Junk Science

Only if it were that simple.
More humidity in the air means more clouds (usually) which means there's a lot of area that's reflecting light straight back to space before they even hit the surface. How does it feel standing under a cloud? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Perseus, everyone on both sides of the argument believe that the evidence or reports are changed by opposing sides. One side believes it is inaccurate because of the corporations who pay professors to come up with conclusions favorable to them. The other believe that it's being pushed and exaggerated because it is a HUGE industry in and of itself. With Global Warming, people who were formerly in boring professions suddenly see themselves in the spotlight and believe me, a lot of these guys have the old school "fight the machine," mentality. I say old school. I don't even think the leftist stuff is "progressive" at all. It is simply another view and it is also conservative. They just use the whole "it's new, different and hip," to attract the young, stupid and gullible.
So in turn your argument about having the data tweaked is weak because it's an argument that goes both ways.
 
The difference is one side is not jamming their stuff down the others throat, claiming they ought to do or not not do this but at same time doing the opposite of their own advice.
 
"Experts" invariably come to the conclusion that is most advantageous to their pockets.

I'm yet to see a finding by these people that is not in the interest of those who paid for the research to be done.

Forgive my cynicism.
 
senojekips said:
"Experts" invariably come to the conclusion that is most advantageous to their pockets.

I'm yet to see a finding by these people that is not in the interest of those who paid for the research to be done.

Forgive my cynicism.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. The world seems more and more like a power game about sides rather than the truth. Often people who try to keep it real and accurate are taken out by both sides because at one point or another that person can be a threat to them.
Taken out not as in shot, but as in silenced by being discredited. Smoked pot thirty years ago? Well you can kiss your one hundred and fifty page report based on ten years of research good bye!
 
the_13th_redneck said:
And who knows the truth thirty years on?
Click to expand...

Your children certainly will know the truth, and they will be asking why did you not do something when all the evidence points to an anthropogenic forced warming? You can then say

"Yeah but there were all these complicated models, and some scientists suggested they were wrong"

They will answer

"What scientists? a few retired and fringe figures supported by the fossil fuel industry who would pay a fortune to anyone presenting evidence that is remotely credible, and outnumbered a hundred to one by those payed from far less lucrative sources.

Moreover, the temperature has stayed within certain limits for two thousand years then suddenly within a hundred just as you pump out all the crap the temperature starts to rapidly increase and exceed this range, and the polar ice cap completely melts into the bargain! How much evidence do you need? You don't need a model or a scientist, just look at the data it jumps out at you"

2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
 
Last edited:
Del Boy said:
There is a television drama about at the moment, I believe it is called Burn. It concerns the combination of global warming+ high oil problems. The difference is that it is claimed that these very serious concerns are those secretly held by the top oil industry men, the real top cookies. What they just do not want to tell us. It stresses that they really know that we DO NOT have 40 years to side-step - but 10 years! Funnily enough, his conclusion is one of optimism that we may JUST avoid the catastrophe , due to one thing - the coming shortage of oil!

I haven't caught up with it yet, but hope to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes I saw this over the last few nights. Didn't realise climate change conferences were that exciting, no wonder everyone is into GW ;-).

Sure it contained a lot of truth's, but it painted Americans as the villains of the piece, :firedevi:and in practise most of the industrial states are in favour of a climate change mechanism. There is also probably more research into technological solutions for GW in the US than there is in Europe.

Perhaps, it might help to change the tide from the scepticism that seems to be fashionable at the moment outside academic circles.
 
perseus said:
Perhaps, it might help to change the tide from the scepticism that seems to be fashionable at the moment outside academic circles.
Click to expand...
Which academic circles do you mean, the one that you personally agree with, or those ignorant fringe academics, that have found evidence that does not support your beliefs?

It is also fashionable it seems to bash sceptics, but remember, "A sceptic is usually the one who is least surprised at the final outcome" Some would call them pragmatists.
 
perseus said:
Your children certainly will know the truth, and they will be asking why did you not do something when all the evidence points to an anthropogenic forced warming? You can then say
Click to expand...

