| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 144374 | 2017-09-26 01:30:00 | It's Getting Serious! | B.M. (505) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1439776 | 2017-09-30 23:03:00 | 2) Not all scientists agree, however the vast majority do. That's not a lie, that's a fact. :lol: October 9, 1997: email 0876437553 We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Just months before the UNFCCC’s Third Conference of Parties (COP III), the critical Kyoto meeting of December 1997 which resulted in the Kyoto Protocol, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart: Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause. I would like to weigh in on two important questions— Distribution for Endorsements— I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story. This statement alone shows how ridiculous the “endorsement” process was from the very beginning. Signing a petition in support of an opinion—regardless of whether the signatory has a PhD or not—is as scientifically meaningless as if these same people had voted Albert Einstein’s hairstyle as the most interesting in the history of science. It is simply nonsense. |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1439777 | 2017-09-30 23:26:00 | I'll keep things blunt, short, and simple. 1). 'Deniers' is a pretty good term for describing people who don't believe that humanity is contributing much to climate change, or, indeed, that the climate is really changing. 2) Not all scientists agree, however the vast majority do. That's not a lie, that's a fact. People who believe in climate changing don't need to cherry pick data - the data supports our position, as does the general scientific consensus. It truly amazes me that people who trust in science and scientists every day suddenly stop trusting them when they say something inconvenient. Personally, I absolutely loathe people who say 'both sides are as bad as each other', or a variant of such. It's a logical fallacy - www.logicallyfallacious.com There is no middle ground here - either we are contributing to climate change, or we aren't. It's quite hard to not call certain types of people names - primarily, people who believe that 'common sense' trumps knowledge and study. If you don't understand data and basic statistical techniques, you have no right to get involved in a discussion about climate change: you're simply not educated enough to be able to actually contribute. Quite right, if we have the peasants going around forming and expressing opinions,where will it end? It could lead to the extinction of government as we know it. They should rapidly appoint committees tasked with founding a society devoted to eliminating non-approved ideas. Possibly it could be formed with the aid of cycleway planners who have assured us that, like OSH, they are infallible. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1439778 | 2017-10-01 00:37:00 | I'll keep things blunt, short, and simple. 1). 'Deniers' is a pretty good term for describing people who don't believe that humanity is contributing much to climate change, or, indeed, that the climate is really changing. 2) Not all scientists agree, however the vast majority do. That's not a lie, that's a fact. People who believe in climate changing don't need to cherry pick data - the data supports our position, as does the general scientific consensus. It truly amazes me that people who trust in science and scientists every day suddenly stop trusting them when they say something inconvenient. Personally, I absolutely loathe people who say 'both sides are as bad as each other', or a variant of such. It's a logical fallacy - www.logicallyfallacious.com There is no middle ground here - either we are contributing to climate change, or we aren't. It's quite hard to not call certain types of people names - primarily, people who believe that 'common sense' trumps knowledge and study. If you don't understand data and basic statistical techniques, you have no right to get involved in a discussion about climate change: you're simply not educated enough to be able to actually contribute. 8315 Old Major's Speech? |
WalOne (4202) | ||
| 1439779 | 2017-10-01 03:35:00 | :lol: I’ll read Meow Morgan’s book when read THIS (www.lavoisier.com.au). Ah, the great ClimateGate schemozzle, that flared up and sputtered out like a teaspoon of petrol thrown on a bonfire. Thanks, I'll look at it, but I think we can agree that we have different perspectives on the affair. |
Jayess64 (8703) | ||
| 1439780 | 2017-10-01 04:24:00 | ?? I always thought denier was to do with womens stockings. I have been educated today. :devil Ken |
kenj (9738) | ||
| 1439781 | 2017-10-01 22:14:00 | How about those of us that do believe it but not a s a 100% caused by us scenario? Sure we don't improve the environment, pollution, dirty water, etc but the planet does have warming and cooling periods anyway. Remember there have been (that we know of) 5 extinctions before. No doubt we will experience the 6th, exactly when and exactly how is the matter for debate. If we all change to electric cars and all that it won't help. Perhaps if we dropped our population considerably, that would, in that the pollution would reduce, long term our lifespan as a species on the planet though? Hmmm, way too many other factors for that. 100% agree that climate change is not totally caused by us. |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1439782 | 2017-10-01 22:18:00 | Quite right, if we have the peasants going around forming and expressing opinions,where will it end? It could lead to the extinction of government as we know it. They should rapidly appoint committees tasked with founding a society devoted to eliminating non-approved ideas. Possibly it could be formed with the aid of cycleway planners who have assured us that, like OSH, they are infallible. It's not a matter of elites vs peasants, or however else you'd like to frame it. It's simply a matter of having a very basic level of education - you can't meaningfully contribute to a debate on a matter you have no knowledge on. Discussing climate change involves knowing data and statistics, just as discussing the viability of spaceflight would require knowledge on that subject. |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1439783 | 2017-10-01 22:18:00 | 8315 Old Major's Speech? You'll have to jog my memory sorry! Been a while since I read Animal Farm :) |
Nick G (16709) | ||
| 1439784 | 2017-10-02 04:59:00 | It's quite hard to not call certain types of people names - primarily, people who believe that 'common sense' trumps knowledge and study. If you don't understand data and basic statistical techniques, you have no right to get involved in a discussion about climate change: you're simply not educated enough to be able to actually contribute. Talk about Pompous and full of yourself. :rolleyes: Common Sense is the Foundation of Genuine Science, something completely absent with the Pseudo Science you specialise in. :groan: |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1439785 | 2017-10-02 09:02:00 | It's not a matter of elites vs peasants, or however else you'd like to frame it. It's simply a matter of having a very basic level of education - you can't meaningfully contribute to a debate on a matter you have no knowledge on. Discussing climate change involves knowing data and statistics, just as discussing the viability of spaceflight would require knowledge on that subject. If a landing area for old rockets (aka Crash Pad) after their test flight was gazetted for establishment surrounding your place, you would probably regard a certificate in rocket science not an essential prerequisite to your packing a sad and throwing a sub-orbital wobbly. You would likely consider living in the impact area grounds for concern and having an opinion, in this it is exactly like climate change. Thalidomide was pronounced safe by experts, a small number of babies offered an alternate view. Experts in data and statistics produced the data and statistics to support the changes to the building code that allowed us the joys of leaky buildings plus the bonus of untreated timber to keep the ball rolling. We are currently a little short of test areas to try global tests to destruction, and Plan B: "Try It And See" is barely OK for Lotto gamblers. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||