Climate Change

[wackypete2]

That is the point at which I will believe climate change has been a hoax, when the majority of scientists say so.

40 years ago it was all Ice-Age theory. That has been a hoax too. Do the climate change scientists really know what they are doing or it it just fear-mongering to suit the latest agenda??

 

[Signalcalc]

40 years ago it was all Ice-Age theory. That has been a hoax too. Do the climate change scientists really know what they are doing or it it just fear-mongering to suit the latest agenda??

The debate is over, there is nothing more to be said, the science is settled, move along now.

 

[Rufus_Leakey]

It is settled, in so far as the majority of scientists can say. Like all scientific theories, it is open to challenge and being disproven. But meantime I accept what the majority of scientists say.

Maybe it's not quite settled.

 

[tomorton]

Well in a sense, no scientific theory is ever finally settled because the nature of scientific enquiry as a discipline is that it demands new evidence from new studies and experiments and modelling and testing. It has to continually challenge itself in a sort of survival of the fittest game if that's not an inappropriate phrase. It follows therefore that whatever scientists said 40 years ago will almost certainly have been improved on and perhaps contradicted by what scientists can say about the same problems today.

This pattern of theory, refinement, testing, failure, disproof and new theory does not demonstrate that science does not work. Quite the opposite.

 

[wackypete2]

Well in a sense, no scientific theory is ever finally settled because the nature of scientific enquiry as a discipline is that it demands new evidence from new studies and experiments and modelling and testing. It has to continually challenge itself in a sort of survival of the fittest game if that's not an inappropriate phrase. It follows therefore that whatever scientists said 40 years ago will almost certainly have been improved on and perhaps contradicted by what scientists can say about the same problems today.

This pattern of theory, refinement, testing, failure, disproof and new theory does not demonstrate that science does not work. Quite the opposite.

With that theory then perhaps 40 years from now science will determine that there are NO climate issues at all and it was just a big hoax....
If science can't determine this with any sense of confidence then why are we treating it as near gospel or a done deal?

Peter

 

[tomorton]

With that theory then perhaps 40 years from now science will determine that there are NO climate issues at all and it was just a big hoax....
If science can't determine this with any sense of confidence then why are we treating it as near gospel or a done deal?

Peter

Yes its possible that science will disprove that climate change is occurring, that the recent change / acceleration in change has been human-driven, that the major human factor has been fossil fuel combustion. Its possible at that time that the majority of scientists will agree with a new theory. At that point, the rational reaction of non-scientists would be to agree with the majority and base actions and decision on the best available evidence.

But this is the nature of science, not a failing of science. What rational basis can there be for accepting some scientific consensus but rejecting others?

 

[Pat494]

I heard on Radio 4 yesterday that the last 5 years have been the hottest on record !
Trump had to deny climate change to capture the votes of the fossil fuel industry in the US elections.
Without them he would not and should not have been elected.

 

[Signalcalc]

So we are in agreement, the science is not settled and there is a debate to be had.

So when are we having the debate?

 

[barjon]

So we are in agreement, the science is not settled and there is a debate to be had.

So when are we having the debate?

We’re not. The bandwagon’s on a roll and will be more difficult to stop than climate change itself. Bit like airport security really

 

[tomorton]

So we are in agreement, the science is not settled and there is a debate to be had.

So when are we having the debate?

What makes you think that scientists are not having this debate?

 

[Signalcalc]

We’re not. The bandwagon’s on a roll and will be more difficult to stop than climate change itself. Bit like airport security really

Straw man. So I agree, climate change activists do not want an argument, that is not following a democratic process and has therefore failed at the first test and proves that they are wrong from the outset, the climate change activist argument is lost, there is no human induced climate change.

Climate change cannot be stopped by anyone or anything other than the universe itself, it is not within the gift of humans to do so. Airport security is a completely controlled human invention, developed to counter another human invention (the mortal threat to people in airports or flying).

 

[Signalcalc]

What makes you think that scientists are not having this debate?

Because the science is settled according to climate change activists that do not want the debate. Scientists do not control the climate change agenda, politicians, money men and activists do.

 

[counter_violent]

Come on then, lets have your top 5 things that we should do, simply because they make sense. No particular order.

1) Stop deforestation, especially in the Amazon, where mass production of cattle takes priority over the complete eco system.
2) Develop tidal power which is entirely predictable and renewable.
3) Stop intensive farming which simply wrecks the land in very short order.
4) Make recycling of everything compulsory as opposed to local authorities and govt's just doing the easy stuff.
5) Stop globalisation and all the totally unnecessary movement of people and goods and associated transport.

 

[tomorton]

Because the science is settled according to climate change activists that do not want the debate. Scientists do not control the climate change agenda, politicians, money men and activists do.

There are scientists who disagree with the climate change hypothesis. They're free to continue to do so. But they can't expect support from the other side in favour of their argument. Its up to them to prove their case.

 

[tomorton]

Come on then, lets have your top 5 things that we should do, simply because they make sense. No particular order.

