Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tony

Guest
Perhaps the more intelligent potential contributors have been put off by your tactic of responding to reasonable replies with comments about their mental acuity?

Or perhaps they see little value in perpetuating a pointless discussion with a slightly batty octogenarian?

Or is that just me?

You are too kind! :lol::lol::lol:

HA'WAY THE LADS!
 


smoker

Striker
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.

:lol::lol::lol:

I think scientific integrity is far more of a selling point to the readers of New Scientist, don't you?

I think Mikey Smith is spot on, we won't know whether we're in a crisis until it's too late. The way I see it, it would be better to do something and find out we'd wasted a few bob than find out we're fucked.
 
Last edited:
T

Tony

Guest
:lol::lol::lol:

I think scientific integrity is far more of a selling point to the readers of New Scientist, don't you?

I think Mikey Smith is spot on, we won't know whether we're in a crisis until it's too late. The way I see it, it would be better to do something and find out we'd wasted a few bob than find out we're fucked.

Since you raise a question of probability may I respectfully ask you if you do smoke, as your avator suggests?
 
H

Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Guest
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:



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.

That, sir, is a cracking post. Cap doffed.

U pays ur money and u takes ur choice I guess with regards to what side u wanna believe but I have to say that the vast majority of petty name calling, slurs insults and self righteousness on every thread on this issue (although not so much on this one I have to say) comes from one direction.

You'd also get it on a "paedophiles are just misunderstood" thread - and it doesn't make the premise right.
 

Medulla

Striker
Environmentalists have stopped the building of power stations in South Africa. They are making incredible inroads into the thinking in the USA. banks are no longer willing to finance coal-powered generating stations in spite of the exponential demands for electricty that are forecast for the next few years.
Banks will finance the building of a coal-fired power station if the investment is judged an acceptable risk-return profile, and no legal hurdles prohibit them from doing so.

Nothing to do with them being infiltrated by environmentalists as you imply.

Wake up. Read. Ask questions. separate yourself from the herd mental;ity.
Yes, yes, we're all being taken in by the global scientific community who are perpetrating a devious self-promoting fraud on an unheard of scale. It is only the brave dissidents willing to speak out against this disgraceful collective blindspot and if we don't do anything about it our world economic system will crumble, but only you have your eyes open. We are merely the ignorant masses being swept along by a tide of fear.

Remind me though, fear of what? Fear of some spoddy f***ing boffin tutting at us?
 

Joe Public

Striker
Name them.

Still waiting for you to name them floyd my old mucker.

And as for the name calling bit, you have some nerve with that one, virtually every discussion on this topic ends with you and tony calling people names. You even have the cheek to slag me off on other totally unrelated threads because I dont see it the way you do on this issue.

'
cos they are the mouthpiece of the government so they send reporters there in the middle of summer showing ice melting, thus giving the government the excuse to crank more taxes onto us, under the guise of it will save the planet.

Yes, that is right, it is all one giant conspiracy to get UK taxes increased, the BBC are in on it, 2000 scientists working completely separately are in on it, even the turtles and the hedgehogs who don't know when to go to sleep and wake up any more are in on it. What a truly great conspiracy, but it didn't fool the free thinkers amongst us, eh Tony?

If we won't listen to the scientists, then perhaps we should listen to what nature is telling us. Thousands of different species, all changing their behavioral patterns, many not being able to adapt due to the pace of change, its not a wind up, it is happening.
 
H

Hetzkes Ballet Teacher

Guest
Yes, that is right, it is all one giant conspiracy to get UK taxes increased, the BBC are in on it, 2000 scientists working completely separately are in on it, even the turtles and the hedgehogs who don't know when to go to sleep and wake up any more are in on it. What a truly great conspiracy, but it didn't fool the free thinkers amongst us, eh Tony?

:snigger: :-D
 
T

Tony

Guest
Still waiting for you to name them floyd my old mucker.

And as for the name calling bit, you have some nerve with that one, virtually every discussion on this topic ends with you and tony calling people names. You even have the cheek to slag me off on other totally unrelated threads because I dont see it the way you do on this issue.



Yes, that is right, it is all one giant conspiracy to get UK taxes increased, the BBC are in on it, 2000 scientists working completely separately are in on it, even the turtles and the hedgehogs who don't know when to go to sleep and wake up any more are in on it. What a truly great conspiracy, but it didn't fool the free thinkers amongst us, eh Tony?

quote]

Joe, you are the epitome of a Sexual Intellectual. If you ask around you may find out what that designation means.

Ridicule is no argument. And your refusal to seriously consider the other side of what you believe about an unproved science makes anything that YOU consider to be an argument irrelevant as far as I am concerned

As for name calling. You will certainly remember and a few others may recall it too, that when you first appeared on these forums you chose to describe me as a dribbling old man in terms that inmplied that at my age I should be more concerned with controlling my bladder that having the temerity to question your outpourings. Any rudeness you have experienced at my hands on here is in response to your big headed supercillious and oafish conduct and to your own outright rudeness to me.

