You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Mogrim - so when people refuse access to their raw data, you start to wonder don't you...
Lifer - irrelevant about how many people are involved, theres only one set of global temperature data, which is an aggregate of selected local/national data - if the data is crap, the entire project is undermined.
Thats not an allegation that AGW has, or has not taken place - its an impartial scientific question on the validity of the data!
If you accept that there is an unknown level of accuracy in the data recording, due to both calibration and external factors, then you accept that the data is fundamentally flawed - If you accept that there are flaws in the data, then you accept that the science is not settled!
Also - if you accept that the data has been modified prior to use in the calculations, than you accept that the science is not settled, and if people refuse to explain their rationale and extent of raw data modification, then you have to accept that that data, in the scientific process, has to be called into question.
Again - simple scientific process, if the data is unreliable, then the results are unreliable - garbage in, garbage out!
Zulu-Eleven - MemberMogrim - so when people refuse access to their raw data, you start to wonder don't you...
i work with large amounts of raw data - there's no way i'd let anyone see it unfiltered/unprocessed - it's more or less meaningless.
irrelevant about how many people are involved, theres only one set of global temperature data, which is an aggregate of selected local/national data - if the data is crap, the entire project is undermined.
Except there are at least two sets of data, ground and satellite based. Any modifications (clean up or whatever) to the data should be properly documented in any paper written.
ahwiles
when you filter/process it, do you list and explain all modifications made to that raw data, and then retain the unmodified raw data itself for future replication if necessary?
you've heard of GLP I presume?
Mogrim - satellite data is calibrated against what? the existing ground data set... oops!
There are myriad and extensive examples of modifications in the published climate data that are not quantified or justified.
One such example here:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/
Now, if the data homogenisation process can be called into question, then the accuracy and usability of the data is in question, that simple!
Again, not an accusation of faking, or that AGW is false, a realistic and scientifically correct question against the validity of the published data!
the original paper was refuted by scientists
Not only that, it was fairly quickly refuted by all the publishers of the original paper who weren't Andrew Wakefield, they all retracted their support.
By that point though, the horse had bolted; which is the point I was trying to make originally, that the media are largely to blame for scaremongering rather than checking their facts.
Measels went from 'practically eradicated' to 'epidemic' levels solely because of Wakefield and the subsequent media furore. It's disgraceful.
it all goes in the report, and i'm happy to talk about it at length to anyone who's bothered (no-one ever is).
i've no idea what GLP is.
re: the tree-ring thing.
tree-rings aren't the only proxies used, there's ice-cores, lake sediments, beetle-poo, etc. etc.
there's correlation between them, except northern-hemisphere tree-rings have gone a bit wonky since 1960, there's boffins looking at why, there's some research which suggests it's linked to sulphur dioxide (acid rain) and increased ground-level ozone.
there's also an apparent increase in tree-death in the northern hemisphere, it seems trees have been having a crap time of it in the last 50years.
personally, i find it all fascinating.
Zulus views on this are as blinkered as the rest of his view. Extensively aired on a similar thread a while ago
I have no understanding why he denies that there is man made climate change when there is such good data indicating that there is, when there is no reputable scientists saying there is not. Not one reputable scientist who denies man made climate change.
Its pointless arguing with him. On this like on so much else he is a flat earther.
Where did I say that TJ?
All I've said, is that the data is flawed/unreliable!
Changed you view have you then? Last time this was raised you completely denied there was man made climate change and relied on all sorts of discredited swivel eyed loons to back you up
Even now your view is laughable. Some of the data is of poor quality yes. However there is a huge body of high quality data that backs up the man made global warming hypothesis.
I think you need to reread what I said last time TJ!
Have you audited the Data?
I presume you've also got a career in QA auditing 🙄 since you've [u]so reliably [/u] stated that there is a huge body of high quality data
I suggest you go and read the contents of "HARRY_READ_ME.txt"
Weasel words, from the context of the thread you are clearly unconvinced by AGW.
Clearly you are ignoring any unknowns(or evidence to the contrary) and have already formed a view about what I think re: AGW.