1) Stop deforestation, especially in the Amazon, where mass production of cattle takes priority over the complete eco system.
2) Develop tidal power which is entirely predictable and renewable.
3) Stop intensive farming which simply wrecks the land in very short order.
4) Make recycling of everything compulsory as opposed to local authorities and govt's just doing the easy stuff.
5) Stop globalisation and all the totally unnecessary movement of people and goods and associated transport.

1. Convert the entire world's power generation to nuclear
2. Extract CO2 from the atmosphere on a global scale
3. Eliminate fossil fuel combustion globally

Either this is a serious issue or it isn't.

 

[barjon]

Straw man. So I agree, climate change activists do not want an argument, that is not following a democratic process and has therefore failed at the first test and proves that they are wrong from the outset, the climate change activist argument is lost, there is no human induced climate change.

Climate change cannot be stopped by anyone or anything other than the universe itself, it is not within the gift of humans to do so. Airport security is a completely controlled human invention, developed to counter another human invention (the mortal threat to people in airports or flying).

I wasn’t likening airport security to climate change but to the activist/ political bandwagon. That bandwagon is indeed controlled by humans.

 

[timsk]

. . . Its up to them to prove their case.

They have Tom, but nobody's listening apart from a handful of so called 'deniers'. Before I was 'red pilled' by brexit, I was a fully signed up member to the climate change agenda. Theoretically, had Extinction Rebellion been demonstrating three years ago - I'd have been there - in spirit if not in person. I've since done my own research and considered the 'deniers' side of the argument. I have to say - IMO, it's waaaaay stronger. So, as Sig' says, if the science really is as settled as mainstream thinking would have us all believe, why not offer the deniers a platform to argue their points and then destroy said arguments and make them look like fools - like flat earthers or holocaust deniers? That such platforms and opportunities no longer exist tells me pretty much all I need to know. Somefing ain't right, ain't right at all.
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

They have Tom, but nobody's listening apart from a handful of so called 'deniers'. Before I was 'red pilled' by brexit, I was a fully signed up member to the climate change agenda. Theoretically, had Extinction Rebellion been demonstrating three years ago - I'd have been there - in spirit if not in person. I've since done my own research and considered the 'deniers' side of the argument. I have to say - IMO, it's waaaaay stronger. So, as Sig' says, if the science really is as settled as mainstream thinking would have us all believe, why not offer the deniers a platform to argue their points and then destroy said arguments and make them look like fools - like flat earthers or holocaust deniers? That such platforms and opportunities no longer exist tells me pretty much all I need to know. Somefing ain't right, ain't right at all.
Tim.

At any point along the continuum of knowledge, the science is settled when the majority of scientists agree. But the minority, who disagree, as conscientious scientists, will continue to try to disprove the arguments of their brethren.

I think what we're arguing about here is the denier scientists' access to the media, which they would use to convince the lay public. Well, that's tough, this is not an argument for the lay public to decide on as in a referendum. This is a scientific issue and only scientists get the vote. Where we are now the majority of scientists say climate change is real and human activities are exacerbating it. That's not an opinion that's going to be changed by public demand.

 

[counter_violent]

At any point along the continuum of knowledge, the science is settled when the majority of scientists agree. But the minority, who disagree, as conscientious scientists, will continue to try to disprove the arguments of their brethren.

I think what we're arguing about here is the denier scientists' access to the media, which they would use to convince the lay public. Well, that's tough, this is not an argument for the lay public to decide on as in a referendum. This is a scientific issue and only scientists get the vote. Where we are now the majority of scientists say climate change is real and human activities are exacerbating it. That's not an opinion that's going to be changed by public demand.

Climate is always changing, always has, always will. There is an argument that says, we should be in the midst of an ice age and govts are perfectly happy with our current global warming, otherwise the northern hemisphere's population would need to move south. And who in their right mind would want to move south !

 

[barjon]

At any point along the continuum of knowledge, the science is settled when the majority of scientists agree. But the minority, who disagree, as conscientious scientists, will continue to try to disprove the arguments of their brethren.

I think what we're arguing about here is the denier scientists' access to the media, which they would use to convince the lay public. Well, that's tough, this is not an argument for the lay public to decide on as in a referendum. This is a scientific issue and only scientists get the vote. Where we are now the majority of scientists say climate change is real and human activities are exacerbating it. That's not an opinion that's going to be changed by public demand.

tomo,

Isn’t history littered with examples of the majority scientific view of the day proving to be wrong? So you can hardly say it‘s settled merely because of a majority view and the evidence for and against needs continual examination.

I agree that whether it’s right or not is not a choice. Rather like people turning to religion as they near popping off it’s probably safer to assume it’s right (man influenced climate change) just in case it is, so we might as well do things that lessen our influence.

Given the exponential growth in human activity and the human population it seems unlikely that we have not affected the natural balance of the planet or that we won’t continue to do so. As well as seeking to reduce our influence (possibly a futile occupation) we should also bend our minds to preparing for the change (even if just in case).