Page 1 of 69 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 2070

Thread: Climate Change Debate

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784

    Climate Change Debate

    I think one of the main problems is the level of duties and other indirect taxation that have been traded against income taxation over the last 35 years. This leads to an indiscriminate system that penalises circumstance for those with low to middle working incomes. Excessive regulation and bureaucracy also plays a part.
    Repeal of the ridiculous unilateral Climate Change Act might also help.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    Repeal of the ridiculous unilateral Climate Change Act might also help.
    Yeah. Lets sell off the next generation's quality of life in order to pay off our debts. Ridiculous.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Yeah. Lets sell off the next generation's quality of life in order to pay off our debts. Ridiculous.
    The Climate Change Act does everything to threaten the future of UK properity, there are hints that the Tories want out but are shackled by the LibDems. Only Australia has a daft carbon tax down to the Greens holding the balance of power. Canada sacked Kyoto. The EU has directives few embrace. None of those teritories could even collectively influence CO2
    emissions.The whole theory of CO2 being a major climate driver continues to be discredited in the real time empirical evidence.
    I accept that I'm an engineer rather than an academic scientist. However, that does not imply that me and like minded people cannot tell when we are being sold a pup. As engineers we have to design complex reliable products that customers will buy. The products have to demonstrably work. Part of that process leverages science techniques to verify empirically that the product is fit for sale. Only last week I found counter intuitive reason why a shortly to be launched product would not work in some system environments. Fixed BTW!
    Scientists per se do not have that closed loop verification experience especially in a complex chaotic and poorly understood earth system. Computer models will only get some way if the input mechanisms and feedbacks are understood. Don't believe, verify.

    Even if the CO2 hypothesis were correct the proposed solutions do not work. Engineer the right cost effective and resource efficient solutions that work without unnecessary subsidy to companies or individuals.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 26th April 2012 at 09:28 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    The Climate Change Act does everything to threaten the future of UK properity, there are hints that the Tories want out but are shackled by the LibDems. Only Australia has a daft carbon tax down to the Greens holding the balance of power. Canada sacked Kyoto. The EU has directives few embrace. None of those teritories could even collectively influence CO2
    emissions.The whole theory of CO2 being a major climate driver continues to be discredited in the real time empirical evidence.
    I accept that I'm an engineer rather than an academic scientist. However, that does not imply that me and like minded people cannot tell when we are being sold a pup. As engineers we have to design complex reliable products that customers will buy. The products have to demonstrably work. Part of that process leverages science techniques to verify empirically that the product is fit for sale. Only last week I found counter intuitive reason why a shortly to be launched product would not work in some system environments. Fixed BTW!
    Scientists per se do not have that closed loop verification experience especially in a complex chaotic and poorly understood earth system. Computer models will only get some way if the input mechanisms and feedbacks are understood. Don't believe, verify.

    Even if the CO2 hypothesis were correct the proposed solutions do not work. Engineer the right cost effective and resource efficient solutions that work without unnecessary subsidy to companies or individuals.
    Id argue against you, if only I could work out what points you're making.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Id argue against you, if only I could work out what points you're making.
    I've made several points that contest your world view that climate science is well understood and that there is a concensus. The latter is applicable to politics not science. There is no consensus in climate science. I merely showed how easy it is to be uncritical of certain ideas.
    You have yet to debate except to appeal to authority.
    I'm just pointing out that there is a debate beyond some of the main stream media. I hope you appreciate that.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    I've made several points that contest your world view that climate science is well understood and that there is a concensus. The latter is applicable to politics not science. There is no consensus in climate science. I merely showed how easy it is to be uncritical of certain ideas.
    You have yet to debate except to appeal to authority.
    I'm just pointing out that there is a debate beyond some of the main stream media. I hope you appreciate that.
    If your argument boils down to 'some people disagree with the scientific concensus' then I wonder what other causes you espouse? Creationism? Cold fusion? Homeopathy?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry's Tackle View Post
    Damn right you're not, but these guys are:
    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    Hmmmm...... who to believe?

    I cannot understand the stance of people that choose to deny the existence and causes of climate change. I think it is on the same level as people denying evolution - the amount of evidence is overwhelming, and you have to be completely ignorant of this to deny it. Or not understand it properly. Either way you're wrong.
    Christ on a bike! My point is that blind faith is a failing, see what it has done to North Koreans. Goverment/religious elites have always operated on fear and poor education. I am for ever gratefull that I went to the LEA funded WGS that encouraged critical thinking. It is no accident that those education opportunities are denied by law now. I'm open to scrutiny by all who encounter my product whether they have expertise or not. Think for yourself and verify what you are told.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 28th April 2012 at 01:03 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    Christ on a bike! My point is that blind faith is a failing, see what it has by done to North Koreans. Goverment/religious elites have always operated on fear and poor education. I am for ever gratefull that I went to the LEA funded WGS that encouraged critical thinking. It is no accident that those education opportunities are denied by law now. I'm open to scrutiny by all who encounter my product whether they have expertise or not. Think for yourself and verify what you are told.
    I have undergraduate and post graduate degrees from one of the worlds finest universities, and my studies included atmospheric physics.

