• 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

Johnny75 said:
Isn't it just. I get fed up when people tell me how to do my job when they know nothing about my job or how I arrived at my results in said job. Frustrated doesn't cover it.

Out of interest Vis and not knowing enough about climate change, is it possible that the human race could slow this or is it a horse that's bolted?
Click to expand...

Customers tell me whether I am right or wrong. If they like the product then good. They might find a limitation that will endeavour to fix ('tis amazing as to what you can do with an FPGA). Customers do not have to have an intimate understanding of audio visual electronics technology to ask the question.
Academics seem to be able to assert conclusions without ever testing them properly. Find a problem with my stuff, I'm straight on it, self scepticism at its best.
Academics operate 'open loop' they do not necessarily have to provide proof but a hypothesis may be sufficient to justify their work.
The point is that the 'Climate Change' issue hasn't been sold on a basis that those with a background in mathematics, physics and engineering will necessarily accept.
 
Last edited:
I presume you are taking consumers and customers to be the same thing for arguments sake. In which case customers will tell you whether they like the product, not whether you are right or wrong, liking it and therefore believing in it should result in sales? Nothing to do with the quality of your product or how it works.

Your rather simplistic attempt at academics and customer comparison is neither relevant or true as academics do not have to please anybody with any theory it is just that, a theory. I will not patronise you as I assume you know the difference between a theory which need not be sold and a product which needs selling.

However I take your point that there is division between certain sections of the respective communities and the politicians do not help matters by confusing energy production and consumption with climate change. As far as I can see the link is more to do with gasses and the production/ storage/ release of them and the effect on the environment (as Vis eloquently put above), rather than finding alternate energy production and therefore dealing with the change in the environment, which I understand everybody agrees on.
 
Johnny75 said:
However I take your point that there is division between certain sections of the respective communities
Click to expand...

While technically true, this statement is akin to saying that there's a division between those who beleive that the earth is round and those who beelive it to be flat. Both sides beleive in their position with great passion, but only one side has a compelling argument.

I really cannot emphasize this enough.

There is not one single organisation of scientists that disagrees with the concensus that the earths climate is changing, and that the cause of this change is the activities of mankind

Apparently this doesnt matter though, because of something to do with electronics. I mean - those scientists whove spent their lives researching the climate - what do they know? They dont even have customers!
 
Visage said:
There is not one single organisation of scientists that disagrees with the concensus that the earths climate is changing, and that the cause of this change is the activities of mankind
Click to expand...

I don't think the consensus is there when it comes to carbon. I am more inclined to worry about the trees that are disappearing from the Amazon etc
 
Climate_science_opinion2.png
 
It will. It will just be a shame if we wipe ourselves out and turn it into an uninhabitable wasteland just because it was inconvenient to change.
 
Visage said:
It will. It will just be a shame if we wipe ourselves out and turn it into an uninhabitable wasteland just because it was inconvenient to change.
Click to expand...

We don't change. It's called evolution and survival of the fittest. The last two hundred years are incomparable to what went before. We are heading back to the stone age I'm afraid ( and the strongest will survive).
 
Papper said:
We don't change. It's called evolution and survival of the fittest. The last two hundred years are incomparable to what went before. We are heading back to the stone age I'm afraid ( and the strongest will survive).
Click to expand...

isn't lack of change called inertia? "evolution" is surely to do with change.
 
Visage said:
Climate_science_opinion2.png
Click to expand...

Still no hard science then.....
I'm not panicing or worrying about my kids etc. I think you need to move away from wikipedia as your point of reference.
I've yet to see any hard scientific understanding from your good self. So far it has all been powder puff politically aligned crap.
Science isn't a democracy and any practicitioner should be constantly sceptical of their own work, after all it is unlikely to be definitive. I'm always looking to improve product as the technology paradigm changes.
The concensus arguement has been debunked time and time again. All those papers were based on cherry picking of responses to targeted surveys. I think you need to pay a visit to WUWT, I'm not suggesting that you should necessarily change your view but I think you might appreciate the spectrum of understanding or lack of understanding. It is naive to think that our understanding of the universe is that much better than in history, history is littered with failed political theories based on understanding of the time.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Still no hard science then.....
I'm not panicing or worrying about my kids etc. I think you need to move away from wikipedia as your point of reference.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is merely a repository. Take those figures for example - they all come from the scientific papers cited in the legend.

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/1/93
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009eo030002.shtml
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/upd...te-scientists-consensus-on-climate-change.pdf
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

These are all only a click away and are real surveys published in real peer reviewed scientific journals.

The concensus arguement has been debunked time and time again. All those papers were based on cherry picking of responses to targeted surveys.
Click to expand...

You've often complained about people making bold statements without evidence, so I trust you'll be backing up this claim.
 
Papper said:
We don't change. It's called evolution and survival of the fittest. The last two hundred years are incomparable to what went before. We are heading back to the stone age I'm afraid ( and the strongest will survive).
Click to expand...

Im talking about changes in behaviour, rather than evolutionary adaptation. Climate change is happening way to fast for the latter.
 
Visage said:
Im talking about changes in behaviour, rather than evolutionary adaptation. Climate change is happening way to fast for the latter.
Click to expand...

Problem though is the conflict between making money and reducing emissions. Those that have the power to instil change, real change are the ones who risk losing the money. We might as well just sit back and enjoy the ride as best we can because there is sweet fa we can do about it.
 
Visage said:
While technically true, this statement is akin to saying that there's a division between those who beleive that the earth is round and those who beelive it to be flat. Both sides beleive in their position with great passion, but only one side has a compelling argument.

I really cannot emphasize this enough.

There is not one single organisation of scientists that disagrees with the concensus that the earths climate is changing, and that the cause of this change is the activities of mankind

Apparently this doesnt matter though, because of something to do with electronics. I mean - those scientists whove spent their lives researching the climate - what do they know? They dont even have customers!
Click to expand...

Everyone who is paid for a service has customers including academics.
 
Visage said:
While technically true, this statement is akin to saying that there's a division between those who beleive that the earth is round and those who beelive it to be flat. Both sides beleive in their position with great passion, but only one side has a compelling argument.

I really cannot emphasize this enough.

There is not one single organisation of scientists that disagrees with the concensus that the earths climate is changing, and that the cause of this change is the activities of mankind

Apparently this doesnt matter though, because of something to do with electronics. I mean - those scientists whove spent their lives researching the climate - what do they know? They dont even have customers!
Click to expand...

Everyone who is paid for a service has customers including academics.

Resources here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=consensus

Vis, as for your mocking of an electronics engineer surely you appreciate our innovation at exponential rates.
Your bolded stuff is patently not true.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top