Page 2 of 69 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 2070

Thread: Climate Change Debate

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Another engineer's perpective:

    http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritiq...ience.v4.3.pdf

    The winner of the X-prize no less, he clearly explains the difference between a scientist and an engineer. It is probably as close to my own position at this time, written in accessible language, is comprehensive and deserves to be read in full.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 2nd May 2012 at 10:33 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    1,872
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    Another engineer's perpective:

    http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritiq...ience.v4.3.pdf

    The winner of the X-prize no less, he clearly explains the difference between a scientist and an engineer. It is probably as close to my own position at this time, written in accessible language, is comprehensive and deserves to be read in full.
    That's just noise, a jumble of facts shouted in bright colours. There may be a good hypothesis in there, but if there is, it's very well hidden. If one of my engineers (or scientists) produced a report like that he'd be told to come back with something more structured, containing robust experimental data, that people could actually read and draw conclusions from. As for this engineers are better than scientists crap, grow up, or at least get a chip on each shoulder.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Considering that the two thrusts of HGW's arguments seem to be about trusting ones own knowledge rather than being simply told, and the importantce of empirical data over models, I am surprised he hasnt yet furnished us with his own empirical research into climate change.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Considering that the two thrusts of HGW's arguments seem to be about trusting ones own knowledge rather than being simply told, and the importantce of empirical data over models, I am surprised he hasnt yet furnished us with his own empirical research into climate change.
    I'm asking legitimate questions that I would ask in my own work. If my product doesn't work nobody buys it. It is a bit more complex than that but success depends on an open mind.
    I did request some persausive arguements that the 'consensus' is correct. None has been seen here so far.
    I use modeling in my work but I know the limitations within well understood physics/engineering. Models are useful for approximating well understood systems. Arrogant assertion that climate models are correct when they are unverifiable is just daft.
    Persuade me that Rutan's arguements don't hold water piece by piece. I have respect for you Vis but you have yet to venture anything credible that asserts climate catastrophe or solutions that are anything but laughable.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 3rd May 2012 at 01:59 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Why do you have faith in the 1% of models that cast doubt on man made climate change, but distrust the 99% that dont?

    Whats the difference between the models? Whats the difference that convinces you that the former are correct, while the latter are not? Because so far all the points youve made apply to both sides. So why swing one way?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Doog View Post
    That's just noise, a jumble of facts shouted in bright colours. There may be a good hypothesis in there, but if there is, it's very well hidden. If one of my engineers (or scientists) produced a report like that he'd be told to come back with something more structured, containing robust experimental data, that people could actually read and draw conclusions from. As for this engineers are better than scientists crap, grow up, or at least get a chip on each shoulder.
    He does not denigrate science but appreciates that exploration of ideas is indeed a good thing. Basing policy on blue sky research is however, without an engineering eye, dangerous.
    In any case the Rutan stuff is very clear to anyone that can read a graph and comprehend english.
    Which bit didn't you understand?
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 3rd May 2012 at 01:53 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Why do you have faith in the 1% of models that cast doubt on man made climate change, but distrust the 99% that dont?

    Whats the difference between the models? Whats the difference that convinces you that the former are correct, while the latter are not? Because so far all the points youve made apply to both sides. So why swing one way?
    No model has predicted the utterly pointless concept of global average temperature since 1998. Models are largely untestable and how do you fix the bugs? It rapidly becomes a curve fitting exercise to the past. Mr Rutan explains this for you. You have yet to put anything in front of us that convinces us to wreck the economy for the purposes of having no influence whatsoever on the well being of the planet.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 3rd May 2012 at 01:54 AM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    So we should continue to base our economy on a dwindling resource that will soon run out, but be subject to ever more dramatic increases in price until it does?

    Yeah - that will be great for the economy.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guildford
    Posts
    5,281
    I saw a programme a while back where Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize-winning geneticist, discussed climate change with those in both camps and looked at the evidence. I imagine he has a passing familiarity with the scientific method and had the humility to note that he was a geneticist not a climatologist so he couldn't claim to fully understand the science behind it all.

    His question to one particular well-known blogger was this:

    Imagine you have a particularly nasty cancer. The vast majority of cancer specialists around the world agreed on both the diagnosis and the most appropriate treatment, but there were a few dissenting voices, some of them cancer specialists, some people who come from other spheres but had a different idea on what should be done. Some people even suggested you should do nothing about it.

    What would you do? Have the treatment as recommended by the specialists, or follow one of the alternative paths?