    So with that out of the way, to clarify, are you suggesting that my belief in man made climate change is based merely on blind faith? That I do not understand the science? And that you, on the other hand, do understand the science and know that the vast majority of experts in the field are wrong?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    I have undergraduate and post graduate degrees from one of the worlds finest universities, and my studies included atmospheric physics.

    So with that out of the way, to clarify, are you suggesting that my belief in man made climate change is based merely on blind faith? That I do not understand the science? And that you, on the other hand, do understand the science and know that the vast majority of experts in the field are wrong?
    That is a meaningless claim unless you have demonstrated that you have scrutinised your own work beyond that. Beyond academia the real tests are knowing when to change your view. I graduated 24 years ago and life tells me not to be so arrogant to not embrace new ideas and that what might have been considered beyond the pale in those days can be made to work. I work in innovation and exploitation of physics based on doing the hard yards of empirical verification. I guarantee that a complex chaotic earth system is poorly understood without even considering cosmic effects, if you had any credence you would understand that your certainty is not verifiably testable.
    Political and religious perpetuation of idiocy has been around for as long as man, why do you think the current generation is immune?
    My kids are not worried either.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 28th April 2012 at 12:52 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    That is a meaningless claim unless you have demonstrated that you have scrutinised your own work beyond that. Beyond academia the real tests are knowing when to change your view. I graduated 24 years ago and life tells me not to be so arrogant to not embrace new ideas and that what might have been considered beyond the pale in those days can be made to work. I work in innovation and exploitation of physics based on doing the hard yards of empirical verification. I guarantee that a complex chaotic earth system is poorly understood without even considering cosmic effects, if you had any credence you would understand that your certainty is not verifiably testable.
    Political and religious perpetuation of idiocy has been around for as long as man, why do you think the current generation is immune?
    My kids are not worried either.
    Thats all very....wordy, but you didnt answer my question. To clarify:

    Are you suggesting that the scientific consensus on man made climate change is wrong, and on what basis do you challenge that concensus?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Thats all very....wordy, but you didnt answer my question. To clarify:

    Are you suggesting that the scientific consensus on man made climate change is wrong, and on what basis do you challenge that concensus?
    A: Science isn't a democracy.
    B: The concensus is a myth, I will post links later.
    C: There are way too many unknowns to be certain of anything in a complex chaotic system, you should know that. Modeling will only get you so far.

    From an enginering prespective having an entrenched outlook would soon see me out of work. There is much to learn post university and that should be their purpose, enabling people to think for themselves.
    Douglas Adams' "Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy" seems quite prophetic in the stupidity of supposedly intelligent beings.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 29th April 2012 at 01:19 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    A: Science isn't a democracy.
    Nobody said it was.

    B: The concensus is a myth, I will post links later.
    Im sure you can find scientists that disagree with the theory of man made climate change. That does not, however, mean there is not concensus.

    From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

    Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

    Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases.
    Whatever pedantry you might employ, man made climate change *is* the concensus viewopint of climatologists.

    C: There are way too many unknowns to be certain of anything in a complex chaotic system, you should know that. Modeling will only get you so far.
    And yet you are certain that climate change is not man made. How can you know this, given this statement?

    From an enginering prespective having an entrenched outlook would soon see me out of work there is much to learn post university and that should be their purpose, enabling people to think for themselves.
    Theres a world of difference between being open minded and taking an opposing viewpoint for no reason whatsoever.

    Douglas Adams' "Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy" seems quite prophetic in the stupidity of supposedly intelligent beings.
    You do realise that its a work of fiction, yes?

    Regardless, you still havent come up with a single piece of evidence opposing the theory that climate change is real and man made. Will you do so?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Nobody said it was.



    Im sure you can find scientists that disagree with the theory of man made climate change. That does not, however, mean there is not concensus.

    From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations



    Whatever pedantry you might employ, man made climate change *is* the concensus viewopint of climatologists.



    And yet you are certain that climate change is not man made. How can you know this, given this statement?



    Theres a world of difference between being open minded and taking an opposing viewpoint for no reason whatsoever.



    You do realise that its a work of fiction, yes?

