energy saving light bulbs

[ajrobb]

Opposing consensus usually means being wrong. Occasionally someone gets its right and consensus shifts. As a lay person, you are less likely to be tricked by consensus than not. Building regulations are the result of consensus. Do you believe that all building regulations are wrong?

Edit: Einstein showed that Newton's model for gravity was 'wrong'. However, Newton's model is still used is most situations. The scientific method doesn't believe in proof, just evidence.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Your 'proof' uses words like 'very likely', 'strong evidence' and 'probability'

Hardly proof!!!

So the IPCC say that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations, and that the probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%".

But you don't believe that.

Are you a climatology expert then?

I hope for your sake that you're never sat in a doctor's surgery being told that there's a 95% chance that you have a problem which will kill you if it's not dealt with, because you'll decide to believe the homeopathists and faith healers.

I refuse to be brainwashed into what the environmental lobby believe

The thousands upon thousands of scientists who tell you otherwise are not "brainwashing" you. The hundreds upon hundreds of scientific bodies telling you otherwise are not an "environmental lobby"

There is no open discussion, any scientist who dares to suggest that the environmental lobby is wrong will find their funding cut or withdrawn and find themself ostracised

Don't be ridiculous.

Its a free country and i can believe what i like

Indeed you can.

You can believe that the Royal Family are in reality a race of green alien lizards, and go around telling people that they are.

But don't be surprised if people say you're a loony.

and what i believe is that the environmental case is FALSE.

You may "believe" what you wish.

You can deny that all of the evidence which has convinced so many experts otherwise is there.

You can decide, that even though you are a non-expert, that you are right to say that so many experts and so many scientific bodies have got it wrong.

You can decide, when faced with a choice of propositions to side with the minority whose relative climate expertise and scientific prominence are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

You can decide, when choosing a side in a debate to go with the side where those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes are largely non-existent.

Deal with it

I have.

It is clear from the position you have taken that you have absolutely no interest in anything rational.

Anyway this is off topic, please can we stick to the topic please, anyone else with ideas of how to get round the rubbish energy savig bulbs

Yes - it's off topic.

So would be the expression of racist views, or support of terrorism, but that would not mean that such views should be left unchallenged.

Maybe if it's off topic we should have the mods remove all discussion of it, starting with your introduction of the topic? Would you like that? Would you like your voice as a climate change skeptic to be forcibly silenced by those in power?

I'll make an open offer.

If everybody here who has posted anything about climate change, and " the environment blah blah" goes back and edits all such material out of their posts I'll do the same to mine.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Don't believe much of it is man made either.

Are you an expert?

Do you know more than all the people who say that it is man made?

Do you have a rational reason for deciding that so many individual experts and so many international bodies are wrong?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Consensus does not identify a scientific truth. Quite the opposite.

* Consensus was that the earth was at the centre of the universe until Galileo showed that it was not.

So is the consensus that the earth is not at the centre of the universe wrong?

* Consensus was that God created man until Darwin proposed evolution.

That is still a "consensus" rather than a universally accepted notion. Does that mean that it's wrong because it's a consensus?

So you see, all the major scientific advances were made in opposition to the prevailing consensus. Consensus is bad science. Anyone who has to claim consensus to support his view is probably a charlatan.

Feel free to prove that the consensus is wrong.

The earlier ones you mentioned were all beliefs and theories which were not sustained by any evidence at all.

With climate change there is sufficient evidence to have convinced a huge majority of people who know more than you that you are wrong.

 

[sherlockholmes]

I can’t resist responding to one of BAS’s outrageous and idiotic statements.

The evidence and consensus is so overwhelming that for you to not accept it does make you an utter loony.

Consensus does not identify a scientific truth. Quite the opposite.

* Consensus was that the earth was at the centre of the universe until Galileo showed that it was not.
* Consensus was that God created man until Darwin proposed evolution.
* Consensus was that the heavier an object, the faster it fell until Galileo’s experiment from the tower at Pisa.
* Consensus (among the clergy) was that pain in childbirth was the will of God and therefore anaesthesia sinful, until Queen Victoria proclaimed otherwise.
* Consensus was that the universe always existed until Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background which proved the Big Bang theory correct.
* Consensus is that the universe is comprised of physical matter. The proposal that physical matter comprises only 4% of the universe has still to be resolved. My view is that the current consensus view will be shown to be false within my lifetime.
* And lastly, the consensus view is that God exists and those who think he does not are utter loonies.