    And let's be clear - man made climate change *is*accepted by the vast majority of climatologists. Are there doubts and questions? Of course. Are they sufficient to warrant us ignoring the diagnosed problem? I'd say not.

  11. #41
    James's Avatar
    James is offline The Poster Equivalent of Bolton Wanderers
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    200 yards from the Sea
    Posts
    15,863
    The thing that bugs me about climate change is the fact of you have the yanks and there gas guzzling 4x4's and the chinese and there many polluting factories but if i turn off my t.v at the wall the ice caps will stop melting. We live in stupid stupid times.

    One thing i'll never have is an electric car. Maybe a hybrid when im 50 and norwich is under water as predicted by the science scare mongers. I'm not gonna be high and mighty with having a car thats good for the earth. No I want a Jag. A green one to be more precise

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Quote Originally Posted by So Long Architect View Post
    I saw a programme a while back where Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel prize-winning geneticist, discussed climate change with those in both camps and looked at the evidence. I imagine he has a passing familiarity with the scientific method and had the humility to note that he was a geneticist not a climatologist so he couldn't claim to fully understand the science behind it all.

    His question to one particular well-known blogger was this:

    Imagine you have a particularly nasty cancer. The vast majority of cancer specialists around the world agreed on both the diagnosis and the most appropriate treatment, but there were a few dissenting voices, some of them cancer specialists, some people who come from other spheres but had a different idea on what should be done. Some people even suggested you should do nothing about it.

    What would you do? Have the treatment as recommended by the specialists, or follow one of the alternative paths?

    And let's be clear - man made climate change *is*accepted by the vast majority of climatologists. Are there doubts and questions? Of course. Are they sufficient to warrant us ignoring the diagnosed problem? I'd say not.
    It was James Dellingpole:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Xu3SQcIE0

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guard Dog View Post
    The thing that bugs me about climate change is the fact of you have the yanks and there gas guzzling 4x4's and the chinese and there many polluting factories but if i turn off my t.v at the wall the ice caps will stop melting. We live in stupid stupid times.

    One thing i'll never have is an electric car. Maybe a hybrid when im 50 and norwich is under water as predicted by the science scare mongers. I'm not gonna be high and mighty with having a car thats good for the earth. No I want a Jag. A green one to be more precise
    You're right, in that we need India, China and the US to do more, as they're the biggest polluters. But how can we expect them to do something if we're doing nothing, even if any effort on our part would be laregly symbolic?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Guildford
    Posts
    5,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Cheers. Could have prevented a bit of RSI there.

  15. #45
    James's Avatar
    James is offline The Poster Equivalent of Bolton Wanderers
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    200 yards from the Sea
    Posts
    15,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    You're right, in that we need India, China and the US to do more, as they're the biggest polluters. But how can we expect them to do something if we're doing nothing, even if any effort on our part would be laregly symbolic?
    Agreed but they wont change and we know they won't.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guard Dog View Post
    Agreed but they wont change and we know they won't.
    Perhaps, but dont we owe it to future generations to try?

  17. #47
    James's Avatar
    James is offline The Poster Equivalent of Bolton Wanderers
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    200 yards from the Sea
    Posts
    15,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Perhaps, but dont we owe it to future generations to try?
    Future generations are owed this but did the previous generations care about this generation... Not really...

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,013
    china has shit loads more renewable energy than we do. I think our production is around 10% of total capacity. China is way above this due to some of their massive hydro projects. they may have some heavy polutting industry but any idea they, or the US, hasn't embraced renewable energy to some degree sounds a tired myth to me.
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

  19. #49
    James's Avatar
    James is offline The Poster Equivalent of Bolton Wanderers
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    200 yards from the Sea
    Posts
    15,863
    Quote Originally Posted by nimrod View Post
    china has shit loads more renewable energy than we do. I think our production is around 10% of total capacity. China is way above this due to some of their massive hydro projects. they may have some heavy polutting industry but any idea they, or the US, hasn't embraced renewable energy to some degree sounds a tired myth to me.
    A tired myth would be the loch ness monster... Still I think they need to get there act together. America do use solar power and hydro generators with dams etc etc but still are big polluters.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    spiderland
    Posts
    4,013
    Quote Originally Posted by The Guard Dog View Post
    A tired myth would be the loch ness monster... Still I think they need to get there act together. America do use solar power and hydro generators with dams etc etc but still are big polluters.
    and they don't seem to be doing enough to reduce their energy demand, which could be a better direction for discussion. According to that lovely wiki site, their renewable energy production was 14.3% of electricity production for first half 2011, so again, way ahead of us.
    it is not that I have no past. rather, it continually fragments on the terrible and vivid ephemera of now.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    So we should continue to base our economy on a dwindling resource that will soon run out, but be subject to ever more dramatic increases in price until it does?