😆
Co2 is a greenhouse gas and humans produce/release C02 - There will be an effect on the atmosphere from human activity as long as we keep the fires burning. Its that simple.
Even if people are sceptical, I don't understand the entrenched position of 'we're fine as we are'
Why not make changes to reduce our impact on the environment, you know, just in case?
At the very least it will reduce our reliance on imported power.
I'd rather AGW be proved wrong after reducing impact than proved right having done little/nothing.
as an "intellectual coward" I think that scientific challenge is actually required both led by scientists but also the media who communicate the message.
a lack of challenge and "due diligence" contributed to a media that largely supported the proposition that WMD were in Iraq post 2000
the fiddling of the data by Anglian Uni bears striking similarities to th attitudes of the US to WMD as demonstrated in the infamous Colin Powell speech to the UN
the "climate change" movement further hamper their argument by trying to justify windfarms/ microgeneration projects which by in large will end up carbon positive and do not replace any major generation projects
is pumping large amounts of machine generated CO2 into the atmosphere good? undoubtedly not, destruction of rainforect for biofuel good, no.
cancellation of the Severn Barrage and promotion of solar microgeneration demonstrates that we have a long way to go IMHO
Mogrim - satellite data is calibrated against what? the existing ground data set... oops!
And the ground based data set is (relatively) easy to calibrate correctly against other, separate systems.
Even if people are sceptical, I don't understand the entrenched position of 'we're fine as we are'Why not make changes to reduce our impact on the environment, you know, just in case?
At the very least it will reduce our reliance on imported power.
This. What is the benefit in continuing to be incredibly wasteful?
Why not make changes to reduce our impact on the environment, you know, just in case?
The same reason I don't believe in god, just in case.
Now, I do agree that we should be looking to other ways to provide energy for the country and also that the future will come as efficiency. My objections are with man made climate change being reported as fact with seemingly little room for discussion. If you ask questions you're immediately labeled a skeptic, a term that seems to have been made into a dirty word. A lot of people are going to make a lot of money off the face of climate change and I'm not talking about scientists, I'm talking about energy management firms, climate change levies and the associated taxes that will inevitable come. You only have to look at carbon offsetting to realise the amount of job creation and BS already going on.
TandemJeremy, I come here for discussion, you, by your own admission to argue. Wind your neck in a bit, there's a good chap.
What is the benefit in continuing to be incredibly wasteful?
On a personal level, if I'm happy with my lifestyle why would I want to change it [i]just in case[/i]? Being told I can't use my tumble drier and should go without my summer holiday in the sun is a definite downgrading of my quality of life.
Note: this is not my point of view, but I can see how it wouldn't take much to latch on to any reasonable doubt when faced with this kind of lifestyle change...
So if we are wrong about climate change and we still do something about it we will have built a better world for nothing?
cancellation of the Severn Barrage
Because it would have had a major impact on a very fragile ecosystem
[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6638024.ece ]Against the Severn Barrage[/url]
richmtb - Member
So if we are wrong about climate change and we still do something about it we will have built a better world for nothing?
Nothing except the benefit of all.
Clearly you are ignoring any unknowns(or evidence to the contrary) and have already formed a view about what I think re: AGW.
What you said:
"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?
OK, perhaps I was too harsh - but the use of inverted commas is unclear, are you referring to real scientists being paid to discredit climate science?
On a personal level, if I'm happy with my lifestyle why would I want to change it just in case? Being told I can't use my tumble drier and should go without my summer holiday in the sun is a definite downgrading of my quality of life.
OK, but there are lots of things people can do which might make a difference, are probably good things to do anyway, and which have little or no negative impact on lifestyle. Eg insulating your house properly, buying food that hasn't come halfway across the world (maybe growing some of your own), driving less and walking/cycling more, reusing/recycling etc etc etc
My objections are with man made climate change being reported as fact with seemingly little room for discussion. If you ask questions you're immediately labeled a skeptic, a term that seems to have been made into a dirty word.
My understanding, and I'm far from an expert, is that the 'official' stance is that we are "very likely" to be a major contributing factor towards global warming.
