Climate Change

[tomorton]

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).

Fair enough. I did say it was settled at any given point along a continuum. So science has the settled answer at any given point. At a later point, there could well be a different answer, based on increased study, better scientific technique, further analysis etc. That's the nature of scientific enquiry. The fact that scientific answers are continually revised over years and centuries is actually proof of the discipline's strength, not weakness.

It remains the case that new scientific solutions are found by scientists, not politicians or commentators or journalists or crusty activists.

Yes, reducing our impact on the environment does not seem crazy. And similarly it shouldn't seem crazy that if there's a possibility we might be on the brink of extinction, we should take a step back and look around before we run forward blindly.

 

[Signalcalc]

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.

Neither side has been proved, so who is right and who is wrong, here's a clue - power.

 

[Signalcalc]

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.

What is THE climate change hypothesis we are discussing here, there are many?

 

[Signalcalc]

Fair enough. I did say it was settled at any given point along a continuum. So science has the settled answer at any given point. At a later point, there could well be a different answer, based on increased study, better scientific technique, further analysis etc. That's the nature of scientific enquiry. The fact that scientific answers are continually revised over years and centuries is actually proof of the discipline's strength, not weakness.

It remains the case that new scientific solutions are found by scientists, not politicians or commentators or journalists or crusty activists.

Yes, reducing our impact on the environment does not seem crazy. And similarly it shouldn't seem crazy that if there's a possibility we might be on the brink of extinction, we should take a step back and look around before we run forward blindly.

.....before we run forward blindly into some uneeded global agenda to tax people to make investors rich.

There finished it for ya

 

[tomorton]

Neither side has been proved, so who is right and who is wrong, here's a clue - power.

Proved by scientific majority agreement at a given point along the continuum of knowledge. subject to revision and reversal later if a scientific majority agrees.

 

[Signalcalc]

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

There was no activism associated with airport security, there was no debate, it has been accepted as a consequence of terrorism.

Climate change a totally different subject matter, straw man argument still holds.

 

[tomorton]

.....before we run forward blindly into some uneeded global agenda to tax people to make investors rich.

There finished it for ya

What is the basis for rejecting the majority scientific conclusion on a given scientific subject at a given point in time?

How do you decide which scientists to believe on a scientific matter?

 

[Signalcalc]

Proved by scientific majority agreement at a given point along the continuum of knowledge. subject to revision and reversal later if a scientific majority agrees.

Still waiting for an answer to where, by whom and when the scientific majority view has been accepted?

 

[Signalcalc]

What is the basis for rejecting the majority scientific conclusion on a given scientific subject at a given point in time?

How do you decide which scientists to believe on a scientific matter?

There has been no debate with a conclusion? If there has, where is the evidence of that debate and the conclusions drawn?

 

[tomorton]

Still waiting for an answer to where, by whom and when the scientific majority view has been accepted?

I don't know what answer would be accepted.

 

[tomorton]

There has been no debate with a conclusion? If there has, where is the evidence of that debate and the conclusions drawn?

As you well know, we're not talking about a debate occasion like the Oxford Union. Debate in this context is recognition that there are two groups of scientists with opposing views on the same subject. The majority accept climate change, the minority deny it. I side with the majority simply because it is the majority.

 

[timsk]

As you well know, we're not talking about a debate occasion like the Oxford Union. Debate in this context is recognition that there are two groups of scientists with opposing views on the same subject. The majority accept climate change, the minority deny it. I side with the majority simply because it is the majority.

Tom,
How do you know what the majority view is? (The infamous '97% of scientists agree' mantra has been widely dismissed as utter tosh.)
Would you side with the majority if you knew they were wrong?
If you knew that the so called majority only sign up to the climate change agenda in order to protect their jobs and careers - wouldn't that make you think again?
These are important questions because, as things stand, the only people who are given a platform on climate change are the loons infecting young minds by spreading a seriously warped dystopian vision of the future. This chap (who's been on BBC 1 Question Time) is addressing school children!!! If anyone should be de-platformed then, IMO, it ought to be the likes of Read - not the 'deniers' who dare to present a a very credible alternative view.
Tim.

 

[cantagril]

...... who in their right mind would want to move south !

Ah...mereckons that this is down to a quantity problem: there's south, as in"South of Watford" and I'd agree that isn't very attractive being polluted and wall-to-wall southern wazzocks and then there's south as in Sarf Coast, the seafront, balmy days in the sunshine and Attila to buy you a pint next the pier (which is still better imo) and then there's south as in le South de France john, where the deer and the antelope roam and the skies are blue and not cloudy all day. Now that's quite a good South in my book - excepto uno surfeit de frogs.

