|
Post by fretslider on Feb 2, 2010 22:54:27 GMT
you deny that your pet theory has holes in it, My pet theory? It is not my pet theory, it is the established theory of the climate scienists of the World. Er, I think you will find that it is climate scientists that believe in the hockey stick, not 'just' me. There are some very nasty holes in the theory as put forward by your chums at realclimate. I suggest you use your energy in trying to fill them in. Then perhaps you should explain why the deniers are so far unable to expose these holes? Why is it that whenever a denier goes on and on, someone like me can find, without too much trouble the explaination to your quibbles? Yet someone will repeat the same quibbles and ignore the previous answer. Did you catch Newsnight?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 2, 2010 23:14:06 GMT
Did you catch Newsnight? Yes I did and Jones defended himself and his short term replacement did too. So, what is the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 3, 2010 8:22:04 GMT
Jones tried to defend himself, more like.
But the best part was the lame defence of the IPCC and how it misrepresented Pielke's work.
I've pointed out some, not all, of the holes in the theory, you deny they exist
End of.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 3, 2010 9:36:37 GMT
Every respected scientist accepts global warming. """ no they dont and some of them are very concerned about the over egging and false information being put out governments lurve it as an excuse to tax.... but gov still are not cleaning up the planet..lol.... even by the most simple cost free measures
i saw newsnight...very lame defence....
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 3, 2010 9:54:49 GMT
...governments lurve it as an excuse to tax.... More conspiracy theories. If that's true, why did they resist it for so long?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 3, 2010 11:01:02 GMT
no they dont and some of them are very concerned about the over egging and false information being put out Are they? Who mouse? Who are these respected scientists who dispute global warming name half a dozen people who have published peer reviewed work that disprove global warming. Names mouse, not some feeble cut and paste of others who claim it does. governments lurve it as an excuse to tax.... What has this got to do with the laws of physics? i saw newsnight...very lame defence.... Given that you have made it abundantly clear that you are unable to grasp even the simplest concepts of global warming, in what way are you able to judge this man's comments?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 3, 2010 11:05:34 GMT
Jones tried to defend himself, more like. But the best part was the lame defence of the IPCC and how it misrepresented Pielke's work. I've pointed out some, not all, of the holes in the theory, you deny they exist End of. Jones made a rather robust defence and left the deniers spluttering their ovaltine. I've pointed out some, not all, of the holes in the theory, you deny they exist You have spouted the usual feeble rubbish that deniers trot out. Stuff that has been answered thousands of times before. Well, it would save you further embarassment. Another victory of science over ignorance, I think.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 3, 2010 12:55:18 GMT
Jones tried to defend himself, more like. But the best part was the lame defence of the IPCC and how it misrepresented Pielke's work. I've pointed out some, not all, of the holes in the theory, you deny they exist End of. Jones made a rather robust defence and left the deniers spluttering their ovaltine. You have spouted the usual feeble rubbish that deniers trot out. Stuff that has been answered thousands of times before. Well, it would save you further embarassment. Another victory of science over ignorance, I think. Well, that's your take on it and like the hockey stick I'd say your in the minority on that one. You really do need to get that attitude seen to, maybe some counselling might help, who knows? But nothing has been proven, and that's a fact that escapes you completely. You are in denial as much as the next man. You haven't filled in the holes because you cannot, otherwise you would have done by now. Thank god I didn't mention the hot water bottle effect. Embarrassed, moi? Not at all, I think people like you give science a bad name, unwilling to hear alternative hypotheses, and constantly trying to shout others down. No, I'd be embarrassed if I had a mindset such a yours. You have not gained any victory, you have merely shown what a boor you can be. Enjoy your delusion at your leisure.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 3, 2010 14:05:29 GMT
...governments lurve it as an excuse to tax.... More conspiracy theories. If that's true, why did they resist it for so long? conspiracy theories... where what..who? resist what not following your point
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 3, 2010 14:11:49 GMT
[ Are they? Who mouse? Who are these respected scientists who dispute global warming name half a dozen people who have published peer reviewed work that disprove global warming. Names mouse, not some feeble cut and paste of others who claim it do.... right so you dont want cut and paste...so in reality you dont want names...you dont want anything which stands in the way of your bias..much has been posted ..non of which has been to your satifaction.....and never will be.. well...one thing you want and need badly is a course in good manners and comunications ...i wouldnt wipe you off my shoe...i would rather throw the shoe away..prefferably into the deep blue sea some where off a sinking island or an increasing glacier.....lol
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 3, 2010 14:14:15 GMT
Jones made a rather robust defence and left the deniers spluttering their ovaltine.""""