I'm not unconvinced that it wouldn't be happening to some extent anyway, our little blue-green rock has a history of having a climatic duck fit every (mumble) million years. However, as far as I can gather, the official stance is that this is believed to be less significant that the damage we're reportedly doing.
I totally agree with your second point though, that people are quick to leap on folk who ask questions. The papers (there's a theme here) like to publish career-destroying "climate change denier" stories about people who've gone "hang on, are we sure?" Johnny Ball leaps to mind here. Surely we should be [i]encouraging [/i]scientific people to challenge this stuff, so that their questions can be publicly addressed and explained?
Bottom line is, as a layman, I simply don't have sufficient knowledge of the facts to draw an informed conclusion. So then we're down to something as simple as believing what we're told. How do you know who do you believe?
I'm no tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist and so I'm prepared to accept that what we're being told officially is as close to correct as we can expect to be, but I don't have blind faith in it.
I totally agree with your second point though, that people are quick to leap on folk who ask questions.
But often those questions are things that they have read on the internet (or in the Daily Telegraph) and have already been disproved many many times. No problem with folk asking a question, but asking the same question over and over again when you've already been given the answer is just wrong-headed.
The earth is a big ol place. I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to understand it all.
But often those questions are things that they have read on the internet (or in the Daily Telegraph) and have already been disproved many many times. No problem with folk asking a question, but asking the same question over and over again when you've already been given the answer is just wrong-headed.
Well, yes. I was trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to differentiate between people with a reasonable scientific background and people who still think the moon landings were faked and JFK is working at a chippie in Dagenham.
Johnny Ball leaps to mind here. Surely we should be encouraging scientific people to challenge this stuff
Johnny ball is a children tv presenter who presented vaguely number/scientific programmes for kids and has absoloutely no formal qualifications as a scientist.
It is almosts 100% non scientific people and non climate specialists who can see problems with the research ...odd that ....makes you think
1. there is a conspiracy that only lay people can see
2. they dont know what they are talking about ewhen they criticise
Johnny ball ... has absoloutely no formal qualifications as a scientist.
I have no formal qualifications in IT (well, beyond an A'Level) and I'm a senior engineer at a large communications company, having worked in IT since the early 90's. I'm not convinced that a lack of qualifications is damning in and of itself. (Which is just as well, cos the current head of the IPCC's only qualification is a train driver or some such iirc.)
It is almosts 100% non scientific people and non climate specialists who can see problems with the research
Except, it's not is it. The Former IPCC chairman has spoken out against them, for a start, and plenty of other 'climate experts' have too.
But anyway, I'm painting myself into a 'devil's advocate' corner here. I don't necessarily agree with any of them, and there's plenty of halfwits in the world, I'm just saying that it's a minefield and very difficult for us as the great unwashed to know with any certainty.
Junky - two simple examples:
Alfred Wegener and Plate Tectonics
Mary Anning and Fossils
In the former, established scientific consensus was overturned by the ideas of a Krank who passed away twenty years earlier- in the latter, the work of a non-scientific, uneducated, unqualified amateur fossil hunter who was dismissed by "the establishment" became the cornerstone of the entire scientific field!
Just because they're a crank, doesn't make them wrong, in just the same way as just because its the consensus, doesn't make it right! You cannot dismiss arguments on the basis of ad hominem, its against the very ethos of science.
Personally, I'd take climate science far more seriously if I heard people saying "Well, we're not certain, here's the things we do know, here's the uncertainties, and here's our working hypothesis" - but thats not what we're being told, we're being told that the science is settled and anyone who questions it is a loon.
The true status of climate science could be paraphrased quite easily by Donald Rumsfeld:
... as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know
Zulu I see little point in responding to you what TJ said and frankly I pass things out my rear that I hold in higher regard than you and they are less full of crap 😆
Cougar stay on track [ pun intended see later] here - first you claimed Johnny Ball is a scientific type person when he is a childrens tv presenter - you could have just said sorry you know :roll:. Then you claim the only qualification of the current head of the IPCC is as a train driver if you wish to lie and distort reality to that degree may I suggest a career in blogging or writing for the right wing press. It is just not true as I suspect you are aware.
