• 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

Oh, and given that we're talking about hard science, Im after sources that are scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. Not blog posts.
 



Papper said:
It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch when they tool up with large fishes at the side of the canal basin.
Click to expand...


I've always drawn the parallel betwen Vis and Cleese myself.
 
Last edited:
That's the one. I sense the arrows will be going back and forth for a while yet. Still waiting for that big fish but I feel it may never be delivered.
 
Visage said:
Oh, and given that we're talking about hard science, Im after sources that are scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. Not blog posts.
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed papers are referenced on WUWT if you could be arsed to look. Indeed, the link I posted referenced many works that referenced such.
Your catastrophism is unfounded.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/peer-review/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/more-turmoil-at-the-american-physical-society-over-global-warming-issue/
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
The American Physical Society seems divided. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/22/more-turmoil-at-the-american-physical-society-over-global-warming-issue/
Click to expand...

Instead of getting second hand info from biased sources, it took me about 20s to find the APS's official policy:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
Click to expand...

So, got any others?

Taste of your own medicine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Click to expand...

Did you read the entirity of that article? Including the bits about authenticity and authorship issues?

Again, you claim to be cognisant of science, yet rely on blogs or anecdotes do back up your positions. Real scientists use data, published in journals, that get picked apart and tested. Not banging out a few thousand words and clicking 'publish'. You take the words of denialists at face value, yet discount the hard evidence produced by the vastly larger scientific populace that has produced evidence of man made climate change. Your position isnt evidence based - its dogma.
 
Visage said:
Instead of getting second hand info from biased sources, it took me about 20s to find the APS's official policy:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm



So, got any others?



Did you read the entirity of that article? Including the bits about authenticity and authorship issues?

Again, you claim to be cognisant of science, yet rely on blogs or anecdotes do back up your positions. Real scientists use data, published in journals, that get picked apart and tested. Not banging out a few thousand words and clicking 'publish'. You take the words of denialists at face value, yet discount the hard evidence produced by the vastly larger scientific populace that has produced evidence of man made climate change. Your position isnt evidence based - its dogma.
Click to expand...

Even the Royal Society had to modify its view. My point was that the APS official policy has been challenged by a vociferous and significant part of it's membership. Institutions need to be aware of their members views.
Vis, I do not do dogma, which is precisely why I challenge the dogma. I get tested and as I have explained before work with real world hard verifiable physics. No-one can verify the carbon dioxide hypohesis.
The big issue is that this has become political with the great irony that Thatcher wanted to shut down the coal mines but the left took up the batton.

With all due respect I've not seen you post anything that shows a personal analysis of the physics. Please explain the energy transfer mechanisms intra and extra earth to your knowledge. How do they differ from another person who has a decent knowledge of energy transfer?

For fun, as always you are only a click away from a decent paper:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=8

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/

http://principia-scientific.org/

Given that many of the great scientists had humble beginnings including Einstein (a patent clerk) is it not unresonable to observe that the pre-programmed accademics are not necessarily those that can show great understanding. Ergo, institutions that pre-prescribe a view are in danger of being closed to new ideas and bypassed. Established institutions have no right of progression.
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
Instead of getting second hand info from biased sources, it took me about 20s to find the APS's official policy:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm



So, got any others?



Did you read the entirity of that article? Including the bits about authenticity and authorship issues?

Again, you claim to be cognisant of science, yet rely on blogs or anecdotes do back up your positions. Real scientists use data, published in journals, that get picked apart and tested. Not banging out a few thousand words and clicking 'publish'. You take the words of denialists at face value, yet discount the hard evidence produced by the vastly larger scientific populace that has produced evidence of man made climate change. Your position isnt evidence based - its dogma.
Click to expand...

I used the two links for balance and yes I did read the entire wikipedia entry but thought the maveric APS view relevent. You already know my views on how and when to use Wikipedia.
 