So you see, all the major scientific advances were made in opposition to the prevailing consensus. Consensus is bad science. Anyone who has to claim consensus to support his view is probably a charlatan.

You have listed things that were proposed without evidence and overcome by scientists using the scientific method. You seek to suggest what would basically be a role reversal now, where the contrarians without evidence are correct and those who rely on the scientific method are the opposition.

Incidentally, background radiation doesn't 'prove' the big bang, as that's not the way scientific theories work. It is another compelling piece of evidence in support of the theory, fitting within its framework. Someone tomorrow could come up with evidence that refutes the BB theory, or an alternative theory that provides a better explanation for observation. It is highly unlikely the BB will be overturned, but that's what a scientific theory is. It's not ever actually 'proved'.



Also, the earth is fixed in place:
http://www.fixedearth.com/

 

[delboybully]

This discussion could go on for ages and i doubt anyone would change their minds. Its been interesting but as far as i am concerned, i am going to have to agree to disagree with those of you who believe in man made climate change

 

[ajrobb]

If everybody here who has posted anything about climate change, and " the environment blah blah" goes back and edits all such material out of their posts I'll do the same to mine.

Why not do the decent thing and start the ball rolling?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

This discussion could go on for ages and i doubt anyone would change their minds. Its been interesting but as far as i am concerned, i am going to have to agree to disagree with those of you who believe in man made climate change

Could you show that that is a rational disagreement?

Or are you happy with the adoption of an irrational disagreement with an overwhelming number of scientists who know more than you?

 

[holmslaw]

..

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, you have proved delboy's point that anyone disbelieving manmade global warming will be unfairly bullied and vilified by the pro lobby. Your language has been extremely aggressive and nasty, obviously for the sole intention of crushing any opposition. Are you related to Ghadaffi?

"Pro lobby"?

I'm not in favour of global warming.

I just think that given the huge number of experts, both individual and and institutional, who are saying that the evidence for human-induced climate change is incredibly strong, a non-expert who decides that they are all wrong is being irrational to the point of lunacy.

What possible rational reason can there be for saying that so many people who know more than you are wrong?

There are number of paradoxes the pro lobby like to ignore because they do not fit with their closed minds.

For the past 13/14 years the earth has got cooler.
About 1000 years ago, what caused the 300 year medieval warm period?
About 7000 years ago, why was the fertile crescent abandoned for a 1000 years?

As you're such an expert perhaps you could explain.

1) I'm not an expert, and have never claimed to be. But I do have enough smarts to realise that when thousands and thousands of people who are experts all tell me something then, as a non-expert myself, I have absolutely no grounds for telling them that they are wrong.

2) The climate has changed hugely in the past, and it will do so again. The fossil record shows that. And long before the Middle Ages palm trees grew in Greenland (although it was probably not in the same place).

But life evolved, and came and went - sea levels rose and fell, forests grew and died and became coal, hundreds, thousands of species of animals flourished and became extinct and became oil etc, but the Earth continued.

As it will as the climate changes again, but we won't. Our civilisation won't. Our current land masses won't. Our current weather patterns won't. Homo Sapiens won't.

You talk about the Little Ice Age - the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was only about 1°C lower than today. When the Vikings were farming in Greenland and Iceland it was about 1° warmer.

2-3° lower is real Ice Age territory, 1-2° warmer is reckoned to be "climatic optimum" (but probably not for a population of 8-10 billion people).

The do-nothing prediction for temperature rise due to global warming is 3-4° by the end of the century, or, who knows - quite possibly within the lifetime of our children.

3-4° average is huge. 3-4° will be catastrophic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/28/met-office-study-global-warming


3-4° hasn't been seen for 40 million years.

 

[Stoday]

What possible rational reason can there be for saying that so many people who know more than you are wrong?

Much the same reasoning that supports the use of a jury rather than a panel of experts to decide guilt.

