312 replies to this topic

[greybing]

I belive the vitriol spewed onto people who are dissenters of the CO2 anthropomorphic global warming theory is a totally strange taboo and hugely wrong.Pierce Corbyn[the famous advocate for non a.g.w. and his statistically minor meteorological methods] is treated in some of these forums as a complete joke and things well below the belt are said.His theories on how the weather works are worthy of investigation of anybody who cares and is ignorant of them ,and I do mean investigate - thoroughly- so people can make informed choices.I believe a lot of people who have not bothered to investigate his scientific methods pre judge him and say awful things.
I have decided to question A.G.W. and do a lot of investigating in order to make my own mind and not develop neurosis on the subject.Any thoughts ,whatever ,just leave them ,cheers.

Edited by greybing, 18 October 2011 - 03:32 .

[IanM]

It would be a lot simpler to investigate Piers methodologies if he published them, and I agree he can come in for a lot of overly personal comments. We try to stop them when we see them on the forums, but Piers could possibly help himself by not being quite so strident, aggressive and dismissive in all of his comments and releases.

Good luck with the investigation, keep us posted with the reports you are reading, and how they are influencing you.

I'll move this to the Climate discussion area, you'll find a lot more information there.

[winterfreak]

I am a firm believer that although us, as Humans, don't do our environment, ecosystems and natural habitats any favours sometimes, the thought that by burning fuel and releasing CO2 (that has always been in the vicinity of the Earth in one way or another) that we are somehow altering the Climate is a bit, well, ludicrous IMO. Are we really so egotistical to say we are more powerful than nature and we are somehow getting an upper hand on it? I don't think so.....

[Radiating Dendrite]

greybing, on 18 October 2011 - 03:23 , said:

I belive the vitriol spewed onto people who are dissenters of the CO2 anthropomorphic global warming theory is a totally strange taboo and hugely wrong.Pierce Corbyn[the famous advocate for non a.g.w. and his statistically minor meteorological methods] is treated in some of these forums as a complete joke and things well below the belt are said.His theories on how the weather works are worthy of investigation of anybody who cares and is ignorant of them ,and I do mean investigate - thoroughly- so people can make informed choices.I believe a lot of people who have not bothered to investigate his scientific methods pre judge him and say awful things.
I have decided to question A.G.W. and do a lot of investigating in order to make my own mind and not develop neurosis on the subject.Any thoughts ,whatever ,just leave them ,cheers.

I think the stick that Piers has is brought on by himself in the majority of cases.

People are not criticising him because he is not a global warming advocate, but because the majority of his forecasts seem to be nothing more than over sensationalised sound bites, designed to feed the media.

Is the recent past he has criticised fellow forecasters for being wrong with their long range outlooks, yet his own are hardly covered in glory.

Edited by Radiating Dendrite, 18 October 2011 - 07:23 .

[full_frontal_occlusion]

winterfreak, on 18 October 2011 - 06:45 , said:

I am a firm believer that although us, as Humans, don't do our environment, ecosystems and natural habitats any favours sometimes, the thought that by burning fuel and releasing CO2 (that has always been in the vicinity of the Earth in one way or another) that we are somehow altering the Climate is a bit, well, ludicrous IMO. Are we really so egotistical to say we are more powerful than nature and we are somehow getting an upper hand on it? I don't think so.....

The whole scientific AGW issue does not and never has claimed Humans are more powerful than nature. It simply states that there are variations in global climate patterns that cannot be attributed to natural variation and cycles on its own. It also states that Human production of the so called Greenhouse-Gases is overwhelmingly the most likely cause. The wording however is precisely why sceptics will never be convinced: all science is based on the premise of theory, evidence and experiment and any theory only holds as long as evidence is not found to negate it. That does not mean all scientific theories are wrong - quite the contrary as new theories merely better-fit the evidence in a wider range of scenario.

If you are going to assert yourself then to avoid a decendance into ad-hominem statement, please provide evidence for your assertion. It should be factual based on empirical evidence, independently verifiable and capable of withstanding serious peer-review challenge. Anecdotal evidence, hearsay, cherry-picking, inductive-reasoning and post hoc ergo proctor hoc assertions can be easily demolished as fallacious arguments.

ffO.

[Ladyofthestorm]

When I studied at University Environmental Science, a few moons ago now, we had one of the top leading researchers in the country as our tutor. I remember the day he incrediously said we cannot prove there is a thing as man induced global warning. Thats the thing how do we seperate natural climate fluctuations from mans influence. We still do not know the full in and outs of the global climatic system... its complexities and the many feedback loops that exsist. Look very closely over the predictions of global warming set by the IPCC over the past few decades and look at how the goal posts constantly move, look at how confidence is very low in these predictions and uncertainty very high.

Man does influence what happens on this planet, but it is far more subtle than policy makers and the media make it out to be. Basically enhanced/ anthropological global warming scientifically exsist and even if it does we do not have the scientific expertise and computer models to prove that it does. Scarey thought isnt it, that we have so little influence over the planet. Perhaps if we could model and then massage the data we could prove that we do infact influence sunspot activity! lol.

What I am saying, or at least trying to say is that people should be wary of any argument for anthropological global warming when the science isnt actually all there. When instead of science we have inferior models that cannot cope with the complexities, when energy companies and the media drive on the real motivators for advocating global warming in its enhanced state, when politicans see a fanatsic scape goat to increase tax to generate more income. Take away the economic and political incentives to make global warming a man induced problem.... then I might start believing the science.

When the IPCC had been heavily criticised a few years ago.... In 1996 I wrote a substantial research piece into the so called research done by the IPCC, It was a critical essay looking at thethe way this organisation collates data (rather selectively) carried out by this politically funded organisation, the climate change models they used, unchecked statistical analysis and so forth, it was a long time ago! Dont get me wrong... the IPCC does some very good things in terms of land degradation etc.

[full_frontal_occlusion]

Ladyofthestorm, on 18 October 2011 - 08:03 , said:

What I am saying, or at least trying to say is that people should be wary of any argument for anthropological global warming when the science isnt actually all there.

There you hit the nail squarely: that the politicisation and commercialisation of the science has blurred the boundary between truth and fiction.

The key issue though is that the stakes for getting it incorrect could be catastrophic.

The powerful tactic used by both the political/commercial factions is to globally associate the poor and bad work as indicative of the the unreliable credibility of the genuinely good work and hence the entire scientific community is brought into disrepute. But of course the argument works both ways - that either side, pro or anti, can and does slander each other.

That does not help the science and neither does it help the general public who will side with caution or any excuse to carty on regardless since the options are only do nothing or do something and get finacially hammered.

In the end it's heads-you-win, tails-I-lose.

For sure the science can be better - much better but that delay may carry a very high price as the stakes could not be higher.

I would rather err on the side of caution: control the emissions and continue improving the science as fast as we can.

Humans seem quite happy to wage war and handsomely compensate those responsible for the most suffering in the process. Doing nothing in the final 'hope' that Humans didn't have an option in the first place seems to me like a complete shirk of responsibility.

ffO.

[jethro]

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

[Solar Sausage]

Like what was posted above, Mr Corbyn does indeed bring a lot of criticism on to his own head, IMO: He will not make his 'methods' public, and he does (again IMO) spend far too much time denigrating the MetO and inflating his own successes far beyond what they deserve? That's only the way I see things by-the-way...

As was also said above, and with which I agree, it's the politicisation of the subject (AGW) that is the main problem. As is the case with many other subjects, I suspect?

[Ladyofthestorm]

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 08:42 , said:

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

A good question!
Im not sure....given that I know a little about human nature, I dont think overstating will actually wash with the average peep, especially if overstating has a finanical and political intention attached to it. Common sense does have a tendancy to balance the brainwashing that goes on about saving the planet. Ass FFO has quite rightly pointed out he is erring on the side of what we call the precautionary principle, when in fact the major oil companies are erring on what we call assimilative capacity....we are not all singing from the same hymn sheet and never have been. So for the sake of consistancy shouldnt we ALL be at least singing from the same managing pollution principle?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm just surprised that greybing had the authority to start a thread down here?

I though we ALL had to go to our Mod's a petition for such? apparently not?.

Anyway greybing , odd that Graham Nash could spawn from the same town eh? ( I studied at Eccles 6th form by the well so know your locale very well).

As for piers? well , Ha! Ha! Ha! , nice one! (very funny :-)...)

Can anyone say that we do not alter the environment we live in and that those changes did not enforce change???(greybing, I remember 'Eccles fields' even before the 6th form was built and it was green open country from the East lanc's to Monton......due mainly to the 'black Harry' disused railway taking coal from Agecroft to the mcr ship Canal) . We can see the way we have encroached over (and into?) the lands we live on but the atmosphere is 'clear' and we rely upon 'Science' to measure the changes there. And Change there has been. Would anyone dare stand up and claim to know enough to reassure us that those changes are without consequence, that they are mute?