Now get back to your favourite pastime!
 

Floyd

Winger
Still waiting for you to name them floyd my old mucker.

And as for the name calling bit, you have some nerve with that one, virtually every discussion on this topic ends with you and tony calling people names. You even have the cheek to slag me off on other totally unrelated threads because I dont see it the way you do on this issue.



Yes, that is right, it is all one giant conspiracy to get UK taxes increased, the BBC are in on it, 2000 scientists working completely separately are in on it, even the turtles and the hedgehogs who don't know when to go to sleep and wake up any more are in on it. What a truly great conspiracy, but it didn't fool the free thinkers amongst us, eh Tony?

If we won't listen to the scientists, then perhaps we should listen to what nature is telling us. Thousands of different species, all changing their behavioral patterns, many not being able to adapt due to the pace of change, its not a wind up, it is happening.

Dear pot, message received, Kettle

u really should try and get over ur inferiority and persecution complexes Joe to say nothing of ur apparent stalking tendencies. U seem quite a canny lad even if u are full of ur own self importance and regularly condescend and insult people instead of arguing ur point rationally on this subject. I suspect that it's because u know ur argument is inherently flawed and u realise that u don't have the articulation to express urself sufficiently that makes u act like a cornered rat sometimes. But I really do forgive u for that because, as I say, u do seem canny.

There are a number of common threads proponents of AGP return to, oil companies, big business, the great satan USA, right wing plots, 99% of all scientists agree it's true, animal behaviour is changing (hedgehogs eh? hmmmm, makes a change from polar bears I guess).... Additionally their opinions are generally expressed as absolute "truth" and sneering contempt is expressed at anyone who dares to voice any contradictory viewpoint which doesn't match their own skewed view of the world. This was the point of my post, not that u appeared to notice. The AGP proponents need to open their minds, overcome their bigottry and be less strident and objectionable in expressing their views as any case they may have is constantly diluted.

Another common argument is the "C'mon then name me the scientists who disagrees". Now u more than most should know that we've been through this before on more than one occasion and to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of having to repeat myself but as, I don't know how to post links to other threads I will: -

He's the world's most cited climatologist, according to an analysis in the journal of the British Institute of Geographers. He's also the fifth-most-cited physical geographer in the world, and the 11th most cited among all geographers.

He has written some 230 articles and five books, including in such fields as geology, limnology, meteorology and archeology.

He has twice seen his papers in Environmental Conservation awarded prizes for being "best paper of the year," and he's a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honour, created to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment."

He's Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many the "father of scientific climatology," and he's also pronounced on the most consequential climate issue of the day -- man-made global warming. His verdict: "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof."

...

As things would turn out, Dr. Bryson's advice was ignored. Science was pursued irrationally and not to seek answers, he believes, but to suit other agendas. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion," he has decided. "It's almost a religion where you have to believe in anthropogenic global warming or else you are nuts."

"As for the biggest believer, Al Gore, and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth: "Don't make me throw up," he exclaims. "It is not science. It is not true."

And as for the often claimed scientific consensus on climate change, he doubts it: "I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion."

Reid Bryson joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1946 and in 1948 became the founding chairman of its department of meteorology. In 2007, he became emeritus professor of the university's department of oceanic and atmospheric sciences. Dr. Bryson's research broke path in diverse fields, among them the Indian monsoon, airstreams and the reconstruction of past climates. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Meteorological Society. He received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Chicago.
 

Rizla

Striker
Hottest February on record so far.

18 degrees in early February is very alarming it has to be said; every year is seeing records broken at some point.

Even more worrying is that we're going through a short period of natural cooling and still records are being broken. I dread to think of what may start happening in five or ten years.
 
I have major doubts over the whole global warming theory. However I can see lots of benefits in reducing our consumption of natural resources, in a well thought out way. At the very least it ensures that future generations have access to those resources for as long as possible.
 

Joe Public

Striker
Dear pot, message received, Kettle

u really should try and get over ur inferiority and persecution complexes Joe to say nothing of ur apparent stalking tendencies. U seem quite a canny lad even if u are full of ur own self importance and regularly condescend and insult people instead of arguing ur point rationally on this subject. I suspect that it's because u know ur argument is inherently flawed and u realise that u don't have the articulation to express urself sufficiently that makes u act like a cornered rat sometimes. But I really do forgive u for that because, as I say, u do seem canny.

There are a number of common threads proponents of AGP return to, oil companies, big business, the great satan USA, right wing plots, 99% of all scientists agree it's true, animal behaviour is changing (hedgehogs eh? hmmmm, makes a change from polar bears I guess).... Additionally their opinions are generally expressed as absolute "truth" and sneering contempt is expressed at anyone who dares to voice any contradictory viewpoint which doesn't match their own skewed view of the world. This was the point of my post, not that u appeared to notice. The AGP proponents need to open their minds, overcome their bigottry and be less strident and objectionable in expressing their views as any case they may have is constantly diluted.