I hardly think you can compare theoretical physics to climate science which is based solely on projections from observational data. You're not going to get a revolution by someone who isn't trained in that specific field or a related science. IMO of course.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Even the Royal Society had to modify its view. My point was that the APS official policy has been challenged by a vociferous and significant part of it's membership. Institutions need to be aware of their members views.
Vis, I do not do dogma, which is precisely why I challenge the dogma. I get tested and as I have explained before work with real world hard verifiable physics. No-one can verify the carbon dioxide hypohesis.
The big issue is that this has become political with the great irony that Thatcher wanted to shut down the coal mines but the left took up the batton.

With all due respect I've not seen you post anything that shows a personal analysis of the physics. Please explain the energy transfer mechanisms intra and extra earth to your knowledge. How do they differ from another person who has a decent knowledge of energy transfer?

For fun, as always you are only a click away from a decent paper:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=8

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/

http://principia-scientific.org/

Given that many of the great scientists had humble beginnings including Einstein (a patent clerk) is it not unresonable to observe that the pre-programmed accademics are not necessarily those that can show great understanding. Ergo, institutions that pre-prescribe a view are in danger of being closed to new ideas and bypassed. Established institutions have no right of progression.
Click to expand...

Its impossible to condense the entirety of climate science into an easily digestible forum post, so Im not going to. If you're genuinely interested there are plenty of resources out there that are objective, and arent pushing an agenda.

BTW, talking of agendas - are you able to back up your assertion that the surveys I quoted had cherry picked or otherwise massaged their results? I can only assume you missed the question....
 
Visage said:
Its impossible to condense the entirety of climate science into an easily digestible forum post, so Im not going to. If you're genuinely interested there are plenty of resources out there that are objective, and arent pushing an agenda.

BTW, talking of agendas - are you able to back up your assertion that the surveys I quoted had cherry picked or otherwise massaged their results? I can only assume you missed the question....
Click to expand...

I cannot claim with any certainty that you are wrong. I'm trying to demonstrate that there is a lot more out there than might meet the casual observer's eye. Einstien was quite clear on falsification openly admitting that he could not ultimately prove his theories but it would only take one person to take it down.
It is only politicians and clerics that speak in certaincies, always getting it wrong long term.

The infusion of politics doesn't help.

For satire only:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/un-agency-says-2012-celebrities-hottest-on-record,30570/

Osborne statement related to 'climate change' summary here:
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=1ed185ede9&e=96bb006873
 
Last edited:
Why would poiticians jump on the man made climate change bandwagon though? If they were taking the opposite stance whereby we can carry on doing what we like then i could understand the motivation, nobody wants to have to cut CO2 emmissions surely?
 
Haggstone said:
Why would poiticians jump on the man made climate change bandwagon though? If they were taking the opposite stance whereby we can carry on doing what we like then i could understand the motivation, nobody wants to have to cut CO2 emmissions surely?
Click to expand...

Some bollocks self engradisement by a DimLib?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9722767/2bn-of-UK-aid-to-help-Third-World-go-green.html

A meaningless gesture sums it up. We aren't all stupid.
Our elected are not known for their technical ability, increasingly career politicians without real professional experiance, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband spring to mind.
Multiply that by civil servants that have little accountabilty to 'customers' you have a potent mix.
 
Last edited:
Haggstone said:
Why would poiticians jump on the man made climate change bandwagon though? If they were taking the opposite stance whereby we can carry on doing what we like then i could understand the motivation, nobody wants to have to cut CO2 emmissions surely?
Click to expand...

To hide taxation behind a genuine scientific theory. They do it constantly why should climate change be any different.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Some bollocks self engradisement by a DimLib?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9722767/2bn-of-UK-aid-to-help-Third-World-go-green.html

A meaningless gesture sums it up. We aren't all stupid.
Our elected are not known for their technical ability, increasingly career politicians without real professional experiance, Cameron, Clegg and Milliband spring to mind.
Multiply that by civil servants that have little accountabilty to 'customers' you have a potent mix.
Click to expand...

£2bn is one hell of a gesture. To what end?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top