Yes the issue is complicated propably a good reason to leave it to people who understand it better than us eh ?
Point proven Junky - your science is shaky so you resort to ad hominem.
I've raised a valid concern over the integrity of the dataset - you've done nothing to discuss that, or try in any way to reinforce the reliability of the data, just dismiss anything that counters your zealot like faith in AGW with name calling!
Tell you what Junky - I'll throw you an easy one
If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree - how do you reliably detect a temperature change of 0.7 degrees?
go on, answer that one 😉
first you claimed Johnny Ball is a scientific type person when he is a childrens tv presenter
I deliberately said "scientific people" rather than "scientists." By this I was meaning people generally with an above average scientific understanding. Johnny Ball fits this category I believe. Perhaps I should have worded it a little better. I'm not suggesting he's a climate change "expert," but I'd expect he knows more about it than both you and I do.
Then you claim the only qualification of the current head of the IPCC is as a train driver if you wish to lie and distort reality to that degree may I suggest a career in blogging or writing for the right wing press.
On the back of that comment, I looked it up rather than half-remembering. I stand corrected - as well as being an ex-railway engineer, Rajendra Pachauri also has a PhD in Economics. Wow, that's me told.
Yes the issue is complicated propably a good reason to leave it to people who understand it better than us eh ?
No arguments here. Interesting to discuss, though. So long as you can keep from attacking me by accusing me of lying etc anyway, I'm neither lying nor intentionally distorting anything. I'm ignorant, perhaps, but I'm not dishonest.
The concept and awareness of climate change has been around for nigh-on 40 years now. If there was massive political motivation and money to be made from promoting "global warming" and the conspiracy theorists claim, we'd have made the transition to low-carbon energy and materials long ago. As it stands, traditional energy generation and use remain firmly entrenched with little (financial) incentive to move away from this status-quo. There is little money to be made in going 'green'.
If there was massive political motivation and money to be made from promoting "global warming" and the conspiracy theorists claim, we'd have made the transition to low-carbon energy and materials long ago.
Yes, that would be inconceivable! 🙄
If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree - how do you reliably detect a temperature change of 0.7 degrees?
1. How do you know what the accuracy of the thermometers* used to measure the temperatures in the datasets is +/- 1C?
2. Can I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word "average" or more correctly "mean".
If you take many measurements and then find an "average" you can quite easily and accurately detect changes that are less than the apparent accuracy of your measuring device. I used similar techniques when I was in school, albeit I was measuring mass rather than temperature.
* They probably don't use thermometers by the way however I'll use that word to mean "temperature measuring device".
If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree - how do you reliably detect a temperature change of 0.7 degrees?
Where is it stated that the accuracy of thermometers used to determine the change in average temperature, worldwide was +/-1°C?
Not trying to catch you out, genuine question.
If the rated accuracy of a standard thermometer is +/- one degree, does that mean that the measuring fluid can fluctuate by a degree either way, that the tolerance of the scale could be up to a degree out, or that it's impossible to read more granularly than one degree? (-:
Not trying to catch you out, genuine question.
Is that what he meant? I assumed it was a hypothetical question. I don't expect that they measure global warming with a rectal thermometer, they're more used to measure the exothermic heat in Internet forum discussions.
Gonefishin
I used one degree as an example, the truth is we don't know what level of resolution the thermometers which have been used carry, since often there are no records - we do know that some places used very, very accurate ones, and some less so - however there are little or no continuing calibration records, so a thermometer that was accurate when new, may well have been significantly out five years later. again, this all goes in the unknown pile.
if you measured a single spot on the planet ( or each spot on the planet) 10 times in the same moment, then that “law of large numbers” increase in precision would mean something. But if you measure a million places once each with a precision of +/- 1 C you can NOT say if things have warmed or cooled by 1/100 C based on the average. You simply do not know in which direction the error terms lie, and to assert that they “all average out” is just another kind of lie, its a guess- you do not [b]know.[/b]
Secondly, if the errors are not random normal, your assumption that everything averages out may (I emphasize may) be in trouble. And unfortunately, in the real world, things are rarely that nice. If you send 50 guys out to do a job, there will be errors. But these errors will NOT tend to cluster around zero. They will tend to cluster around the easiest or most probable mistakes, and thus the errors will not be symmetrical, so drawing a point between the two as an average is inaccurate, again, its a guess.