    Yeah - that will be great for the economy.
    We are sat on vast sources of conventional fuels that simply need to be extracted by known and developing technologies. Shale gas can and should be a significant part of the mix in this country for market and independence reasons. These resourses should be developed while other technologies such as nuclear are updated and new technologies that really work are found. Good ideas are generally self funding in the long term.
    Wind power remains pointless and destructive.
    There are many compeling reasons to be energy efficient often because thermal management is an issue, portable devices require maximum useful life and active cooling inducing unwanted side effects.
    I'll answer the other posts on here once I have validated a couple of points.
    One thing I will say is that Dellingpole a least provides a decent challenge to the main stream media view, rather eloquenty in my view.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 4th May 2012 at 09:19 PM.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    You're right, in that we need India, China and the US to do more, as they're the biggest polluters. But how can we expect them to do something if we're doing nothing, even if any effort on our part would be laregly symbolic?
    1) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life and is beneficial in higher concentrations to plant life. Concentrations are less than 400ppm, orders of magnitude less than water vapour.
    2) Dangerous pollution, in the west, has largely been eradicated.

    I call that a good example, not to mention our rather better human rights record than China.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 4th May 2012 at 09:52 PM.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    29,493
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    1) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant..

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Perhaps, but dont we owe it to future generations to try?
    I spend some part of my life explaining to my kids and their 'teachers' that doctrines are not necessarily so.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by NandoWolf View Post
    Have you heard of photosynthesis? Whatever happened to science education?

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    29,493
    Yes, funnily enough I have. Nice of you to insinuate that I'm uneducated because I don't agree with your views. Appreciated.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    1) Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is essential for all life and is beneficial in higher concentrations to plant life.
    Except we're not talking about pollution. We're talking about its affect as a greenhouse gas. Take Venus, for example. Its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, and, despite only receiving 25% of the solar energy that Mercury receives (which has no atmsphere), actually has a hotter surface temperature, due to the greenhouse effect of CO2.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Visage View Post
    Except we're not talking about pollution. We're talking about its affect as a greenhouse gas. Take Venus, for example. Its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2, and, despite only receiving 25% of the solar energy that Mercury receives (which has no atmsphere), actually has a hotter surface temperature, due to the greenhouse effect of CO2.
    Vis, I think you need to check out the atmospheric composition of Venus (90+% carbon dioxide) vs Earth. It is incredibly dense to boot, leading to high surface temperatures. If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius. You guys always ignore galactical, sun, ocean and earth core processes, for what reason I don't know, when they have to dominate. Mercury has no atmosphere and therefore does not have a mechanism for redistributing heat. Like the Moon it will be very hot on one side and fucking freezing on the other. School boy physics.
    I'm here to be challenged but please weigh in some verifiable physics.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 4th May 2012 at 11:48 PM.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by NandoWolf View Post
    Yes, funnily enough I have. Nice of you to insinuate that I'm uneducated because I don't agree with your views. Appreciated.
    With all due respect please answer my posts with something rational rather than a smilie that suggests that you are wedded to a belief that 'you think' cannot be rationally challenged. I welcome challenge, that is the big deal in this subject matter.
    Last edited by HAzelGroveWolf; 5th May 2012 at 12:33 AM.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,939
    Quote Originally Posted by HAzelGroveWolf View Post
    Vis, I think you need to check out the atmospheric composition of Venus (90+% carbon dioxide) vs Earth. It is incredibly dense to boot, leading to high surface temperatures. If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius. You guys always ignore galactical, sun, ocean and earth core processes for what reason I don't know when they have to dominate. Mercury has no atmosphere and therefore does not have a mechanism for redistributing heat. Like the Moon it will be very hot on one side and fucking freezing on the other. School boy physics.
    I'm here to be challenged but please weigh in some verifiable physics.
    Where is your verifiable physics when you say 'If you were to measure temperature at 1 bar in the Venusian atmosphere I doubt you would get much change from the Earth surface temperature compensating for solar orbital radius.'

    Your argument hinges on that, yet its nothing more than an unfounded assertion. Where has your oft mentioned devotion to empirical results gone?

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
  •