Debate may rage over how much we are responsible for the changes we have noted over our 'living ' (48 years for me) but 'change' there has been.

Edited by Gray-Wolf, 18 October 2011 - 08:56 .

[jethro]

GW - The second post in this thread will answer your question. This thread was started elsewhere in the forum and moved here (to a more appropriate section) by a Mod.

[Solar Sausage]

jethro, on 18 October 2011 - 08:42 , said:

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

A good question, J...But, what with all the uncertainty involved, how can we be sure that 'the case for AGW' is being 'over-stated'?

[jethro]

Pete Tattum, on 18 October 2011 - 08:59 , said:

A good question, J...But, what with all the uncertainty involved, how can we be sure that 'the case for AGW' is being 'over-stated'?

I thought that was the official stance at the onset of the IPCC.

[Ladyofthestorm]

Good questions GW, that is the problem we do not know what impact we have on our environment at the global scale. It is easy at the local scale, perhaps a challenge at the counrty scale, but impossible at the global scale as the knowledge just isnt there. Environmental change is noted throughout the history of the Earth are we just another part of that change? Are we perhaps in our sentient social consiousness getting too bogged down. Is it perhaps too much to ask of mother nature to right itself again, regradless of what we think we are going?

The IPCC has always taken an overstated route.... the selectively select scientific data to come up with their hockey stick projections.

Greybing why dont you set up a questionannaire here on the forum, select questions carefully so that you can guage just how deep neurosis runs...lol Dont go for middle of the road answers, make peeps answer one way or the other, and once you have 40 or 50 responses youll get a statistically viable set of results afterall we cover a huge range on the forum. We are a diverse bunch.

[shuggee]

For me, not agreeing with hypotheses around AGW is about having equally rigorously scientifically-based alternative theories that stack-up. Not much of that about as far as I can see - just lots of sniping and disingenuously picking selective holes in the existing theory. If there was another theory that was demonstrably able to show that AGW was nonsense - then all of the scientific community would have to sit-up and take notice and accept the new theory(ies). That's my understanding of how science works. Call me niaive....

[4wd]

There's clearly something seriously wrong with the alarmist claims that set the political hi-jack of AGW in motion

[cyclonic happiness]

full_frontal_occlusion, on 18 October 2011 - 08:00 , said:

The whole scientific AGW issue does not and never has claimed Humans are more powerful than nature. It simply states that there are variations in global climate patterns that cannot be attributed to natural variation and cycles on its own. It also states that Human production of the so called Greenhouse-Gases is overwhelmingly the most likely cause. The wording however is precisely why sceptics will never be convinced: all science is based on the premise of theory, evidence and experiment and any theory only holds as long as evidence is not found to negate it. That does not mean all scientific theories are wrong - quite the contrary as new theories merely better-fit the evidence in a wider range of scenario.

If you are going to assert yourself then to avoid a decendance into ad-hominem statement, please provide evidence for your assertion. It should be factual based on empirical evidence, independently verifiable and capable of withstanding serious peer-review challenge. Anecdotal evidence, hearsay, cherry-picking, inductive-reasoning and post hoc ergo proctor hoc assertions can be easily demolished as fallacious arguments.

ffO.

What does "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" mean? I only speak English.

[IanM]

cyclonic happiness, on 18 October 2011 - 12:09 , said:

What does "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" mean? I only speak English.

It's a logical fallacy, assuming that because one event follows another it was the first event that caused the second, or in the case of AGW removing the first event will stop the second event occurring. http://en.wikipedia....rgo_propter_hoc

[full_frontal_occlusion]

cyclonic happiness, on 18 October 2011 - 12:09 , said:

What does "post hoc ergo proctor hoc" mean? I only speak English.

Apologies. it means:

"After this therefore because of this"

i.e. arriving at a conclusion based solely on the sequence of events.

For example, the fallacy is evident in the statement: 'because we had two or three cold winters then global warming must be proven false.

Logically the statement may be true however, in scientific rigour, two or three winters evidence is not of any statistical significance whatsoever as it cannot rule out underlying trends nor does it offer any hint at other variables which may cause the same effect.

This must not be confused with science falling into the same trap. GW evidence is not accrued from a single source or event but from a huge array of diverse sources over a significant timespan.

ffO.

Edited by full_frontal_occlusion, 18 October 2011 - 12:46 .