Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
For attention of those climate change numpties
For the attention of those braindead types who pipe up about the "global warming lot" going quiet when there's 2 days of snow and adopting the head in the sand approach:
http://www.newscienti...n-climate-change.html
Lets see what counter arguments they come up with.,
http://www.newscienti...n-climate-change.html
Lets see what counter arguments they come up with.,
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Avatar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Those whom you number among the “brain dead numpties”, Avatar, are presumably those who work for the US National Snow and Ice data centre in Colorado.
They suggest that the warming of the earth is due to natural oceanic cycles and not due to the activities of mankind. They suggest that the earth goes through a cycle of warm and cool modes due principally to natural fluctuations in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. They believe that the earth has now entered a cool mode and that global temperatures have begun to fall, and will continue to fall for perhaps 30 years. Among other things they cite the fact that the amount of summer sea ice has increased by 25% since 2007.
People should beware of accepting conjecture as “fact” simply because sufficient numbers of “experts” tell them so enough times. 132 million doses of swine flu vaccine have recently been purchased and subsequently dumped because experts persuaded the government that 100,000 per week would contract the disease and 65,000 may die. In 2000 Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Centre said snow would be a “very rare and exciting event” in the UK in coming years. I could go on.
The article you cite is almost three years old, and was published at the height of the Global Warming “hype”. I personally would like to see a more balanced approach with some more cash being invested in gas storage and nuclear power, and a little less on wind farms – the most inefficient mode of power production. Hopefully a more reasoned debate will ensue now that the “facts” seem to be somewhat changing.
But of course I’m just a brain dead numpty.
They suggest that the warming of the earth is due to natural oceanic cycles and not due to the activities of mankind. They suggest that the earth goes through a cycle of warm and cool modes due principally to natural fluctuations in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. They believe that the earth has now entered a cool mode and that global temperatures have begun to fall, and will continue to fall for perhaps 30 years. Among other things they cite the fact that the amount of summer sea ice has increased by 25% since 2007.
People should beware of accepting conjecture as “fact” simply because sufficient numbers of “experts” tell them so enough times. 132 million doses of swine flu vaccine have recently been purchased and subsequently dumped because experts persuaded the government that 100,000 per week would contract the disease and 65,000 may die. In 2000 Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Centre said snow would be a “very rare and exciting event” in the UK in coming years. I could go on.
The article you cite is almost three years old, and was published at the height of the Global Warming “hype”. I personally would like to see a more balanced approach with some more cash being invested in gas storage and nuclear power, and a little less on wind farms – the most inefficient mode of power production. Hopefully a more reasoned debate will ensue now that the “facts” seem to be somewhat changing.
But of course I’m just a brain dead numpty.
Well that is one way I suppose to get people to side with you over something, data or no data, Just insult them. Call them numpties and braindead and so on.
I'm not going to counter argue the point. It may or may not be us. We haven't been on this planet long enough to know just how it works and why it works the way it does.
We shall see just who is right or wrong. If the global warming side are right then I think perhaps it is to late to do a thing to stop it. If not then I think there is still nothing we can do about it.
But please don't go through insults around just because you believe in the global warming theory. It isn't going to convince any doubters that it is right.
I'm not going to counter argue the point. It may or may not be us. We haven't been on this planet long enough to know just how it works and why it works the way it does.
We shall see just who is right or wrong. If the global warming side are right then I think perhaps it is to late to do a thing to stop it. If not then I think there is still nothing we can do about it.
But please don't go through insults around just because you believe in the global warming theory. It isn't going to convince any doubters that it is right.
Avatar -
So you don't think that the 'US national snow and ice centre' are 'numpties'?
On the one hand, you suggest that anyone who doubts that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] theory is a 'numpty'; yet here you are admitting that scientists from the US national snow and ice centre (who are suggesting that AGW isn't occurring) do not fall into the afore-mentioned 'numpty' category.
So where exactly do you stand then?
Do you think that anyone who doubts that AGW is a reality is a 'numpty'?