the idea that the green lobby is somehow richer, greedier and more amoral than the oil industry is ****in hilarious (- the middle east isnt a war ravaged collection of repressive proxy western dictatorships bevcause of all the windfarms there)
science can never give 100% guarantee that current theories are accurate but considering the overwhelming amount of evidence in peer reviewed literature that global temperatures are rising for the 10th year in a row and that man has an effect on this
you have 2 choices
believe the scientists
or
disregard the entire peer review system and listen to fox news, jeremey clarckson and bellendpole from the telegraph
you wouldnt let some gormless hack who had never read a scientific paper in his life develop new cancer drugs for you
why would you believe his opinionated rantings about climate change?
As it stands, traditional energy generation and use remain firmly entrenched with little (financial) incentive to move away from this status-quo
Exactly, the conspiracy is making no change at all. The conspiracy is doing exactly what we've always done. Except before we could claim ignorance of any possible repercussions.
How much proof do people need anyway before action is taken? Will some people not be satisfied until we have computer modelled every molecule on the planet?
I get so frustrated with people who say we should do nothing until it is fully understood. They think cutting back on CO2 output is unnatural.
No, cars are unnatural, getting ancient reserves of oil & coal from under the ground is unnatural. Travelling a hundred miles a day in a 2 ton box is unnatural. The onus should be on supporters of these technologies to prove 100% that they have no bad side-effects. Or is there perhaps a consipracy?
I used one degree as an example, the truth is we don't know what level of resolution the thermometers which have been used carry, since often there are no records - we do know that some places used very, very accurate ones, and some less so - however there are little or no continuing calibration records, so a thermometer that was accurate when new, may well have been significantly out five years later. again, this all goes in the unknown pile.
So global warming could be [i]worse[/i] than we originally feared?
I don't understand this subject and I don't want to have to put any effort into understanding it, so I'll just believe what I want to.
There's enough evidence of seemingly intelligent, well reasoned people, on this thread, suggesting that the science isn't beyond doubt, being shot down and flamed by name calling poster who appear to be incapable of rational debate, to reassure me that I'm not a conspiracist and that there are people out there with an open mind who are prepared to question what they read. I'm waiting to be flamed and called a denier by those jumping to conclusion over what mine and other peoples views are. I knew this wasn't the debating society when I signed up, but seriously, some people.
I don't think the science is beyond doubt, but I think the general consensus is more likely to be accurate than any alternative, and a lot of the reason people get branded 'deniers' is they are trotting out the same discredited arguments they have copied from a spurious source.
And once again, most of the measures are a good idea anyway, even if GW turns out to be not what we thought. People seem to keep ignoring this point.
[i]There's enough evidence of seemingly intelligent, well reasoned people, on this thread, suggesting that the science isn't beyond doubt,[/i]
really? all i see is z11 saying that thermometers arent very accurate
Ah so you're going for the "changing the goal posts technique". You asked a question and I answered it so you ignore that then start to argue about some other detail.
But if you measure a million places once each with a precision of +/- 1 C you can NOT say if things have warmed or cooled by 1/100 C based on the average
Now I'll admit that I haven't read any of the data pertaining to climate change, however I would be amazed if that is what has happened. I would assume (and I consider this assumption to be reasonable) that there would be "a million" measurements in "a million" places all of which can be used to generate an average. Do you have access to information that supports your statement that they only used a single measurement at lots of places (proxy measurements excepted)?
I'm not even going to start on the points you raised on the relative accuracy of the insturmentation as it is all complete suppostion on your part.
but I'd expect he knows more about it than both you and I do.
Do all childrens tv presenters know more about it than me or just him ? he was a bad example to pick as he ha sno formal scientific training . I have some O level's some A level's and a degree so are you sure?. Everyone thinks they know something about this when in reality an expert would just laugh at our child like grasp of the subject whether it be me you or the genius Johnny Ball..