Wow, what a way to take a quote out of context.
I meant, if you held a joint in your hands thirty years ago, who would remember thirty years later whether or not you inhaled?

Actually I was an environmentalist of sorts growing up... I guess it's also why I picked Geography as a major in college. I was active in environmental groups and activities from middle school through high school, though I left entirely in college because it got too political and too full of sh*t.
 
senojekips said:
Which academic circles do you mean, the one that you personally agree with, or those ignorant fringe academics, that have found evidence that does not support your beliefs?
Click to expand...

My beliefs are supported by the weight of several stands of mainstream independent evidence, rather than some obscure anomaly or uncertainty here or there that is often thrown up in any sort of analysis and blown out of all proportion.

To see how silly this is compare it with the so called 'Lunar landing conspiracy'. There are about 20 different pieces of 'evidence' supported by ex space employees, audiovisual technology experts and nuclear engineers which look vaguely credible at first sight that turn out to be complete nonsense on further analysis. It proves that it is always possible to drag up 'evidence' supported by a few fringe 'nuts'.

Such sceptics will never accept even something as obvious as this because they are ideologically committed and cannot be disproven. Even if you took one of these guys to the moon and said here is the lunar module, they would just say it has been planted after the claimed event. In the same way GW can just carry on and they will just find a similar excuse, enough to cast sufficient doubt to the uninitiated and drag on the 'if' debate because they don't want to pay any green 'taxes'.

The time has come to kill any 'if' and move on to the 'how much' and 'how do we cope' debate, because there will never be enough evidence to convince everyone, even if they are neck deep in water. It is just being used an excuse for inaction, and there isn't any time to keep on debating nonsense. The lunar landing is harmless, GW isn't.
 
Ahhh your "beliefs",.. which of course are always correct, and the evidence of those who oppose your beliefs is always wrong,... believe it or not I've heard all this before somewhere.

The lunar landing conspiracies,... Yep, I have my view, but I don't try to use my views on the matter to panic the community into spending, or forfeiting billions of dollars, based on those beliefs. No comparison I'm afraid.

To kill any "if" you will need some proof that GW is man made or at lease influenced on a level that will have an effect. It has been pointed out several times in this debate that man's input into the equation is miniscule beyond belief, so even if we could encourage the other countries of the world to minimise their carbon footprint (I just love them buzzwords) It would have virtually no effect whatsoever.

What are the "experts" going to blame then?
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
Ahhh your "beliefs",.. which of course are always correct, and the evidence of those who oppose your beliefs is always wrong,... believe it or not I've heard all this before somewhere.

The lunar landing conspiracies,... Yep, I have my view, but I don't try to use my views on the matter to panic the community into spending, or forfeiting billions of dollars, based on those beliefs. No comparison I'm afraid.

To kill any "if" you will need some proof that GW is man made or at lease influenced on a level that will have an effect. It has been pointed out several times in this debate that man's input into the equation is miniscule beyond belief, so even if we could encourage the other countries of the world to minimise their carbon footprint (I just love them buzzwords) It would have virtually no effect whatsoever.

What are the "experts" going to blame then?
Click to expand...

I think to a large degree Perseus still thinks he is dealing with people who's opinions are capable of change, I happen to agree with him but detected long ago that your response was always going to be "I will change my mind when I see proof however I am not going to accept anything as proof outside what I already believe". So in this case continued discussion is an exercise in futility.
 
Well Monty, it seems that you too have made up your mind in this regard, to discredit those whose point of view on a subject does not sit neatly in your pigeon hole. The fact that no proof has ever been shown nor even claimed by the "experts" is of no consequence.

I refuse to jump one way or the other until I see something better than theories. I'm sorry if that displeases you, but caution has served me well all my life and I don't see myself changing now.

On a subject such as this, "Experts" are a dime a dozen and from what I see so far, they are enormously over priced.
 
senojekips said:
On a subject such as this, "Experts" are a dime a dozen and from what I see so far, they are enormously over priced.
Click to expand...


I agree.
Over here it's like if you don't believe in the whole Mad Cow thing, you've been bought by the corporations, the United States or you're a traitor or etc. etc. none of it any good. I sat it out, looked at the evidence and it is apparently really bullsh*t. Boy am I glad I didn't go outside with those candles and stuff.
Like I said, I used to REALLY believe this stuff. But the more I dig into it, the less certain it is. It's far less certain than what people try to tell you.
 
senojekips said:
Well Monty, it seems that you too have made up your mind in this regard, to discredit those whose point of view on a subject does not sit neatly in your pigeon hole. The fact that no proof has ever been shown nor even claimed by the "experts" is of no consequence.

I refuse to jump one way or the other until I see something better than theories. I'm sorry if that displeases you, but caution has served me well all my life and I don't see myself changing now.

On a subject such as this, "Experts" are a dime a dozen and from what I see so far, they are enormously over priced.
Click to expand...

I have always been of the opinion that given mans interaction with his environment it is unlikely that he has no effect on it and I have stated this at least twice on this forum and once in this thread.

What I do not know is how big of an effect man has had ie: it could be 0.01% or 100% that much I do not know nor claim to know.

I however see no point in arguing with a mindset that says I will change my opinion when I see proof however I do not believe the proof that I have received, there is nothing I can give you on this forum that will change your opinion because this argument is deeper and more complex that a one page blog document.

All I can suggest is read things like the works of Luis and Walter Alvarez and see how their models function and what they refer to, look at the work of Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Arvid Högbom and Guy Stewart Callendar and you will then be able to see why this argument is frustrating.
 
MontyB said:
I have always been of the opinion that given mans interaction with his environment it is unlikely that he has no effect on it and I have stated this at least twice on this forum and once in this thread.

What I do not know is how big of an effect man has had ie: it could be 0.01% or 100% that much I do not know nor claim to know.

I however see no point in arguing with a mindset that says I will change my opinion when I see proof
Click to expand...
By this, do you mean that you would change your mind without proof?
however I do not believe the proof that I have received,
Click to expand...
That is because I have seen no "proof", just a collection of theories.
there is nothing I can give you on this forum that will change your opinion because this argument is deeper and more complex that a one page blog document.
Click to expand...
Quite correct, as my opinions are the result of a lifetime of personal experience, hardly something I would change on the evidence that could be given here. I'm just not that fickle I'm afraid.

All I can suggest is read things like the works of Luis and Walter Alvarez and see how their models function and what they refer to, look at the work of Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Arvid Högbom and Guy Stewart Callendar and you will then be able to see why this argument is frustrating.
Click to expand...
It seems you are impressed by names, just bear in mind that they are just blokes who pull their pants on one leg at a time. I don't know anything of them, or their possible motives. You must be prepared to look at the whole picture if you are going to go out on a limb with someone else's theories.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
It seems you are impressed by names, just bear in mind that they are just blokes who pull their pants on one leg at a time. I don't know anything of them, or their possible motives. You must be prepared to look at the whole picture if you are going to go out on a limb with someone else's theories.
Click to expand...

You know the reason I chose those names is that they are scientists from various fields (mathematicians and engineers to paleontologists) who's work is spread out over a period of about 180 years and not one of them was specifically working on Global Warming and yet every one of them has contributed something to the reason I hold the views I have.

So while they may be just "blokes" who pull their pants on one leg at a time their work has be tested, cross checked and proven again by countless other blokes who also pull their pants up one leg at a time and has not been found wanting, so please forgive me if I don't place my confidence in the last guys blog I read.

In the if I am proven wrong then at the very worst we have wasted billions of dollars and ended up with cleaner environment and a few million people without respiratory complaints if you are wrong we have huge problems so I will continue to err on the side of caution in this argument.
 
Last edited:
It looks to me like my intuition was right again, Names, names and more names,.. none of which by your own admission had anything to do with the question at hand.

Reading and believing the work of someone who in the fullness of time has been judged as successful in their own field, has absolutely no bearing on the hundreds of different theories being peddled by all and sundry at the moment. Not all work is perhaps of the calibre of those you have quoted, (not that I have ever heard of any of them) and we must remember that other than these persons there were hundreds who got it wrong at some stage or another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top