Climate Change Debate

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_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?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_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.

 

[visage]

I look forward to reading them. Any evidence that the concensus is wrong is clearly valuable.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_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?

 

[visage]

Lets just talk once you've produced your evidence, rather than going around in circles.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Quick starter for ten:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/A3-layout-precip-AMJ.pdf

The wonders of modeling, eh!

I'll be back.

 

[visage]

You do realise that climate and weather are two different things, yes?

Because that fact means your example is irrelevant.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

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.

 

[visage]

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.