    Regardless, you still havent come up with a single piece of evidence opposing the theory that climate change is real and man made. Will you do so?
    Fiction can contain social commentary and that is important.
    You are wedded to a theory but have you ever tested it in your work?
    Are you willing to develop your thinking when evidence suggests you should do so? The real world demands that you do so. I will post links later.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 28th April 2012 at 05:21 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    I look forward to reading them. Any evidence that the concensus is wrong is clearly valuable.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Nobody said it was.



    Im sure you can find scientists that disagree with the theory of man made climate change. That does not, however, mean there is not concensus.

    From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations



    Whatever pedantry you might employ, man made climate change *is* the concensus viewopint of climatologists.



    And yet you are certain that climate change is not man made. How can you know this, given this statement?



    Theres a world of difference between being open minded and taking an opposing viewpoint for no reason whatsoever.



    You do realise that its a work of fiction, yes?

    Regardless, you still havent come up with a single piece of evidence opposing the theory that climate change is real and man made. Will you do so?
    Fiction can contain social commentary and that is important.
    You are wedded to a theory but have you ever tested it in your work?
    Are you willing to develop your thinking when evidence suggests you should do. The real world demands that you do so. I will post links later.

    Climate has always changed and living organisms have always been part of the process, have you not discovered sedimentary rocks?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Lets just talk once you've produced your evidence, rather than going around in circles.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quick starter for ten:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pd...precip-AMJ.pdf

    The wonders of modeling, eh!

    I'll be back.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    You do realise that climate and weather are two different things, yes?

    Because that fact means your example is irrelevant.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    You do realise that climate and weather are two different things, yes?

    Because that fact means your example is irrelevant.
    I was hoping that you understood that both might be subject to modeling and both might be shown to be too complex to model with current knowledge. Your response was entirely predictable and if you had any gumption you would have known I would have anticipated it.
    The climate models are unverifiable, until they are, they are of no value in determining policy. In any case you cannot decouple them, one is the measure of the other, remember the the AGW crowd now claim weather extremes for their case.
    I've not forgotten, I will be back with my links after the goal fest on MOTD.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 28th April 2012 at 10:32 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    I was hoping that you understood that both might be subject to modeling and both might be shown to be too complex to model with current knowledge. Your response was entirely predictable and if you had any gumption you would have known I would have anticipated it.
    That makes no sense. You cant prove that climate science is wrong by making spurious claims about meteoroligy. Especially when the limitations of the models used in weather forecasting are well known - just look at all the caveats on that forecast you linked to.

    The climate models are unverifiable, until they are, they are of no value in determining policy. In any case you cannot decouple them, one is the measure of the other, remember the the AGW crowd now claim weather extremes for their case.
    The models are not only verifiable, but that verification happens continuously. This is because there isnt one single 'climate model'. All climatologists around the world have access to the same raw data provided by the many geosensing systems out there. They all have their own way of processing taht data to come up with testable hypotheses. And all of them, without fail, suggest that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in mean global temperatures. When compared against historical data we can see that, at the same time as mankind has increased Co2 levels, temperatures have risen. So the outcome is in line with the models. But not just one model, which would not be expecially significant, but with every model, suggesting that the techniques are sound.

    I've not forgotten I will be back with my links after the goal fest on MOTD.
    If they're as scientifically worthless as the last time, dont bother.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    That makes no sense. You cant prove that climate science is wrong by making spurious claims about meteoroligy. Especially when the limitations of the models used in weather forecasting are well known - just look at all the caveats on that forecast you linked to.



    The models are not only verifiable, but that verification happens continuously. This is because there isnt one single 'climate model'. All climatologists around the world have access to the same raw data provided by the many geosensing systems out there. They all have their own way of processing taht data to come up with testable hypotheses. And all of them, without fail, suggest that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in mean global temperatures. When compared against historical data we can see that, at the same time as mankind has increased Co2 levels, temperatures have risen. So the outcome is in line with the models. But not just one model, which would not be expecially significant, but with every model, suggesting that the techniques are sound.



    If they're as scientifically worthless as the last time, dont bother.
    Why would the meteorology models be less accurate than the climate models? At least the former are verifiable in almost real time. Why do the model predictions (combined or otherwise) continue to diverge from empirical measurements despite ever increasing CO2 emissions? If you were so desperate to mitigate CO2 emissions how would you go about it? Short of invading China and India I can't see you doing much about it. Models cannot possibly predict processes that they do not know about, to suggest otherwise is absurd. Physics still surprises me.
    BTW my links were left on the old thread.

    You also forget that CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere which in turn is a tiny part of the Earth system, there is one hell of a lot of iron and water to consider not counting the incoming/outgoing radiation. You require an extremely unstable system to have a sensitivity to the supposed 40ppm increase in CO2 within atmospheric gases. If the system was that sensitive I would suggest that we wouldn't have evolved beyond worms.
    Oh and many would argue that CO2 lags temperature due to the oceans degassing.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 29th April 2012 at 01:03 AM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,937
    Im sure you could. But do you have any links that have actual science in them, rather than just blog posts or editorials?