If so, why are the 'US national snow and ice centre' not 'numpties' seeing as they're apparently disagreeing with the AGW theory?
So you don't think that the 'US national snow and ice centre' are 'numpties'?
On the one hand, you suggest that anyone who doubts that anthropogenic global warming [AGW] theory is a 'numpty'; yet here you are admitting that scientists from the US national snow and ice centre (who are suggesting that AGW isn't occurring) do not fall into the afore-mentioned 'numpty' category.
So where exactly do you stand then?
Do you think that anyone who doubts that AGW is a reality is a 'numpty'?
If so, why are the 'US national snow and ice centre' not 'numpties' seeing as they're apparently disagreeing with the AGW theory?
Put a percentage on it. I'm interested to know how certain people are either way.
People see the compelling body of opinion, consisting of the most respected and pre-eminent scientists and scientific bodies in the world - and they're initially convinced. But then they look at the other side. These scientists could be in it to gain extra funding. Governments could be pushing this theory to raise green taxes. And there are a significant number of scientists (not as many admittedly, and not as respected, some argue) who argue against the idea of man-made climate change.
So let's say this combination of opposing voices and suspect motives have eroded your belief in man-made climate change. So you're only 50/50. Or even 70/30 in favour of not believing. That still leaves a very hefty chance in your mind that we're responsible in some way for potentially catastrophic change.
Surely those odds would be enough to make you take the chance - even if on the balance of probabilities you don't believe it's happening - that there might be something in it, and be prepared to change behaviour, pay more tax, take responsibility accordingly.
If you reduce your carbon footprint and it turns out you've been duped, what's the worst that's happened? You're slightly less well-off financially, you feel a bit of an idiot. If you do nothing and it turns out you should have, what's the worst that's happened? You've contributed to irreversible and hugely damaging climate change. That's the bit I don't get.
So how certain are non-believers that man-made climate change isn't real? And what is it about the believability of the conspiracy theories that overrides the believability of so many thousands of highly respected scientists?
Even if ON BALANCE you're not sold on the idea, the cast-iron certainty that it's not true worth acting on AT ALL seems odd to me.
People see the compelling body of opinion, consisting of the most respected and pre-eminent scientists and scientific bodies in the world - and they're initially convinced. But then they look at the other side. These scientists could be in it to gain extra funding. Governments could be pushing this theory to raise green taxes. And there are a significant number of scientists (not as many admittedly, and not as respected, some argue) who argue against the idea of man-made climate change.
So let's say this combination of opposing voices and suspect motives have eroded your belief in man-made climate change. So you're only 50/50. Or even 70/30 in favour of not believing. That still leaves a very hefty chance in your mind that we're responsible in some way for potentially catastrophic change.
Surely those odds would be enough to make you take the chance - even if on the balance of probabilities you don't believe it's happening - that there might be something in it, and be prepared to change behaviour, pay more tax, take responsibility accordingly.
If you reduce your carbon footprint and it turns out you've been duped, what's the worst that's happened? You're slightly less well-off financially, you feel a bit of an idiot. If you do nothing and it turns out you should have, what's the worst that's happened? You've contributed to irreversible and hugely damaging climate change. That's the bit I don't get.
So how certain are non-believers that man-made climate change isn't real? And what is it about the believability of the conspiracy theories that overrides the believability of so many thousands of highly respected scientists?
Even if ON BALANCE you're not sold on the idea, the cast-iron certainty that it's not true worth acting on AT ALL seems odd to me.
Quinlad – Unless I'm much mistaken, your argument boils down to, “We (ie. the 'West') might be responsible for Climate Change so erring on the side of caution we should attempt to reduce our CO2 emissions”. Which is in essence adhering to the 'precautionary principal'.
But surely doing nothing is better than doing something stupid? Should we be squandering wealth on unproven and questionable claims based on computer projections which suggest the possibility that the global temperature might rise to a point where it becomes dangerous to humans in 100 – 200 years time? I don't believe we should.
