Consensus comes from repetition, validation and building a body of related evidence.

Why is climate change so different to medicine or particle physics? Are there top-quark deniers out there who claim that the various particle accelerators are in fact secret weapons testing facilities or suchlike?

We may be speeding things up, I don't know, but the planet has been going through cycles long before cars and aerosols were invented.

In the grand scheme of things, aren't we still just coming out of the last ice age?