• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Visage said:
There are dissenting voices, sure, but the overwhelming majority concur with the idea that mankind's actions are affecting the climate.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure a 'majority' consensus means much and therefore I applaud the 'minority' who question. Shame in so many cases it always results in attempts to demean.
 
Physics is not something you vote for. Countless times it has been pointed out that there is no concensus on 'Climate Change' , not just by me.
There is nothing more satisfying than understanding the physical processes at play in problem solving but claiming understanding of a complex chaotic climate system is just dim.
 
Visage said:
It's wrong to say that no-one agrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

There are dissenting voices, sure, but the overwhelming majority concur with the idea that mankind's actions are affecting the climate.
Click to expand...

wikipedia again, behave. I've tried to multisource my links, you seem to single source yours on a open source website.
There are no absolutes in this debate whatever may be your ideology.
I'm interested because I suspect the green narrative, the political motivation, the 'solutions' and academic bullshit generation.
 
Here's a tip for you. On Wikipedia, when you see little numbers next to a statement - they're links to footnotes. These, in turn, link to the original source of the data.

You're welcome.

Oh, and using more than one biased website doesnt count as 'multisourcing'. Thats like claiming something is true because you read ot on MolMix AND The Wolf.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
There is nothing more satisfying than understanding the physical processes at play in problem solving
Click to expand...

What training (self taught or otherwise) do you have in the area of climate science?

Because, to be blunt, I dont think you understand anything at all - though to be fair you're very adept at posting links.
 
I've done enough real world science professionally to know when someone is attempting to take the piss.
Like I said I'm sceptical, academics inquire, that is their job but often their output is simply blue sky thinking. They don't have customers as such for a product that demonstrably works. There might be a motivation to say what the customer (government) wants them to say. That said climate science is a broad church and it doesn't take much effort to realise that. There are too many unknown or poorly understood mechanisms to claim understanding. Climate is far more complex than the ecconomy. Are academics or politicians reliable on either issue?
When I go to work in the morning I might have a theory as to what might be going wrong but return home having solved the problem with knowledge that hadn't entered my head earlier. An ability to challenge one's preconceptions is vital in real world product development.
As I've said before even if the greens are right the solutions are wrong. Shale gas and nuclear are the electricity solutions and ever onward internal combustion engine development for transport, at least in the next few decades. By all means find alternatives but they must stand up to demand without ridiculous subsidy.
I have full knowledge of how dumbed down mathematics and physics has become at 'A' level over the last 30 years, no wonder I'm cynical.
Just thought, one of my drinking buddies is a retired former Met Office (they do climate change as well) physicist (Phd). He thinks whole thing stinks as well.
 
Last edited:
So, to be clear, in answer to my question, you have no training in climate science?
 
Visage said:
So, to be clear, in answer to my question, you have no training in climate science?
Click to expand...

So what? Galileo didn't follow convention. Your expertise is what exactly? Do you accept everything you are told uncritically?
Science is about analysis, self criticism and scepticism. Assertion of fact in a poorly understood complex chaotic system is plainly absurd. Daft assertions that arctic sea ice loss and antarctic sea ice gain are down to man made emissions are plain stupid and service an agenda.
I don't need to be a 'climate scientist' to challenge the view before it influences the rather less well informed political sphere. In any case it is becoming clear that politcians are becoming tired of the issue. Germany is building new coal power stations after stupidly abandoning nukes and there seems to be fresh enthusiasm for shale gas in the UK government at last.
 
Last edited:
LOL at you comparing yourself to Galileo.

Well, I have a masters degree in Physics, part of which was spent studying Atmospheric Physics, so yes, I do have expertise that is relevant.

And surely you can see the absurdity in criticising assertions while you yourself assert that they are wrong?
 
I remember a time when HGW used to criticise almost every opinion I put forward in regards to football. He objected to a no mark such as myself questioning the thinking of professionals in that field.

I love the irony.
 
Visage said:
LOL at you comparing yourself to Galileo.

Well, I have a masters degree in Physics, part of which was spent studying Atmospheric Physics, so yes, I do have expertise that is relevant.

And surely you can see the absurdity in criticising assertions while you yourself assert that they are wrong?
Click to expand...

First I wasn't comparing myself to Galileo.
The absurdity is that you show faith in a stasis of thought from your university days.
I have a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (1988). Without an ability to self educate and innovate I wouldn't be doing what I do now. As you might imagine, staying on the leading edge over time requires an ability to learn and understand as an individual. Just for fun I've chosen to look at the climate change issue, my understanding of physics isn't too shabby either.
 
MARKakaJIM said:
I remember a time when HGW used to criticise almost every opinion I put forward in regards to football. He objected to a no mark such as myself questioning the thinking of professionals in that field.

I love the irony.
Click to expand...

I didn't have a problem with your opinion but the way you asserted it.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
First I wasn't comparing myself to Galileo.
The absurdity is that you show faith in a stasis of thought from your university days.
I have a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (1988). Without an ability to self educate and innovate I wouldn't be doing what I do now. As you might imagine, staying on the leading edge over time requires an ability to learn and understand as an individual. Just for fun I've chosen to look at the climate change issue, my understanding of physics isn't too shabby either.
Click to expand...

Again, you denigrate my education while citing yours, despite the fact that your degree might as well be in David Beckham studies for all its relevancy, and you left uni a considerable amount of time before me.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
 
Visage said:
Again, you denigrate my education while citing yours, despite the fact that your degree might as well be in David Beckham studies for all its relevancy, and you left uni a considerable amount of time before me.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

No offence intended. I will however point out that engineering is founded on maths and physics. Your current postion employment would not be in climate science from memory.
Oh, I'm still coughing up innovative products too.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
... academics inquire, that is their job but often their output is simply blue sky thinking. They don't have customers as such for a product that demonstrably works. There might be a motivation to say what the customer (government) wants them to say.
Click to expand...

That's the best yet. Academics don't do good work, because they don't have customers. You obviously haven't been near a university since you graduated in 1988, let alone have any concept of peer review. Strange how the only two people who constantly call you out have experience in climate science. Mine's pretty current by the way and wholly developed within an industrial environment.
 
Doctor Doog said:
That's the best yet. Academics don't do good work, because they don't have customers. You obviously haven't been near a university since you graduated in 1988, let alone have any concept of peer review. Strange how the only two people who constantly call you out have experience in climate science. Mine's pretty current by the way and wholly developed within an industrial environment.
Click to expand...

I didn't say all. I've worked with academics more recently too. If you work in the industry how do you justify the subsidy for no net benefit. Point me at something that shows any benefit from renewables for example.
Academics have to bid for funding just like the rest of us.
As for peer review, nothing goes out of the door without it in any competent industry.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/12/claim-five-climate-forcing-mechanisms-govern-20000-years-of-climate-change/#more-72319

I'm not short of friends in my thinking and I might not be right but I think Visage is a tad politicised relying on a relic from his degree course which we all know gets you so far. Doog I've yet to see anything substantive from you that backs up anything that will not screw the economy.
Judith Curry will help you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you can bemoan Wikipedia and then base an argument on the Daily Mail...

Your chosen sources seem to be a result of the conclusion they reach rather than the quality of argument therein.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top