Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tony

Guest
Since we have two whole weeks with nowt to do I thought I'd try and stir things up a bit - climate wise;)!

This article by a meteorologist puts a whole new perspective on the climate "debate." I use quotes (inverted commas to Brits) because up until now the warmers have refused to debate anything. They blithely, blindly and without challenge continue to base their beliefs on a set of flawed UN documents that were supposedly produced by scientists but were in fact written by politicians with a very serious agenda. The theories have gone largely unchallenged in the media and politicians of all stripes have jumped wholeheartedly on to the bandwagon because they smell a political opportunity or are so afraid of public opinion they choose not to jeopardise their various sinecures by expressing reasonable doubt.

Think about what the man has to say before you make your judgements! Or alternatively, stay wih the herd!

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JB_Climate_Change.pdf
 

rowley2

Winger
All he is saying is that the models for future projection should not be teated as a holy writ. I agree with that, they vary wildly after all. You only have to look at how often the weather forecast is wrong to see that.

If they are proved wrong about their predictions in say the medium term of the next 15-20 years , which they pronounce with so much certainty, the one thing you can be sure of is that many of the same scientists will hoist their colours to another , (well funded), new order and preach to us all all over again.,
 

steven

Winger
All he is saying is that the models for future projection should not be teated as a holy writ. I agree with that, they vary wildly after all. You only have to look at how often the weather forecast is wrong to see that.

If they are proved wrong about their predictions in say the medium term of the next 15-20 years , which they pronounce with so much certainty, the one thing you can be sure of is that many of the same scientists will hoist their colours to another , (well funded), new order and preach to us all all over again.,
But they don't preach with certainty. Science is never "certain". That's the whole point. Even the IPCC report, which so many seem to object to as being politically-motivated, only said the chance of global-warming being caused by human action was >90%. Previously, they'd put it at >66% IIRC.

The trouble is that the "debate", as in so many other cases, largely doesn't exist between people on either side who all know something but have different evidence or different interpretations of evidence. It largely exists between people who know something and people who know next to nothing. Global warming, creationism (Teach the Controversy), smoking and lung cancer, the causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers. They're all the same thing. They romantically paint themselves as "sceptics" (the way they have been allowed to claim this tag is nothing short of criminal) challenging an established paradigm. Look at that article:

Where is it in American history that freedom to debate ideas has been shut down and resulted in good? Where is it in American history that people have had to fear standing up for their beliefs, backed by facts of the past, not models of the future and been threatened like this? Please understand my appeal. It is not to say you are wrong. But how are you so sure that you are right, given basic lessons of the past?
That seems fair enough, doesn't it? Teach the other side of the argument. Don't shut down the debate. But considering the other side of the argument doesn't entail giving equal weight to someone claiming that black is white. Even less does it entail giving equal weight to someone who has considered the possibility that black is white but rejected it and come to the conclusion, using scientific method, that there is a high probability of black being black. Even less again does it entail giving equal weight to someone with a vested interest in black being perceived as white, and being paid by white paint industry lobbyists.

Yet again, absolutely nothing in one of Tony's links gives anything new. It's the same tedious old shit which has been addressed time after time after time. AGW scientists don't claim their models to be perfect, they don't build themselves up as "Gods": they've come to the conclusions they have using scientific method, and they have to deal with yapping terriers of ignorance ((c) R. Dawkins) on the other side who know absolutely nothing but prefer to sit on the sidelines throwing rocks at people who are genuinely carrying out scientific and, yes, sceptical enquiry.
 
Last edited:
M

MikeySmith

Guest
Joe Bastardi, from Wikipedia

'He also serves corporate clients such as oil companies, who depend on the weather for their revenue streams'
Try to get funding for any study that sheds doubt on man-made global warming... you won't get it from any "official" source.

Everybody has an agenda.
 

Pancho

Striker
Staff member
Try to get funding for any study that sheds doubt on man-made global warming... you won't get it from any "official" source.

Everybody has an agenda.
I can't find any evidence that of a study of his that has received funding from anyone.

I was simply trying to add some perspective to his views.

The fact that most have an agenda is not in doubt.

The underlying motives to those agendas is of more interest to me.
 
M

MikeySmith

Guest
I can't find any evidence that of a study of his that has received funding from anyone.

I was simply trying to add some perspective to his views.

The fact that most have an agenda is not in doubt.

The underlying motives to those agendas is of more interest to me.
I'm adding equal perspective to the argument that oil company funded studies should be discounted because their funding leads to bias. Exactly the same appies to government and NGO funded studies, indeed all studies.

If you look at all the studies there are serious doubts as to the evidence used on both sides of global warming debate.

On the one hand, the environmental cartel argument has a tendency to completely disregard any evidence to the contrary (e.g. by selectively using temperature measuring methods to ignore warm periods in the past, or tossing aside the evidence that suggests that CO2 levels follow not lead global temperature).

On the other hand, the hydrocarbon cartel seem to overstate the difficulty of implementing alternatives at best and completely disregard the idea at worst.

In reality we are talking about an immensely complex non-linear system that we have difficulty predicting over any kind of period of time to any degree of accuracy and the starting conditions you choose completely determine the system. Chaos theory was born out because weather models give completely different results when rounding numbers. That is, the difference between (e.g.) 8.12367878 and 8.12 completely changed the end result.

We won't know whether we are on the verge of a global catastrophe or it was all a big tax/funding grab until we are slap bang in the middle of it.

From my point of view, I think we should move towards low carbon energy simply because hydrocarbons are far, far, far too precious a resource to burn.
 

