• 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:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...-cracking-open-the-earths-crust-2012102446178
Click to expand...

Is that the best you can do? Two decades ago the left were complaining that the coal mines were being closed, I agreed with them, far more destructive than modern fracking technology. The fracturing 'tremors' caused by the Lancashire prospecting were not disimilar to a large vehicle traveling down the road, corrective action is possible.
In living memory far worse was prevalent in coal mining areas and subsidence by all causes still exists.

Some excellent critical thinking here:

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/scorning_the_propaganda_of_fear_35NPhGM05z5vuBNPRHVobI
 
Last edited:
SkepticsvRealists_500.gif
 
Visage said:
SkepticsvRealists_500.gif
Click to expand...

Skeptical Science is the most misnamed website on the net. All the recognised data sets flat line temperatures for a decade and a half including our very own MetOffice.

The political clue is here:

Isn't Auntie wonderful?

http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=94dc73415e&e=96bb006873

I'm waiting for them to hold their hands up.

Vis, I do not disrepect you but I would like to see some genuine well argued thoughts from you, posting a meaningless animated graph provides serious doubts about your freedom of thought.

Regards

Dave
 
Last edited:
I tried well argued thoughts and you ignored them.
 
Visage said:
I tried well argued thoughts and you ignored them.
Click to expand...

When? You attempted to back up your arguements with weakly sourced references.
You also claim authority because of your particular degree and university. That should not be an assertion in a debate which still exists. I have commented elsewhere that academic prowess at a particular point in time should be self challenging.
I would like to see your own consideration of the physics. I'm more open minded than you imagine but you have to do the hard science to convince me. Leave out the politics to boot.
 
Last edited:
The thing about hard science is that its, well, hard, and Im not convinced you have the ability to understand it.

The reason I say this is that I made many many posts including analysis of atmospheric physics that you either ignored, or misinterpreted. You seem more concerned with winning an argument than learning.

However, if you are genuinely interested in learning the science behind climate change Im happy to give you some pointers, as long as you're willing to consider them with an open mind.
 
Visage said:
The thing about hard science is that its, well, hard, and Im not convinced you have the ability to understand it.

The reason I say this is that I made many many posts including analysis of atmospheric physics that you either ignored, or misinterpreted. You seem more concerned with winning an argument than learning.

However, if you are genuinely interested in learning the science behind climate change Im happy to give you some pointers, as long as you're willing to consider them with an open mind.
Click to expand...

The 'theories' of atmospheric physics are exactly as you found them when you graduated ? My understanding is that you do not work in the field today. Correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not so dim to think that the academics at the university (or others since) I was at had all the answers, indeed I doubt any would claim that.
Vis, send the links, I'm sure to be able to process them and I'm sure there will be counter arguements. When you are trying to extract tiny signals from noise in a very complex system you are going to lose. I fail to see how you can argue otherwise.
As I have asserted before - empirical evidence is king.

Regards

Dave
 
And again, You're arguing against points that noone is making.

Do you do this because you don't understand the science?
 
Visage said:
And again, You're arguing against points that noone is making.

Do you do this because you don't understand the science?
Click to expand...

I'm happy to see your offerings. My last post merely emphasised that I have an open mind while offering a challenge to your closed mind. I'll handle the science no problem.
 
OK - I'll post up some introductory stuff later on.
 
Visage said:
OK - I'll post up some introductory stuff later on.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, I wont. I started to pull together some introductory stuff, and then I realised that there's no point. The inquisitive mind will find the info for itself, and the closed mind will ignore anything provided. Either way, its a waste of my time.
 
Cop out.
There is a well referenced article here:

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/secrets-climate-modeling-mystics

As you know well, I use various techniques for product validation including modeling. I verify for no bollocks at every level. Verification is far more important at every level right up to the real world.
I might add that if your model stimulus is missing an ingredient it cannot result in confidence that the model represents the real world. Been there, seen it, done it.
Plus, how do you verify the model and creative tools bug free?
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
And finally, I get paid for this bit plus innovation utilising that knowledge.
Click to expand...

So you wait and see if things can work before you build them? Or would you advocate building them first and then tracking the empirical data? If you have just one test method then that makes you very closed indeed. I don't agree with Vis most of the time but he has a point about people who find knowledge and those that just post about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top