he was pathetic...and full of excuses......as for his pyramid...mmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Feb 3, 2010 14:20:35 GMT
Your trouble, Random Voice, is that you are so dogmatic. Too dogmatic in fact. Not to mention being intolerant of the views of others. The science on global warming is far from being as exact as you apparently believe with an almost zealous fervour. The difference between your good self, and those you decry, is that you are only prepared to see ONE side to an open debate, and refuse to countenance any view that does not accord with your own preconceived notions-----notions which you have only gained by selectively reading, and swallowing without question, reports that back your views; whereas some try and balance the argument by considering opposing views.
The earth may well be warming; as it has so many times in the past without any input from mankind. It may even be on the verge of cooling, which again it has done before many times without any input by mankind. And if either of these events are occurring, then there are many logical, and scientific explanations as to why this should be happening. You could, for example, do a little reading on the correlation of sunspot activity and global temperature fluctuations. You might also read up on the Milankovitch cycles, which again correlate the angle of the earths inclination to the sun and global temperature cycles.
It may even be that mankind is making some very slight contribution to climate change; but if you really think that we can alter climate change then you are as gullible as you are dogmatic. And it would not do you any harm to be just a little more tolerant of opposing views. You COULD just be wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 3, 2010 18:32:14 GMT
This threads gone a long way off the EU, hasn't it? Anyway, I'm not going to get into a slanging match with my own members - I had enough of that earlier on and I'm not going to have another one.
Science evolves and changes. It's always in a state of constantly re-evaluating its own theories.
Even some of the greatest minds in the field don't always get it right. Einstein, for instance, could never accept that quantum physics was right. He spent a large part of his life trying to disprove it and when he came up with the ERP thought experiment he reckoned he'd found a way to refute quantum.
Then along came Bell's Theorem and exploded that idea.
Before that, you had the ether, phlogiston and so on.
Science isn't something static; it changes over time.
It's also not true to say that scientists are objective and just seekers of the truth.
What about Lysenko under Stalin? Lenard under Hitler?
Sometimes HOW you say something is just as important as WHAT you say.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 3, 2010 18:37:11 GMT
This threads gone a long way off the EU, hasn't it? Anyway, I'm not going to get into a slanging match with my own members - I had enough of that earlier on and I'm not going to have another one. Science evolves and changes. It's always in a state of constantly re-evaluating its own theories. Even some of the greatest minds in the field don't always get it right. Einstein, for instance, could never accept that quantum physics was right. He spent a large part of his life trying to disprove it and when he came up with the ERP thought experiment he reckoned he'd found a way to refute quantum. Then along came Bell's Theorem and exploded that idea. Before that, you had the ether, phlogiston and so on. Science isn't something static; it changes over time. It's also not true to say that scientists are objective and just seekers of the truth. What about Lysenko under Stalin? Lenard under Hitler? Sometimes HOW you say something is just as important as WHAT you say. BL I threw the graph in so I guess you could say I started it, although that wasn't the intention. fs
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 3, 2010 19:33:22 GMT
Your trouble, Random Voice, is that you are so dogmatic. Too dogmatic in fact. Not to mention being intolerant of the views of others Ned, this is nothing to do with ‘dogma’ this is to do with science. You could make a case for saying that having a belief is scientific methodology is a ‘dogma’ I suppose, but Global Warming is not some kind of dogma driven belief, it is the inevitable conclusion to explain the data and evidence we have. If someone has an alternative theory, it has to fit in with the facts and theories we currently have. To attempt to replace the only plausible explanation with something that clearly fails to fit the facts is not ‘open minded’ it is sheer stupidity of the most blatant kind. That is the enormity of the task the ‘deniers’ have, but most of them are unable or unwilling to grasp. It is not merely ‘Global Warming’ they have to overturn it is the laws of physics. For example, if they attempt to claim that CO2 is not heating the Earth, then they need to explain why CO2 reacts differently to how we would expect it to. Not only that, but they have to explain what is retaining the heat and why we are unable to detect the heat we attribute to greenhouse gases for the last 200 years. Once they have done that, they then have to rewrite the entire laws of physics to accommodate this new theory. Not only do you have to redesign the structure of the Carbon Dioxide molecule, but that of every other molecule in the Universe. The same goes for any aspect of the theory. To suggest that you could bring down the theory of Global Warming by an idea from the top of one’s head implies that such a person thinks that ‘the greenhouse effect’ is a discrete part of science, quite separate from the other aspects. Not true, the physics involved in Global Warming are central elements to our entire scientific understanding. The earth may well be warming; as it has so many times in the past without any input from mankind. It may even be on the verge of cooling, which again it has done before many times without any input by mankind. Yes, Ned this is true. There have been, and will be natural triggers, for the rising and falling of temperatures over the eons, no-one disputes that. You will not find a single scientist that contradicts that. Our knowledge of physics means we can predict the type of things that can trigger such events. However, one of those triggers is a significant increase in greenhouse gases. We are able to calculate what kind of temperature rise we would get for a given increase of carbon dioxide, irrespective of the source. You could, for example, do a little reading on the correlation of sunspot activity and global temperature fluctuations. You might also read up on the Milankovitch cycles, which again correlate the angle of the earths inclination to the sun and global temperature cycles. Ned, you are so wrong about this on so many levels, it is difficult to know where to start. First of all, you surely realise that the Worlds most eminent scientists are aware of such things as the Milankovitch cycles, sunspots etc? You cannot seriously be suggesting that the entire climate science community have been pondering global warming for 30 years and longer and have missed these phenomena that are actually central to climate? You must be aware that no study of climate can possibly be conducted without knowledge of these things. Secondly, it appears that you are under the impression that the ‘greenhouse effect’/Global Warming act independent of these things. Nothing can be further than the truth. These calculations are central to the theory of global warming and if these things were discarded then the greenhouse effect would not be as well understood. Thirdly, you miss the entire point (again). You appear to be under the impression that we are trying to explain the heat and scrambling for an explanation. That is not true, we are aware of the CO2 we are producing and how much of that is going into the atmosphere. We know how much heat that should be retaining. We are not searching for an explanation for where the heat is coming from, we know where it comes from; we are trying to find what happens to the heat that our carbon dioxide should be trapping. You dispute that our carbon dioxide is retaining the heat, well the onus is on you to explain where that heat is going if not into the atmosphere. Sunspots deal with ultra violet, not infra red.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 3, 2010 22:11:26 GMT
and yet the chappie last night said information was constantly changing
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 3, 2010 23:10:16 GMT
and yet the chappie last night said information was constantly changing Information, yes? But the laws of physics never change.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 8:15:55 GMT
and yet the chappie last night said information was constantly changing Information, yes? But the laws of physics never change. Never? Er, they have according to the theory. Research indicates that the fundamental constant mu may have changed over the last 12 billion years. The findings come from research at the Free University in Amsterdam and the European Southern Observatory in Chile. The cosmological constant may also be changing. The gravitational constant was considered to be variable years ago and, in just the last couple of years, a major debate has been considered regarding the fine structure constant (and, because they're related, the speed of light) Never say never, you know it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 4, 2010 8:29:44 GMT
Information, yes? But the laws of physics never change. Never? Er, they have according to the theory. Research indicates that the fundamental constant mu may have changed over the last 12 billion years. The findings come from research at the Free University in Amsterdam and the European Southern Observatory in Chile. The cosmological constant may also be changing. The gravitational constant was considered to be variable years ago and, in just the last couple of years, a major debate has been considered regarding the fine structure constant (and, because they're related, the speed of light) Never say never, you know it makes sense. Ah, but these changes are not just changing in a fit of peak, they are actually changing within the laws of physics, but I take your general point. At the point of 'big bang' then the laws change pretty dramatic fashion. Our knowledge of the laws may change and I concede that may change in terms of cosmic timecales. The the laws of physics in this epoch don't.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 4, 2010 10:51:20 GMT
Never? Er, they have according to the theory. Research indicates that the fundamental constant mu may have changed over the last 12 billion years. The findings come from research at the Free University in Amsterdam and the European Southern Observatory in Chile. The cosmological constant may also be changing. The gravitational constant was considered to be variable years ago and, in just the last couple of years, a major debate has been considered regarding the fine structure constant (and, because they're related, the speed of light) Never say never, you know it makes sense. Ah, but these changes are not just changing in a fit of peak, they are actually changing within the laws of physics, but I take your general point. At the point of 'big bang' then the laws change pretty dramatic fashion. Our knowledge of the laws may change and I concede that may change in terms of cosmic timecales. The the laws of physics in this epoch don't. You don't give ground gracefully, but the acknowledgement is something. Perhaps next time you throw that line in you could say "But the laws of physics never change - in this epoch".
|
|