Pancho

Striker
Staff member
I'm adding equal perspective to the argument that oil company funded studies should be discounted because their funding leads to bias. Exactly the same appies to government and NGO funded studies, indeed all studies.

If you look at all the studies there are serious doubts as to the evidence used on both sides of global warming debate.

On the one hand, the environmental cartel argument has a tendency to completely disregard any evidence to the contrary (e.g. by selectively using temperature measuring methods to ignore warm periods in the past, or tossing aside the evidence that suggests that CO2 levels follow not lead global temperature).

On the other hand, the hydrocarbon cartel seem to overstate the difficulty of implementing alternatives at best and completely disregard the idea at worst.

In reality we are talking about an immensely complex non-linear system that we have difficulty predicting over any kind of period of time to any degree of accuracy and the starting conditions you choose completely determine the system. Chaos theory was born out because weather models give completely different results when rounding numbers. That is, the difference between (e.g.) 8.12367878 and 8.12 completely changed the end result.

We won't know whether we are on the verge of a global catastrophe or it was all a big tax/funding grab until we are slap bang in the middle of it.

From my point of view, I think we should move towards low carbon energy simply because hydrocarbons are far, far, far too precious a resource to burn.
I broadly agree.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph.
 
T

Tony

Guest
I broadly agree.

I definitely agree with your last paragraph.
Would you agree with the thought that with vast reserves of coal we should use it for power generation and utilise our also vast natural gas resources as transportation fuels, thus reducing our dependence on Middle-East, Venezuelan and Russian oil?
 
Would you agree with the thought that with vast reserves of coal we should use it for power generation and utilise our also vast natural gas resources as transportation fuels, thus reducing our dependence on Middle-East, Venezuelan and Russian oil?
why is the origin of the oil relevant at all ?

because if USA had enough it wouldn't give a shit ?
 

AB22 Easy Tiger

Nocturnal Tourist
Staff member
Every time you post one of these I urge you to check out the REAL science. Go to www.newscientist.com and read all the science you can take on it, most supporting the global warming theories. These articles are written by scientists with no hidden agenda, nothing to do with the UN reports.

They even published a special edition de-bunking the "lies" being peddled by those with vested interests.

So far, you havven't made a single comment on any of the scientific articles I've pointed you to.

Knowing your background, and to your credit you've never hidden that, I suggest that your reasons for not commenting are that you have your own vested interests.

The scientific evidence is there my friend, and your repeated searching out of articles supporting one side of the debate is tiresome.

Since we have two whole weeks with nowt to do I thought I'd try and stir things up a bit - climate wise;)!

This article by a meteorologist puts a whole new perspective on the climate "debate." I use quotes (inverted commas to Brits) because up until now the warmers have refused to debate anything. They blithely, blindly and without challenge continue to base their beliefs on a set of flawed UN documents that were supposedly produced by scientists but were in fact written by politicians with a very serious agenda. The theories have gone largely unchallenged in the media and politicians of all stripes have jumped wholeheartedly on to the bandwagon because they smell a political opportunity or are so afraid of public opinion they choose not to jeopardise their various sinecures by expressing reasonable doubt.

Think about what the man has to say before you make your judgements! Or alternatively, stay wih the herd!

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JB_Climate_Change.pdf
 
T

Tony

Guest
Every time you post one of these I urge you to check out the REAL science. Go to www.newscientist.com and read all the science you can take on it, most supporting the global warming theories. These articles are written by scientists with no hidden agenda, nothing to do with the UN reports.

They even published a special edition de-bunking the "lies" being peddled by those with vested interests.

So far, you havven't made a single comment on any of the scientific articles I've pointed you to.

Knowing your background, and to your credit you've never hidden that, I suggest that your reasons for not commenting are that you have your own vested interests.

The scientific evidence is there my friend, and your repeated searching out of articles supporting one side of the debate is tiresome.
The New Scientist is a journal that relies on subscriptions for it's existence.Unless its content largely reflects the interests and beliefs of it's readers it will cease to exist. That is very little different to all the other journals that are published these days, whether they be about science, baseball, cricket, stamp collecting, women's health or whatever. For that reason it cannot be considered as totally objective.

Total objectivity demands that all sides of any story or dispute are given exposure. How much exposure has the New Scientist given to the views of scientists who have expressed serious reservations about the IPCC reports, including some of the very scientists who supposedly contributed to the data from which the reports were compiled?

Open your eyes and open your mind man! Don't you ever wonder why there is so much REAL scientific concern about the validity of the IPCC reports. Are you not concerned by the proven exaggerations by the proponents of the AGW theories (eg., Gore and Hansen) and the almost total disregard of these concerns by the world's popular media? Has the New Scientist ever reported that the Antarctic ice is thickening or that the snows on the summit of Mount Kilinmanjaro exist at altitudes where the teperatures are so far below freezing that any atmospheric warming cannot possible be contributing to their melting?

has the New Scientist or any other publication that you read ever commented on the fact that the Chairman of the IPCC has a conflict of interest and that he has major finacial interests in the fostering of ideas that would prosper with the universal adoption of the IPCC reports?

FYI "Rajendra K. Pachauri is director-general for The Energy and Resources Institute, which conducts research and provides professional support in the areas of energy, environment, forestry, biotechnology and the conservation of natural resources." Don't talk to me about the villains in the fossil fuel industries while this guy is lining his pockets on the byproducts of his UN work.

And BTW I am llong past the day when I have had any vested interest in anything but the source of my pension :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top