Two points – first, the link between CO2 and global temperatures has not been proven to any conclusive degree and second, the fact that the IPCC's 6 computer projections vary in their catastrophism by an enormous amount (projection number 6 being the one that the media latches onto and the one that everyone talks about because it's the most catastrophic – the other 5 being much more benign, with numbers 1, 2 and 3 being described by the IPCC as being beneficial for human-kind) and the fact that the IPCC themselves admit that their future projections could well be worthless, renders the whole debate farcical.
But surely doing nothing is better than doing something stupid? Should we be squandering wealth on unproven and questionable claims based on computer projections which suggest the possibility that the global temperature might rise to a point where it becomes dangerous to humans in 100 – 200 years time? I don't believe we should.
Two points – first, the link between CO2 and global temperatures has not been proven to any conclusive degree and second, the fact that the IPCC's 6 computer projections vary in their catastrophism by an enormous amount (projection number 6 being the one that the media latches onto and the one that everyone talks about because it's the most catastrophic – the other 5 being much more benign, with numbers 1, 2 and 3 being described by the IPCC as being beneficial for human-kind) and the fact that the IPCC themselves admit that their future projections could well be worthless, renders the whole debate farcical.
Continued...
So in effect the two central questions are:
Q1. CO2 is the main cause of global temperature increase?
A1. Improbable – it's never driven climate in Earth's multi-billion year history.
Q2. Computer models can tell us the future?
A2. No they cannot. The intricacies of a chaotic system such as climate are beyond current computing capacities and current human understanding.
What we are talking about here is computer generated fantasy, calculated to three decimal places.
If you're happy to throw your hard earned money down the drain then be my guest but I won't be joining you.
Avatar – All clear now? Jolly good.
So in effect the two central questions are:
Q1. CO2 is the main cause of global temperature increase?
A1. Improbable – it's never driven climate in Earth's multi-billion year history.
Q2. Computer models can tell us the future?
A2. No they cannot. The intricacies of a chaotic system such as climate are beyond current computing capacities and current human understanding.
What we are talking about here is computer generated fantasy, calculated to three decimal places.
If you're happy to throw your hard earned money down the drain then be my guest but I won't be joining you.
Avatar – All clear now? Jolly good.
There's that certainty again, birdie.
Even if you suspect that the bank of scientists who agree with man-made climate change are peddling the theory begacuse they're lax or dishonest or not as clever as those on the other side, you're don't seem to entertain the idea that they might have a point. You'd sooner believer it's either mass ignorance or a conspiracy.
Sounds very much to me as if you don't want it to be true and you're cherry-picking your science as a consequence.
Even if you suspect that the bank of scientists who agree with man-made climate change are peddling the theory begacuse they're lax or dishonest or not as clever as those on the other side, you're don't seem to entertain the idea that they might have a point. You'd sooner believer it's either mass ignorance or a conspiracy.
Sounds very much to me as if you don't want it to be true and you're cherry-picking your science as a consequence.
Birdie you are stone cold right because as you state you take the BALNCE of opinion.
You point out that even the pro- AGW have 6 varing computer modules.
These are all unproven theory nothing more nothing less, however given the millions of pounds, dollars, yen rtc thrown at it you would expect that greater evidence would support it.
Everyone no matter what there view point should look at all the scientific data with degrees of scepticism which is what the scientific community do, nobody can prove, either pro or anti, anything YET.
The only numpties are those who follow the medias interpretation and take it as 100% proof when science, all science says be sceptical.
You point out that even the pro- AGW have 6 varing computer modules.
These are all unproven theory nothing more nothing less, however given the millions of pounds, dollars, yen rtc thrown at it you would expect that greater evidence would support it.
Everyone no matter what there view point should look at all the scientific data with degrees of scepticism which is what the scientific community do, nobody can prove, either pro or anti, anything YET.
The only numpties are those who follow the medias interpretation and take it as 100% proof when science, all science says be sceptical.