    If I wanted vague rants I'd ask my kids. Im looking for *evidence* that AGW isnt real.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Castlecroft or Wightwick if you're posh.
    Posts
    8,703
    I ain't a great debater but I'm pretty sure we are currently enjoying the wettest drought in the history of the world.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Im sure you could. But do you have any links that have actual science in them, rather than just blog posts or editorials?

    If I wanted vague rants I'd ask my kids. Im looking for *evidence* that AGW isnt real.
    I posted a mix of links that might be more accessible to others. I draw your attention to the link to Prof. Richard Lindzen's seminar in parliament. I should have posted the links to other parts and his work. I doubt that you could dispute his credentials given that he has done work for the IPCC.
    If we can agree that the temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 of itself is 1 Celcius, the IPCC industry standard. We now have to find feedbacks which are hugely positive to cause catastrophy, which imply a very unstable system. Lindzen argues that the net feedbacks are slightly negative.
    Surely radiative forcings can only be important at the top of atmosphere with convection dominating at the surface.
    Even Jones, Mann et al. cannot explain the lack of warming predicted since 1998, hence the brand name changing.
    As for the Met Office, they claim climate change expertise while admiting that the feedbacks are poorly understood.
    I'll be posting more but I would appreciate you reciprocate with something other than assertion. You will agree that good science should be open to scrutiny and that is how we develop it.
    Whatever challenges we face we also need solutions that work without shutting down the economy.
    At no point have I presented rants either by myself or others I'm just testing whether the climate alarmists' product is any good, if it is any good then you will not get many returns.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 29th April 2012 at 10:50 PM.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784

  27. #27

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by The Saturday Boy View Post
    Thanks for the reply, it just shows that the debate is alive and well provided people do not go ad hominum. Filtering this stuff takes some work, if you do not want to upset certain sensibilities. I do not like the polarisation of the debate however, especially with the political undertones. The political certainty when there a so many unknowns in a complex chaotic system disturbs. The reliance on unverifiable models is just plain stupid, modelling in my work only gets me so far in relatively well understood systems. Remember the empirical evidence in climate is fairly close to noise and could easily be attributed to natural variation such as the emergence from the little ice age. Correlation does not mean cause. The simple truth is that measurements have different coverage and instrumentation over centuries so therefore the data has to be adjusted to this, the adjustment is opinionated and certainly subjective.
    The relatively well measured (though not well distributed temperature record) northern hemisphere with a high proportion of land mass and an oceanic pole is quite different to the southern hemisphere with a land mass centred on the pole that has a less dense measurement record.
    Extracting signals from the noise requires a decent filter that might catch your intended culprit but then you might have missed the real one or others.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 1st May 2012 at 12:33 AM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by t3ch View Post
    Is climate change happening? Yes.
    Are humans contributing in any significant way? Unknown.

    Anyone who says otherwise is not interesting in having an honest conversation about the issue. Now, you could phrase the question in other ways. Are there things we can do better as a species? The answer to that is a definite yes.
    There is much more of a legitimate debate on your side of the pond and Congress does not seem so keen to sell its soul. The Canadians dumped Kyoto. In the UK we just need to dump the Climate Change Act (2008) but we are still subject to EU targets. The tories are trying to squinny out of it and would likely bin it if it wasn't for the LibDem minority control of energy policy.

    A move to China does not seem too bad after all.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 1st May 2012 at 12:30 AM.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    6,491
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    There is much more of a legitimate debate on your side of the pond
    We don't know what we're doing over here any more than anyone else does.

    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    and Congress does not seem so keen to sell its soul. The Canadians dumped Kyoto. In the UK we just need to dump the Climate Change Act (2008) but we are still subject to EU targets. The tories are trying to squinny out of it and would likely bin it if it wasn't for the LibDem minority control of energy policy.

    A move to China does not seem too bad after all.
    Now this is debatable. ; )
    <3 - guns, jesus, walmart, trucks, truck nuts, trump, brexit, rosters
    </3 - tea, kebabs, monarchies, EU, the deep state, nandos

Similar Threads

  1. Change of style?
    By Lupine Howl in forum Wolves
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 4th March 2012, 02:52 PM
  2. any chance of a username change.
    By James in forum Admin
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 3rd February 2012, 05:52 PM
  3. Transfer Window Change?
    By Penk Wolf in forum Other Sport
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 31st August 2011, 01:36 PM
  4. Replies: 115
    Last Post: 18th March 2011, 04:47 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •