Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

There must be more to life than football?
Post Reply
Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Thegreatglobalwarmingswindle

Post by Rover the Moon » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:38 pm


User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Post by theadore » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:48 pm

I still disagree with a lot of their conclusions, but i remember it being quite and interesting watch.... i find the whole 'bad science' angle the most interesting part of the debate though.

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26807
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Post by Rover the Top » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:29 pm

Good stuff... as has been shown on the official board, there's some who don't believe this information exists.

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Rover the Moon » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:46 pm

The bit the got me was the part that affirmed what I have been saying to people I know for months

\".....the coverage of ‘global warming’, on TV, radio and in the press, has been so one-sided and uncritical. In Britain, hours and hours of programmes have been broadcast by the BBC on the subject, much of it scientifically absurd.\"

Rover the Moon
Unemployed ex-pro
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:34 am

Post by Rover the Moon » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:43 pm

http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/climate/forms/ ... aleMtg.pdf
At this point, it is doubtful that we are even dealing with a serious problem. If this is correct, then there is no policy addressing his non-problem that would be cost-effective. Even if we believe the problem to be serious, we have already reached the levels of climate forcing that have been claimed to be serious. However, when it comes to Kyoto, the situation is even worse. Here, there is widespread and even rigorous scientific agreement that complete adherence to the Kyoto Agreement would have no discernible impact on climate regardless of what one believes about climate.
What is the implication of these simple results?

The primary implication is that for over 25 years, we have based not only our worst case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration.As far as I can tell, the main question we ought to be confronting is how long the momentum generated by this issue will prevent us from seeing that it has been an illusion based on model error.

In the mean time, we can continue to play our parts in the modern version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Our descendents will be amused for generations to come.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:48 pm

Rover the Top wrote:Good stuff... as has been shown on the official board, there's some who don't believe this information exists.
did i miss this on the official board.... point me there if the fucktards haven't removed it already.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:50 pm

Rover the Moon wrote:http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/climate/forms/ ... aleMtg.pdf
At this point, it is doubtful that we are even dealing with a serious problem. If this is correct, then there is no policy addressing his non-problem that would be cost-effective. Even if we believe the problem to be serious, we have already reached the levels of climate forcing that have been claimed to be serious. However, when it comes to Kyoto, the situation is even worse. Here, there is widespread and even rigorous scientific agreement that complete adherence to the Kyoto Agreement would have no discernible impact on climate regardless of what one believes about climate.
What is the implication of these simple results?

The primary implication is that for over 25 years, we have based not only our worst case scenarios but even our best case scenarios on model exaggeration.As far as I can tell, the main question we ought to be confronting is how long the momentum generated by this issue will prevent us from seeing that it has been an illusion based on model error.

In the mean time, we can continue to play our parts in the modern version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Our descendents will be amused for generations to come.
people pick what they want... this documentary provided stark evidence that the 'climate change' lobby does not have all its facts in order (in a lot of cases).

however the CBI sponsered 'lets fuck things up unless anyone can prove otherwise' is still to prove its case also. ;)

User avatar
Rover the Top
Experienced manager
Posts: 26807
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:39 am
Contact:

Re:

Post by Rover the Top » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:03 am

Rover the Moon wrote:

In the mean time, we can continue to play our parts in the modern version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Our descendents will be amused for generations to come.
...whilst no doubt believing they've got it sussed as well. Now that's a pattern that is consistent throughout history - each generation assumes they know better than the last because they can see their ancestors beliefs were wrong. Yet at the same time, we fail to acknowledge that our own beliefs could be wrong.

I'm always amused when the BBC report on some computer projection showing temperatures will rise exponentially over the next x number of years - I fail to see how some 'scientists' programming a computer to show temperatures will rise is newsworthy. Somehow, I can imagine the flaws in such an 'experiment' would be readily pointed out if I wrote a programme to show temperatures falling.

And whilst I've read further into this (it's nice to see another source mention Co2 following temperature), my starting point was always through my own education. Anyone who has had a brief introduction to chaos theory will know that weather patterns are impossible to predict accurately - we can make good estimations over short time spans, but you can't rely on them (ask Michal Fish ;) ) Weather conditions are never identical from one day to the next. There's no basis to believe that temperatures should remain constant, that we should get the same weather at certain times of the year. Yet we're told climate change is bad, and we are to blame? Put forward an argument why the climate should remain constant, and then maybe there's something to discuss.

Global warming/climate change theories have grown through their political value - politicians have realised there's points to be scored by being 'green'. We can now ban smoking because the loss in taxes can be made up off those who rely on transport to work and function in society. And that's why, instead of giving the public chance to make their own minds up, we get force-fed a one-sided viewpoint.

doz_magic_man
Valued squad member
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 pm

Re:

Post by doz_magic_man » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:52 am

Rover the Top wrote:Global warming/climate change theories have grown through their political value - politicians have realised there's points to be scored by being 'green'. We can now ban smoking because the loss in taxes can be made up off those who rely on transport to work and function in society. And that's why, instead of giving the public chance to make their own minds up, we get force-fed a one-sided viewpoint.


It was science that first mooted the theory, not politicians. If people believe it's all one big swindle to get more tax out of everybody then that's naivety personified.

Scientists may put forward theories which may or may not be accurate, but they are also the masters of observing and recording. Historically, climate change has been a gradual process which can take thousands of years.

This latest temperature increase has spanned decades only. When you look at a graph which has steady peaks and troughs over a long period of time, and then all of a sudden there is an anomalous peak in a short space of time, which just happens to coincide with industrialisation, you have to ask questions.

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:55 am

doz_magic_man wrote:
This latest temperature increase has spanned decades only. When you look at a graph which has steady peaks and troughs over a long period of time, and then all of a sudden there is an anomalous peak in a short space of time, which just happens to coincide with industrialisation, you have to ask questions.
not according to RTT... apparently you have to wait until the outcome hits you in the face... ;)

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Re:

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:57 am

doz_magic_man wrote: Historically, climate change has been a gradual process which can take thousands of years.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 33,00.html

not necesarily as gradual as we think.

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17448
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Post by Gibbon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:03 am

Don't worry Steorn will still save us all....

Apparently they're demonstrating their clean powersource to a 22 scientist jury this week. I'd love their claims to be validated - but it smells like the scam of the millenium.

:|

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:12 am

:)

forgot about them... :-D

User avatar
Gibbon
Promising manager
Posts: 17448
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:54 am
Location: Location: Location
Contact:

Re:

Post by Gibbon » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:26 am

theadore wrote::)

forgot about them... :-D
In all likelihood it's just a case of viral marketing that's gone HORRENDOUSLY wrong....and now Steorn are trying to find a way of winding it down without being lynched. :-D

User avatar
theadore
Inexperienced manager
Posts: 9566
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:25 pm

Post by theadore » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:56 am

the more i think about this... the more the debate reminds me of the evolution/ID arguments.

the differences and the terms they are debated on are almost identical

Post Reply