Another common argument is the "C'mon then name me the scientists who disagrees". Now u more than most should know that we've been through this before on more than one occasion and to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of having to repeat myself but as, I don't know how to post links to other threads I will: -

He's the world's most cited climatologist, according to an analysis in the journal of the British Institute of Geographers. He's also the fifth-most-cited physical geographer in the world, and the 11th most cited among all geographers.

He has written some 230 articles and five books, including in such fields as geology, limnology, meteorology and archeology.

He has twice seen his papers in Environmental Conservation awarded prizes for being "best paper of the year," and he's a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honour, created to recognize "outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment."

He's Dr. Reid Bryson, considered by many the "father of scientific climatology," and he's also pronounced on the most consequential climate issue of the day -- man-made global warming. His verdict: "That is a theory for which there is no credible proof."

...

As things would turn out, Dr. Bryson's advice was ignored. Science was pursued irrationally and not to seek answers, he believes, but to suit other agendas. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion," he has decided. "It's almost a religion where you have to believe in anthropogenic global warming or else you are nuts."

"As for the biggest believer, Al Gore, and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth: "Don't make me throw up," he exclaims. "It is not science. It is not true."

And as for the often claimed scientific consensus on climate change, he doubts it: "I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion."

Reid Bryson joined the faculty of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1946 and in 1948 became the founding chairman of its department of meteorology. In 2007, he became emeritus professor of the university's department of oceanic and atmospheric sciences. Dr. Bryson's research broke path in diverse fields, among them the Indian monsoon, airstreams and the reconstruction of past climates. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Meteorological Society. He received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Chicago.

The very same eminent Dr Reid Bryson who told us all we were entering an ice age a few decades back? You seem to have missed that bit out of your post.

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971)

He is indeed an eminent scientist, most of his work deals with climate in relation to human ecology, but he is no longer a significant expert the causes of climate change. His 1980s work to model climate change had significant holes in it. He has no theories on climate change which have not been scientifically explained by actual climate scientists, and no peer reviewed scientific papers which support the sceptical argument. He gave an interview once in which he expressed his views on water vapor being the driving force, and of CO2 lagging temperature, thats about it, and these have been scientifically explained already. Unless you can find me a peer reviewed study that he has produced which supports the sceptic stance?

This is a quote from Bryson, who also once stated that the rural farms of undeveloped countries are as much to blame for golbal warming as heavy industry:

"The earth is simply saturated now with people. There is, in fact, so many of us currently using so much of the planet's resources—especially fossil fuels—that we are altering the earth's climate."

Interview with Bryson link
 
D

dino e4 ftm

Guest
18 degrees in early February is very alarming it has to be said; every year is seeing records broken at some point.

Even more worrying is that we're going through a short period of natural cooling and still records are being broken. I dread to think of what may start happening in five or ten years.

oh yeah cos last year we had such a hot summer didnt we! i mean it was like living in the sahara desert on chingford mount ffs!
 

Joe Public

Striker
oh yeah cos last year we had such a hot summer didnt we! i mean it was like living in the sahara desert on chingford mount ffs!

Yes, 2007 was a warm year, both in the UK and globally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7169690.stm

The UK's top 10 warmest years on record (in order) are 2006, 2007, 2003, 2004, 2002, 2005, 1990, 1997, 1949 and 1999.

Globally, there is a similar trend - the top 10 being 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.


"Nine of the 10 warmest years have happened since 1989," said Dr Huddleston.

"There is an inexorable rise in temperature that is small compared to daily weather changes,"
 

GK

Striker
Despite being freezing here there is a drought going on - it's lasted for 10 months or so. I didn't notice until September when I realised I hadn't seen rain since May.

The other weekend I had a drive to the local reservoir and it was like a football pitch. There was a full on lawn where the water used to be.

Desperate stuff.
 
D

dino e4 ftm

Guest
Yes, 2007 was a warm year, both in the UK and globally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7169690.stm

The UK's top 10 warmest years on record (in order) are 2006, 2007, 2003, 2004, 2002, 2005, 1990, 1997, 1949 and 1999.

Globally, there is a similar trend - the top 10 being 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.


"Nine of the 10 warmest years have happened since 1989," said Dr Huddleston.

"There is an inexorable rise in temperature that is small compared to daily weather changes,"

yeah i can tell by the way that the sky was grey and it kept raining! 2007 was a scortcher alright, in the middle east its 50 degrees all day everyday and has been forever and they just get on with it, in england it stops raining for 5 minutes and everyone starts panicking that we are gonna burn up! rediculous! all i can say is global warming bring it on, weve been too cold for too long!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top