The "overwhelming majority" was a result of "trade union" style of voting.
The shop steward asks for a vote "How should our shop vote lads?". 51 for, 49 against, so the shop steward says "my members voted for" The works committee then see how many shop stewards are for. 20? with 100 members apiece? So that's 2000 in favour.

IPCC asks for universities' opinion; they ask their research groups. The same form of voting takes place.

This seriously upset a number of scientists who had been counted towards the "yes" vote. They got together to produce a paper dissenting from the consensus view. It's a serious paper, not written by a bunch of loonies as BAS would have it. You can download and read the 321 pages written by over 1000 scientists here: Click to download

This group of 1000 climate change scientists were not chosen by a trade union style vote, they are all real dissenters. You don't have to be an expert to read both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion.

Of course, reading about the opposing argument is confusing. Better to stick to one side and cry down dissenters, eh? BAS.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Tom Tripp is a metallurgist, not a climate scientist, and his authoring work for the IPCC has been confined to parts of reports on industrial processes and use of greenhouse gases. He has not contributed to any of the main climate change working groups in the IPCC because he doesn't actually know anything about it.

Leonard Weinstein is a retired NASA engineer. He knows about designing spacecraft. He is not a climate scientist.

Robert B Laughlin is a physicist - he shared a Nobel Prize for Physics because of his work explaining the fractional quantum Hall effect. He is not a climate scientist.

Christopher J. Kobus is a mechanical engineer. The peer-reviewed papers he has published are on engineering topics, not climate science. That's because he is not a climate scientist.


I really cannot be rsed to go on at this time of night. I'll leave you with this quote, repeated from earlier:

"Expert credibility in climate change", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 2010: "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."


You should google "marc morano credibility", and see what you find on the responsible news & reporting websites that talk about him.

 

[Stoday]

So we should exclude Al Gore too, since he's not even a scientist, never mind a climate change scientist?

The issue should have contributions from a number of academic disciplines if the answers are to be believable. That includes historians since climate change modelling should be able to replicate the past in order to be credible in forecasting the future. The "Hockey Stick" example is flawed because it contradicts the Medieval Warm Period. You don't have to be an expert in climate change to spot that! But you do have to be so immersed in C change to not even know of it. That's the reason why the paper I've linked to includes scientists whose main activity isn't C change. Nevertheless that doesn't mean they should not be described as CC scientists. The IPCC count included CC scientists whose main subject wasn't CC too.

As for marc moron, I don't believe most of what I read in newspapers and I don't believe what politicians say.

 

[Stoday]

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

That's a bit different from "for you to not accept it does make you an utter loony. Or stupid beyond belief"

The National Academy of Sciences has experts who can assess if a group is "utter loony. Or stupid beyond belief" or just of "lower prominance" whereas BAS is no more qualified in that field than Stoday. Has BAS now changed his assessment of the Unconvinced?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If you have a genuine claim to expertise, and can put forward credible alternative theories then that's one thing.

But when you know SFA about this subject and "decide" that the vast majority of those who do have expertise are wrong then that is irrational.

You are looking at the positions of two groups of people, A & B. A is much larger than B. A knows more about the subject than B.

You know nothing about the subject, but you "decide" that A is wrong and "B" is right.

There is no rationality in that "decision" whatsoever. It is irrational to the point of making you a loony.

As for marc moron

I like the irony.

I don't believe most of what I read in newspapers and I don't believe what politicians say.

Wht you mean is you don't believe what you read, or what politicians say, if it contradicts the views you already hold.

It's going to be a reasonably nice day today - maybe you could go out and get yourself a new tinfoil hat.

Because you are right - I finally admit it.

Most of the newspapers are lying to you all of the time.

Nothing any politician ever says has a grain of truth in it.

The theories about climate change are utterly bogus, and thousands and thousands of scientists have successfully created an enormous conspiracy, the like of which is unprecedented, to lie to you, to suborn governments, the media and national and international scientific bodies. The reason that they have been so successful in creating a conspiracy of such magnitude and complexity is that they have secret mind control rays.

Get yourself a tinfoil hat - you'll be safe then.