Wildcat Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Well you did say they were stable or in decline. false information? I think it was pretty clear I was talking about the overall impact, not each and every volcano. Volcanic activity was lower mid last century, which is one reason for the temperature then to be higher than expected. Think 'nuclear winter' and the cooling effect of particulate matter in the atmosphere screening the earth from solar warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esme Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Mod Note Posts containing personal insults have been removed, if you can't argue without insulting other users then the thread will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think it was pretty clear I was talking about the overall impact, not each and every volcano. Volcanic activity was lower mid last century, which is one reason for the temperature then to be higher than expected. Think 'nuclear winter' and the cooling effect of particulate matter in the atmosphere screening the earth from solar warming So now you are picking and choosing, now lets see when did the global warming palava start, 1980's, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicFacts/volcanic_impact.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYBABTU Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I don't think it was ever a scientific consensus that the earth was the centre of the universe, it was rather a religious position which was harshly punished if you argued against it. It's a bit more complicated than you make out anyway, it isn't peer review that validates a theory, it's the ability to make accurate predictions, peer review is just a formal way of setting out a theory and having it published. There is no clear consensus that climate change is anthropogenic, and the science that indicates warming appears to be somewhat suspect. The earth being the centre of the universe was only an example , I could have used hundreds of similar situations where the scientific consensus was well established and then a new discovery or data indicated an alternative model , papers are published , peer reviewed etc and gradually scientists change their minds - that is part and parcel of being a scientist - you have to remain open minded. Now measuring the temperature of the earth is pretty complex and I think even the most experienced scientist will admit that flaws can creep into the data but , even accounting for these , the data is generally pointing towards a temperature increase. (You say the science showing that warming is happening is suspect but is that a fact you can back up or merely what you believe ? You need to separate the two to remain objective) As such , the majority of the scientific community believes in what the data is saying and that temperatures have increased. To deny that is OK. To deny without evidence however is to have faith in your beliefs and is not a scientific basis. Faith has no presence in science. Saying " I think this " etc in this area has no credence unless you can back it up with firm scientific data or reporting. Gut feeling is not scientific. So the deniers can have their forum but , they should not present their beliefs as scientific evidence. Sadly , most of the mainstream press is not concerned with factual scientific reporting but is more concerned with selling papers. And sceptical denial of scientific fact is usually a good seller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Sadly , most of the press is not concerned with factual scientific reporting but is more concerned with selling papers. And sceptical denial of scientific fact is usually a good seller. It's fashionable anti-scientific heterodoxy, much in currency with the scientific illiterates in the media. The media's not all bad. Secret History of the Brain, More or Less, Infinite Monkey Cage, Bad Science, Material World, all excellent science and maths programmes , and that's just a few from the BBC and Grauniad, so we mustn't tar them all with the same brush. That would be unscientific, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYBABTU Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 It's fashionable anti-scientific heterodoxy, much in currency with the scientific illiterates in the media. The media's not all bad. Secret History of the Brain, More or Less, Infinite Monkey Cage, Bad Science, Material World, all excellent science and maths programmes , and that's just a few from the BBC and Grauniad, so we mustn't tar them all with the same brush. That would be unscientific, after all. you are right , I should have said mainstream press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The earth being the centre of the universe was only an example , I could have used hundreds of similar situations where the scientific consensus was well established and then a new discovery or data indicated an alternative model , papers are published , peer reviewed etc and gradually scientists change their minds - that is part and parcel of being a scientist - you have to remain open minded. Now measuring the temperature of the earth is pretty complex and I think even the most experienced scientist will admit that flaws can creep into the data but , even accounting for these , the data is generally pointing towards a temperature increase. (You say the science showing that warming is happening is suspect but is that a fact you can back up or merely what you believe ? You need to separate the two to remain objective) My problem is that several times the data showing the temperature increase has been shown to be tampered with or altered. It can't be trusted. And the raw data is still being hidden, or 'lost'. As such , the majority of the scientific community believes in what the data is saying and that temperatures have increased. To deny that is OK. To deny without evidence however is to have faith in your beliefs and is not a scientific basis. Faith has no presence in science. Saying " I think this " etc in this area has no credence unless you can back it up with firm scientific data or reporting. Gut feeling is not scientific. So the deniers can have their forum but , they should not present their beliefs as scientific evidence. Sadly , most of the mainstream press is not concerned with factual scientific reporting but is more concerned with selling papers. And sceptical denial of scientific fact is usually a good seller. Maybe. New Scientist is strongly pro AGW, and even in it's pages I read articles and summaries of papers that cast doubt on the existing climate models. They just aren't very accurate, they need 'fudge' factors adding for certain decades in order to appear anything like and it appears that there are still many aspects of the climate that we really haven't got a clue about. To keep investigating and improving the models is a good thing, but to try to scare everyone into spending trillions of pounds to 'fix' something we can't even be sure is broken, that's not science, that's chasing funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYBABTU Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 My problem is that several times the data showing the temperature increase has been shown to be tampered with or altered. It can't be trusted. And the raw data is still being hidden, or 'lost'. Can you back the above statement up with firm proof or is this just what you "feel" to be true after all the negative press the UEA got in recent months? We are back to faith and beliefs again if you cannot find me evidence that the scientific consensus is that the measurements/data are being purposely corrupted or used selectively. Maybe. New Scientist is strongly pro AGW, and even in it's pages I read articles and summaries of papers that cast doubt on the existing climate models. They just aren't very accurate, they need 'fudge' factors adding for certain decades in order to appear anything like and it appears that there are still many aspects of the climate that we really haven't got a clue about. To keep investigating and improving the models is a good thing, but to try to scare everyone into spending trillions of pounds to 'fix' something we can't even be sure is broken, that's not science, that's chasing funding. But the oil companies have been (and still are) lobbying on the other side of the argument so I think this is null. What is a good idea surely though is to look at other ways to generate energy without living off oil which may (likely) or may not (unlikely) run out at some point in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 My problem is that several times the data showing the temperature increase has been shown to be tampered with or altered. It can't be trusted. And the raw data is still being hidden, or 'lost'. You can find the raw data from links on this page. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ I have showed you the page before, so I am confused about why you still think what you can clearly download yourself is unavailable and hidden Maybe. New Scientist is strongly pro AGW, and even in it's pages I read articles and summaries of papers that cast doubt on the existing climate models. They just aren't very accurate, they need 'fudge' factors adding for certain decades in order to appear anything like and it appears that there are still many aspects of the climate that we really haven't got a clue about. To keep investigating and improving the models is a good thing, but to try to scare everyone into spending trillions of pounds to 'fix' something we can't even be sure is broken, that's not science, that's chasing funding. Can you cite me one of these papers you are talking about, that New Scientist discusses? They are very few and far between and in each case I have come across easily discounted for good reason with just a little research yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 You can find the raw data from links on this page. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ I have showed you the page before, so I am confused about why you still think what you can clearly download yourself is unavailable and hidden Can you cite me one of these papers you are talking about, that New Scientist discusses? They are very few and far between and in each case I have come across easily discounted for good reason with just a little research yourself. In his article titled "Real Climate's Misinformation", Pielke also chastised readers of Real Climate for blindly accepting the incorrect climate claims promoted on the site. "Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position," Pielke Sr. wrote. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3661 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.