Quinlad - “... Even if you suspect that the bank of scientists who agree with man-made climate change are peddling the theory begacuse they're lax or dishonest...”
Generally, I don't think that that's happening. There are a few scientists who I wouldn't believe because their track record demonstrates that they habitually lie and falsify data on this particular matter – Michael Mann springs to mind here. I believe that most scientists are honest and don't have a political agenda.
However, you will have noticed that most of my criticisms are based directly upon the IPCC's own documents – so to suggest I'm 'cherry picking' is a bit rich seeing as I'm often quoting directly from the AGW gospels. And I use the word gospels deliberately, because this whole debate is bedevilled with evangelical zeal with people like myself being labelled as deniers – the implication being that we're the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
Please try to understand that the claim that the IPCC is made up of the world's leading climatologists and scientists is simply untrue. It is false. There are some brilliant people working with and for the IPCC but ultimately, the IPCC is not a scientific body – it is a political organisation and as such, it's conclusions are political in nature and motivated not by the search for truth but the search for political gain.
Generally, I don't think that that's happening. There are a few scientists who I wouldn't believe because their track record demonstrates that they habitually lie and falsify data on this particular matter – Michael Mann springs to mind here. I believe that most scientists are honest and don't have a political agenda.
However, you will have noticed that most of my criticisms are based directly upon the IPCC's own documents – so to suggest I'm 'cherry picking' is a bit rich seeing as I'm often quoting directly from the AGW gospels. And I use the word gospels deliberately, because this whole debate is bedevilled with evangelical zeal with people like myself being labelled as deniers – the implication being that we're the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.
Please try to understand that the claim that the IPCC is made up of the world's leading climatologists and scientists is simply untrue. It is false. There are some brilliant people working with and for the IPCC but ultimately, the IPCC is not a scientific body – it is a political organisation and as such, it's conclusions are political in nature and motivated not by the search for truth but the search for political gain.
Continued....
You are a very vocal supporter of the AGW theory yet you haven't once attempted to answer any questions on this subject. Why do you personally believe that mankind is adversely affecting the climate? Do you want to believe it? Is your opinion based on fact or is it idealogical in nature?
There are some very simple questions that I want answers to (and this is not a challenge to you personally), and everything I've read on this subject has failed to explain them adequately or has completely ignored them.
1.The Troposphere – There has been no warming in the last 30 years. Why?
2.Sea Levels – If the Antarctic sea ice is melting at such an alarming rate, why haven't sea levels risen (ie. the Maldives tidal gauges which have been in place for the last 25 years show no rise [in fact, they have shown a slight fall]).
3.CO2. Does it drive temperature rise? It never has in the past. In fact all the evidence from ice-core records shows that it follows temperature rise, with a delay of approximately 800 years.
4.Computer models. Oh dear... You might as well look in a crystal ball.
You level the unfounded accusation that I somehow 'want' AGW to be a falsehood. Why do you think I would want this to be so?
Who do you think I am? Some oil billionaire with time on his hands?
You are a very vocal supporter of the AGW theory yet you haven't once attempted to answer any questions on this subject. Why do you personally believe that mankind is adversely affecting the climate? Do you want to believe it? Is your opinion based on fact or is it idealogical in nature?
There are some very simple questions that I want answers to (and this is not a challenge to you personally), and everything I've read on this subject has failed to explain them adequately or has completely ignored them.
1.The Troposphere – There has been no warming in the last 30 years. Why?
2.Sea Levels – If the Antarctic sea ice is melting at such an alarming rate, why haven't sea levels risen (ie. the Maldives tidal gauges which have been in place for the last 25 years show no rise [in fact, they have shown a slight fall]).
3.CO2. Does it drive temperature rise? It never has in the past. In fact all the evidence from ice-core records shows that it follows temperature rise, with a delay of approximately 800 years.
4.Computer models. Oh dear... You might as well look in a crystal ball.
You level the unfounded accusation that I somehow 'want' AGW to be a falsehood. Why do you think I would want this to be so?