The rest is still a very skewed view of the Chairs history snd you are still cherry picking what you report on his qualifications whilst complaining about this
So long as you can keep from attacking me by accusing me of lying etc anyway, I'm neither lying nor intentionally distorting anything
Poor really poor as you are being deliberatley selective about what you post to paint a picture of him that is not entirely accurate .He is not a train driver [you have now changed this to railway engineer] that is a lie and your view is clearly an attempted distortion of his qualifications . Stop doing it and I will stop saying you are simple
There's enough evidence of seemingly intelligent, well reasoned people, on this thread, suggesting that the science isn't beyond doubt, being shot down and flamed by name calling poster who appear to be incapable of rational debate, to reassure me that I'm not a conspiracist and that there are people out there with an open mind who are prepared to question what they read. I'm waiting to be flamed and called a denier by those jumping to conclusion over what mine and other peoples views are. I knew this wasn't the debating society when I signed up, but seriously, some people.
ah yes the fallacy of "argumentum ad temperantiam" you seem to be assuming that because 50% of people on here are raving conspiracy loonies and 50% are well balanced scientists that the real answer is somewhere in the middle? Piffle.
It's like saying that "the world is full of sense and nonsense, I like to find a happy medium!"
Gonefishin - I'll refer you back to this
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/
Now, thats ONE site.
then have a look at this
[img] 
[/img]
Due to the clustering and homogonisation procedure, one poor site can pollute the record from many, many others.
The scientifically minded amongst you should that poor data is worthless - however are too stuck in "defend AGW" mode to accept that a full data audit is the only way to tackle it.
Despite repeated ad hominem attacks here, I've not seen a single argument that tackles the root of my problems with data integrity!
Zulu - do you have any worthwhile evidence for your ideas? So far I have not seen a single credible piece of evidence to back your assertions.
A blog V peer reviewed data published in respected journals. 🙄
Poor data is not worthless - it remains data. it may have less value but it remains data
A blog V peer reviewed data published in respected journals
Unfortunately this supports the discussion on the program. Someone shouting from his keyboard versus peer-reviewed data.
Surely the oil companies by now (or their supporters, of which there are a number) have presented a 'killer' paper that debunks the entire thing if it is fallacious? Or are we into Scooby Doo conspiracy where no papers ever 'dissenting' get published?
eth3er thats very good
Do all childrens tv presenters know more about it than me or just him ? he was a bad example to pick as he ha sno formal scientific training
Alright, maybe it was a bad example. However (and I said this before) having no formal qualifications does not automatically imply that you're talking out of the top of your head. Being a childrens TV presenter does not automatically make you Timmy Mallet. Laboring the kids' TV angle is just ad hominem, it has no bearing on what he does or does not know or understand. He may be wrong because his theories are wrong, but he's not wrong simply because he used to be on telly.
Everyone thinks they know something about this when in reality an expert would just laugh at our child like grasp of the subject
This is kind of the crux of what I was getting at in another post, yes. It's science all over though; dumbing down is commonplace because very few people outside of the "experts" would understand it otherwise. Do you remember your school science well enough to tell me how a wing generates lift?
The rest is still a very skewed view of the Chairs history snd you are still cherry picking what you report on his qualifications whilst complaining about this
I'm sorry, no offence and I don't know if you're dyslexic or on a mobile keyboard, but I didn't fully understand this sentence. I'm not 'cherry picking' anything, I wasn't the one that brought up qualifications in the first place.
Poor really poor as you are being deliberatley selective about what you post to paint a picture of him that is not entirely accurate
I'm posting what I know about him, which isn't a great deal, but seemingly more than you because:
He is not a train driver [you have now changed this to railway engineer] that is a lie and your view is clearly an attempted distortion of his qualifications
I did say "train driver" was from memory, and when I checked I corrected myself. I do try to express when I'm not sure; I don't see how I can be any more transparent than I am without making 50% of every post into disclaimer text.