 

[cantagril]

Tom,
How do you know what the majority view is? (The infamous '97% of scientists agree' mantra has been widely dismissed as utter tosh.)
Would you side with the majority if you knew they were wrong?

Stuff the majority!

The majority have given us Boris and Trump. What do the majority know with their Madness of Crowds etc.

I'm my own majority of one - it may not be music but I know what I like and am very much an empiricist when it comes to Climate Change - I am certain (because of little niggles like the sinking Marshall Islands, the over-topping of the Thames Barrier, Venice and St Petersburg abandoning sections of their cities, dramatic increases in rainfall and/or heatwaves here and there) that the Climate she is a-changing. I don't particularly care how much it's our fault but I've come to the conclusion that we have a part to play in it. As I'm now of an age that when the excreta finally does impact the ventilator, I'll be pushing up the few remaining daisies, I don't that much care. The regrets of future generations don't bother me none.

As I've said before, Climate Change may well be an invention but I'm definitely not buying a house too close to a river or the sea. Seen too many old farmhouses washed way by weather that "hasn't been seen before" but now I have, so I'm thinking of higher ground. Who cares about some random canals and a piss-pot bunch of islands in some benighted bit of the Pacific anyway? I'm looking forward to the Underground network flooding - now that really will be entertainment and as we're due for that in a decade or so, I might still be around for the fun.

 

[counter_violent]

Tom,
How do you know what the majority view is? (The infamous '97% of scientists agree' mantra has been widely dismissed as utter tosh.)
Would you side with the majority if you knew they were wrong?
If you knew that the so called majority only sign up to the climate change agenda in order to protect their jobs and careers - wouldn't that make you think again?
These are important questions because, as things stand, the only people who are given a platform on climate change are the loons infecting young minds by spreading a seriously warped dystopian vision of the future. This chap (who's been on BBC 1 Question Time) is addressing school children!!! If anyone should be de-platformed then, IMO, it ought to be the likes of Read - not the 'deniers' who dare to present a a very credible alternative view.
Tim.

Seems to me that all topics these days have 2 camps...for and against. There is no middle ground, no debate, just endless ranting based on which side of the divide we fall.

 

[counter_violent]

Tom,
How do you know what the majority view is? (The infamous '97% of scientists agree' mantra has been widely dismissed as utter tosh.)
Would you side with the majority if you knew they were wrong?
If you knew that the so called majority only sign up to the climate change agenda in order to protect their jobs and careers - wouldn't that make you think again?
These are important questions because, as things stand, the only people who are given a platform on climate change are the loons infecting young minds by spreading a seriously warped dystopian vision of the future. This chap (who's been on BBC 1 Question Time) is addressing school children!!! If anyone should be de-platformed then, IMO, it ought to be the likes of Read - not the 'deniers' who dare to present a a very credible alternative view.
Tim.

Seriously disturbing video.
He should be locked up.

 

[tomorton]

Tom,
How do you know what the majority view is? (The infamous '97% of scientists agree' mantra has been widely dismissed as utter tosh.)
Would you side with the majority if you knew they were wrong?
If you knew that the so called majority only sign up to the climate change agenda in order to protect their jobs and careers - wouldn't that make you think again?
These are important questions because, as things stand, the only people who are given a platform on climate change are the loons infecting young minds by spreading a seriously warped dystopian vision of the future. This chap (who's been on BBC 1 Question Time) is addressing school children!!! If anyone should be de-platformed then, IMO, it ought to be the likes of Read - not the 'deniers' who dare to present a a very credible alternative view.
Tim.

Ah, Tim,you've gone on a very philosophical road this afternoon.....

I know the majority support the climate change argument because I have heard scientists within the majority say so. I obviously don't have time to go out and count all the white coats on each side of the debate but I don't think I've got the wrong impression. I don't need a 97% majority: 51% will do for me.

I would always support the majority of scientists on a scientific question. I would not know they were wrong. How would I know they were wrong? I might have a preference or a hunch or a religious belief but that's all just BS.

I don't know of Read. The media is full of opinionated t0ssers. But that's because they are selected by the media; and that's because the job of successful media is to attract, not inform. The last thing they want to do is end a debate. I am sure the BBC just hate it that they cannot bring on Nigel Lawson again for the deniers.

 

[timsk]

Ah, Tim,you've gone on a very philosophical road this afternoon.....

I know the majority support the climate change argument because I have heard scientists within the majority say so. I obviously don't have time to go out and count all the white coats on each side of the debate but I don't think I've got the wrong impression. I don't need a 97% majority: 51% will do for me. . .