Who do you think I am? Some oil billionaire with time on his hands?
And yet again, I'm talking to myself on this matter.
Why is it that when you pose legitimate scientific questions about AGW, the people who believe fervently in the theory spontaneously de-materialise?
Quinlad, Avatar – can you answer my questions?
Maybe the 'time for debate is over' and the 'science is settled'...
Why is it that when you pose legitimate scientific questions about AGW, the people who believe fervently in the theory spontaneously de-materialise?
Quinlad, Avatar – can you answer my questions?
Maybe the 'time for debate is over' and the 'science is settled'...
I’ll join in again birdie just to keep you company.
Yes, that’s what annoys me ('time for debate is over' and the 'science is settled'...). It most certainly is not. But even that is far less serious than the ridiculous measures that many nations and this one in particular, believe will tackle the alleged problem.
“Wind Farms” – the most inefficient and unreliable way of generating electricity there can be. Wind turbines (despite what is stated in the manufacturers’ literature) cost more (in terms of emissions) during the manufacture and construction than they will ever save when in use. In addition, every watt of electricity they might produce has to have full “conventional” backup generation facilities available for when the wind does not blow – which is often when it is very cold in the UK and demand is at its peak. We cannot store electricity for domestic use.
“Electric Cars” – ultra expensive at present (though I accept the cost will come down with development) but the emissions created to produce the power to charge them are almost as high as a conventional car would produce (unless we restrict their charging to windy weather, of course, which would have meant none of them being available for use for about the past three weeks or more).
“Drive five miles less a week”. If ever there was a patronising advertising campaign this is it. Five miles is about two percent of the average driver’s weekly mileage. And in that week China has opened another one or two coal fired power stations. But, of course, we developed nations must restrict our emissions so that we do not stand in the way of the development of countries like China.
I could go on but it annoys me just writing about it.
Yes, that’s what annoys me ('time for debate is over' and the 'science is settled'...). It most certainly is not. But even that is far less serious than the ridiculous measures that many nations and this one in particular, believe will tackle the alleged problem.
“Wind Farms” – the most inefficient and unreliable way of generating electricity there can be. Wind turbines (despite what is stated in the manufacturers’ literature) cost more (in terms of emissions) during the manufacture and construction than they will ever save when in use. In addition, every watt of electricity they might produce has to have full “conventional” backup generation facilities available for when the wind does not blow – which is often when it is very cold in the UK and demand is at its peak. We cannot store electricity for domestic use.
“Electric Cars” – ultra expensive at present (though I accept the cost will come down with development) but the emissions created to produce the power to charge them are almost as high as a conventional car would produce (unless we restrict their charging to windy weather, of course, which would have meant none of them being available for use for about the past three weeks or more).
“Drive five miles less a week”. If ever there was a patronising advertising campaign this is it. Five miles is about two percent of the average driver’s weekly mileage. And in that week China has opened another one or two coal fired power stations. But, of course, we developed nations must restrict our emissions so that we do not stand in the way of the development of countries like China.
I could go on but it annoys me just writing about it.
DtD
As I thought I made clear in my last uttering, I did not say all anti AGW types were numpties, go back and look at it.
I still believe that the majority of scientists are agreed that mankind is having an effect on the climate. Ok so we are not sure to exactly what extent but in the meantime try and stop rather than bimble along regardless.
Random quotes like "The majority of meteorlogists think that we are not the cause of climate change" with no links to back it up are pointless and add nothing. Says who? Where?
As I thought I made clear in my last uttering, I did not say all anti AGW types were numpties, go back and look at it.
I still believe that the majority of scientists are agreed that mankind is having an effect on the climate. Ok so we are not sure to exactly what extent but in the meantime try and stop rather than bimble along regardless.
Random quotes like "The majority of meteorlogists think that we are not the cause of climate change" with no links to back it up are pointless and add nothing. Says who? Where?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Food & Drink58 mins ago
Crosswords253 mins ago
Crosswords300 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.