He doesn't have any scientific qualifications -whatsoever- other than the unrelated PhD I mentioned. If I were skewing facts, I'd perhaps have been better served by not mentioning his PhD at all, or questioning the motives of a man with an Economics degree. But ok then, what are his qualifications? Rather than just yelling how wrong I am, why don't you correct me?
Stop doing it and I will stop saying you are simple
I wasn't aware that you were saying I was simple, but if that's the best you can do then I'll simply bow out of the conversation and you can talk to yourself. I've been on the Internet for way too long to put up with people incapable of holding a civil discussion without resorting to abuse, especially when it's people I'd previously held in fairly high regard.
Z 11 are the pictures you and others have have posted of apparent weather monitoring stations the same ones as were used to gather the data or just random examples of badly sited weather monitors ?
Nice distinction between sceptics and denialists here if anyone's interested:-
And real world examples (HIV/AIDS; vaccines/autism) expressing some of the thread so far in a very balanced way:-
A lot of it, as that second link implies, comes down to scientists being, as a group, pretty poor at communicating.
For the avoidance of doubt, my view (as a scientist) is that the climate is changing - like rob2, I have to help plan to keep water coming to you and shit being taken away from you, in assets that need to be maintained and built with customers' money, and the uncertainties are large.
Uncertainty makes most people uncomfortable (civil engineers and accountants in the water industry are not immune 😉 ) which is why the media have to sell copy by presenting things as 'crisp' facts not a balance of probabilities. A good proportion of the population doesn't seem to understand the concept even of 'average', let alone confidence intervals, given the number of drivers who slow down at average speed cameras only to speed up between them... 🙄
What we expect is climate, what we see out of the window is weather. Humans have evolved (uh-oh, now I've done it) to deal with the here and now, and really struggle with cause/effect beyond very short timescales. It's up to scientists to clearly communicate these inter-generational issues to non-specialist sceptics (cf. denialists) and we'd better learn how to do that, fast.
Sir Paul Nurse could start by taking some academic colleagues to task in arts subjects. Writing a well-balanced essay that considers all the evidence and comes to a reasoned conclusion is a sure fire route to a 2i mark at Oxbridge (or equivalent Uni) in an arts subject. On the otherhand, a radically controvertial essay drawing on little used sources which is strongly argued is likely to get a 1st class mark (and the author a job as a science blogger for a broadsheet).
I still don't know how he managed to get all the way through without saying 'postmodernism'.
Cougar
😳 i rarely pounctuate on here due to lazyiness I am not dyslexic - i am fully qualified to teach english to adults 😯
My lack of punctuation has left me with egg on my face - should have been
Stop doing it and I will stop saying you are, simple.
I apologise it was not my intention to say you were simple at all. I am happy to correct this error. I have learnt a lesson on my pathetic use of punctuation today.
Again Sorry - i also enjoy discussions with you and have no beef [ get it ] with you . I was not saying you are simple but it clearly reads as if I was. My error can I stop apologising now...sorry
Writing a well-balanced essay that considers all the evidence and comes to a reasoned conclusion is a sure fire route to a 2i mark at Oxbridge (or equivalent Uni) in an arts subject. On the otherhand, a radically controvertial essay drawing on little used sources which is strongly argued is likely to get a 1st class mark (and the author a job as a science blogger for a broadsheet).
I still don't know how he managed to get all the way through without saying 'postmodernism'.
😆
But then again I was quite happy with my humble 2i in Marine and Environmental Biology 😉
I_did_dab - MemberSir Paul Nurse could start by taking some academic colleagues to task in arts subjects. Writing a well-balanced essay that considers all the evidence and comes to a reasoned conclusion is a sure fire route to a 2i mark at Oxbridge (or equivalent Uni) in an arts subject. On the otherhand, a radically controvertial essay drawing on little used sources which is strongly argued is likely to get a 1st class mark (and the author a job as a science blogger for a broadsheet).
I still don't know how he managed to get all the way through without saying 'postmodernism'.
V good. It is probably the root cause of all this. (I mean that with all seriousness, postmodernism = piffle)
(replied to junkmail via email; we're good)
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.
I love it when people say things like this. "Its snowed two winters in a row - ergo global warming can't be happening"... 😆