Hi Tom,
I have to say I'm very surprised by this, not least because as Jon points out the majority have been wrong oftentimes in the past. Perhaps you've looked into it, but'51% will do for me' sounds as if you haven't, which is a shame because you might find that the minority view provides some logical and credible arguments; e.g. that the activity of the sun is a key driver of temperature and extreme weather patterns. That's hardly a radical, flaky proposition is it - yet it's not even on the radar of the mainstream climate lobby. I suspect that most people do exactly the same as you and just go with the majority view and/or accept the view of someone they admire. I wonder how different this whole debate might be - that is to say we might actually be having one (a debate that is) - if the likes of David Attenborough came out on the side of the 'deniers'. Perhaps what happened to David Bellamy made him jump on the band wagon for fear that he too might suffer Bellamy's fate. Undoubtedly, he (Attenborough) is a brilliant naturalist and a great broadcaster, but there's nothing on his CV to suggest he's an expert on climate change. Ditto for Saint Greta and many other of the high profile alarmists. Meanwhile, kids around the world are being 'taught' that there's a good chance they won't get to adulthood. That's sad, crazy and utterly irresponsible. Instead of indoctrinating them with climate change hysteria, their time would be better spent reading Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'.
Tim.

 

[Signalcalc]

I know the majority support the climate change argument because I have heard scientists within the majority say so.

And where did you hear such news, MSM, Greta, the UN, the EU, God, climate loonies, celebs, paid actors, the Left wing? Or a bone fide, undisputable, never-to-be-questioned-on-the-matter-again-because-it-is-the-single-source-of-verifiable-truth -because-we-have-actually-had-a-transparent-debate-on-the-subject source?

Not the latter is my guess, the debate has not been had, the science is not settled, theories have not been proved, previous models have failed, there is mounting evidence to be presented to counter the mainstream narrative but it is prevented from being discussed by the mainstream, therefore EVERYTHING is still open to question.

Academia used to be based on rigourous scientific observation and critical thought, academia appear to have lost their collective minds in recent years as they slowly adopt the science of mainstream identity politics, virtue signalling and media hype.

Let's have the argument/debate in an open and transparent way, then we can make informed decisions, otherwise we are fed a diet of politics, opinion, supposition, superstition and speculation with a 'you must pay for it' attitude provided by investors.

As @timsk has highlighted, mainstream media views are not necessarily mainstream views held by joe public, we have seen this time and again in recent years, the climate change agenda hoax is one of them, all it needs is a yougov poll to sort that one out........

 

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,
I have to say I'm very surprised by this, not least because as Jon points out the majority have been wrong oftentimes in the past. Perhaps you've looked into it, but'51% will do for me' sounds as if you haven't, which is a shame because you might find that the minority view provides some logical and credible arguments; e.g. that the activity of the sun is a key driver of temperature and extreme weather patterns. That's hardly a radical, flaky proposition is it - yet it's not even on the radar of the mainstream climate lobby. I suspect that most people do exactly the same as you and just go with the majority view and/or accept the view of someone they admire. I wonder how different this whole debate might be - that is to say we might actually be having one (a debate that is) - if the likes of David Attenborough came out on the side of the 'deniers'. Perhaps what happened to David Bellamy made him jump on the band wagon for fear that he too might suffer Bellamy's fate. Undoubtedly, he (Attenborough) is a brilliant naturalist and a great broadcaster, but there's nothing on his CV to suggest he's an expert on climate change. Ditto for Saint Greta and many other of the high profile alarmists. Meanwhile, kids around the world are being 'taught' that there's a good chance they won't get to adulthood. That's sad, crazy and utterly irresponsible. Instead of indoctrinating them with climate change hysteria, their time would be better spent reading Mackay's 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'.
Tim.

Its completely normal for a scientific belief to be the majority scientific view at any point along the continuum of knowledge on the subject. Only for the majority to take a different view when more information becomes available. That's how science advances. That's why religion and superstition doesn't.

What should a scientist do when more information becomes available? I for one hope they revise their ideas on the subject to take account of it. That might mean what was the majority view yesterday will no longer be the majority view.

What do you expect a scientist to do when no more new information is available? I expect them to hold fast onto the current theory / solution / whatever it may be. Would you seriously expect a scientist to decide one day, either randomly or maybe due to public opinion, that although no new information has come to light, they should revise their current scientific beliefs?

I know what I don't know as the saying goes. I definitely do not know more than any scientist worth the title concerning climate change. Therefore I cannot contradict even one of them, never mind the majority of them.

But in the most general terms, what basis is there for non-scientists to accept some scientific beliefs and deny others?