Climate Change

[tomorton]

On the basis of No3 (in fact the following question really applies to all 3 points), judge asks what standards have been applied? What acceptance levels of a theory have been applied, is the scientific norm being applied, or is this a special case, the judge is unable to make a judgement until more information is known about the standards being applied?

I cannot believe that a scientific community would revert to 'futile' as being appropriate when an extremely high level of scientific rigour is required when dealing with a question of such importance, do the scientific community not apply a high level of rigour, understanding and standards when tackling such questions? They certainly appear to when it comes to the production of, let's say, new drugs, so let's adopt that approach and see where the judgement lands?

To put it more simply, the judge asks if the science has been properly carried out and 51% say yes and 49% say no. So we're no further forward. We're still left with the question why any lay-person would prefer the conclusion of the 49%.

 

[timsk]

To put it more simply, the judge asks if the science has been properly carried out and 51% say yes and 49% say no. So we're no further forward. We're still left with the question why any lay-person would prefer the conclusion of the 49%.

Tom,
I don't 'prefer' the conclusion of the 49%, I merely find it very odd that the 51% majority overlook or ignore scientific fact that scientists that study Co2 agree upon. If the 51% are so sure of their ground, and if the consensus within the wider scientific community really is as absolute as we're all lead to believe - then surely they have nothing to fear from open debate? That the sceptics are overlooked or ignored and debate on the issue is shut down by mainstream media suggests to me the so called 'settled science' probably isn't settled at all and that maybe, just maybe, the 51% don't have any credible answers to the inconvenient truths that don't support the climate alarmists narrative. E.g. the logarithmic correlation of Co2 to temperature or Sig's point about the relationship of sun spot activity with gamma rays in the context of the earth's climate.

And this notion of science by consensus strikes me as being highly dubious. For example, who or what decides which scientists are included in the majority view? Suppose that the bulk of the 51% are computer scientists working on data, algorithms and software etc. for climate change models - whereas the bulk of the 49% are scientists with expertise in astrophysics, chemistry (greenhouse gases) and geology etc. - are these taken into account? The point being that the 49% may have much more knowledge and experience that's directly applicable to climate change than do the computer geeks. Science is supposed to be about hard facts that can be tested and the results then independently replicated and verified - not general 'on the balance of probability' opinion which may or may not be well informed and given for all sorts of reasons - e.g. to attract funding or to not lose existing funding etc. The video below explains this rather better . . .

 

[tomorton]

But no doubt the 51% would say the enquiry has been carried out with scientific rigour and that they are suitably qualified. So we're going back round the circle to the point of enquiring what is the logical basis for over-ruling the majority expert opinion.

 

[timsk]

. . . So we're going back round the circle to the point of enquiring what is the logical basis for over-ruling the majority expert opinion.

Tom,
Well, c_v, Sig', I and others have offered a variety of reasons - clearly and powerfully made IMO, as to why the 51% majority view warrants further analysis and debate. I can't speak for them - but that's all my beef is about: I want debate. I've said all along that I'm open minded on the issue and actively want to be persuaded that the 51% alarmists view is correct. But that isn't going to happen if they overlook and ignore the concerns of the 49%. I have, I think, put forward a clear and logical basis for questioning - not over-ruling necessarily - the majority expert opinion.

The key reason why this whole issue is in such a mess boils down to large numbers of people - including China, India, Russia and the USA - not believing the alarmists. If the other 49% were convinced by the 51% majority view, then the world could unite and move forward on this together. Assuming that would be a desirable outcome for the 51%, all they need do is address the concerns and answer the questions of the minority. And if the science is as settled as they claim, that ought to be a piece of cake - as easy as convincing everyone that the earth is round and not flat. Surely this is a reasonable and logical stand to take?
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

Tom,
Well, c_v, Sig', I and others have offered a variety of reasons - clearly and powerfully made IMO, as to why the 51% majority view warrants further analysis and debate. I can't speak for them - but that's all my beef is about: I want debate. I've said all along that I'm open minded on the issue and actively want to be persuaded that the 51% alarmists view is correct. But that isn't going to happen if they overlook and ignore the concerns of the 49%. I have, I think, put forward a clear and logical basis for questioning - not over-ruling necessarily - the majority expert opinion.

The key reason why this whole issue is in such a mess boils down to large numbers of people - including China, India, Russia and the USA - not believing the alarmists. If the other 49% were convinced by the 51% majority view, then the world could unite and move forward on this together. Assuming that would be a desirable outcome for the 51%, all they need do is address the concerns and answer the questions of the minority. And if the science is as settled as they claim, that ought to be a piece of cake - as easy as convincing everyone that the earth is round and not flat. Surely this is a reasonable and logical stand to take?
Tim.

Hi Tim -

Debate is the fuel that drives the engines that move the world forward. I have no doubt that there is scientific "debate" going on concerning this scientific issue between scientists. I know I'm correct in this because you fella's keep finding scientists who disagree with the climate change scientists, and carrying out research and observations and modelling and all the rest. And that is the proper way for scientific theories to be drafted, tested and re-written. The MSM and the public and politicians and corporations have nothing to do with this process.

To be blunt, what ordinary people think of scientific theory does not count.

Where ordinary people will get a say and should get a say is in determining what we're going to do about climate change - there's a whole spectrum from absolutely nothing at all to changing the entire planet. And at that point, the scientists' role will be downgraded to advisory.

Tom

 

[timsk]

As well as the numerous holes in the arguments put forward by the alarmists (according to experts like Happer and Dyson, not lay-folk like me), even more worrying is their dismal track record on climate change. Here's a documentary from the late 70s that provides hard scientific evidence that by now we'd all be encased in a block of ice . . .

Here's a more recent video with a distinguished climate change scientist, Dr. Stephen Schneider, putting forward the current majority view that global warming is the problem . . .

Now, here's the thing. The young scientist interviewed in the first vid' who says the next ice age is upon us is the same scientist interviewed in the second vid'! To be fair to him, he has explained why his views have changed so dramatically, and I credit him with his honesty in admitting how and why he got it wrong back in the 70s. But it does beg the question: why should we take the current crop of climate alarmists seriously now when:
1. There's so much division and (lack of) debate on the issue, and
2. Their previous assertions of impending catastrophe have, thankfully, all been completely wrong and failed to materialise?
Tim.

 

[timsk]

. . .To be blunt, what ordinary people think of scientific theory does not count. . .

I agree Tom. My point though - which you appear unwilling to address - is that Profs. Happer and Dyson aren't lay-people whose scientific theories do not count - they are highly respected scientists at the top of their game. So, tell my why I should ignore them in favour of, say, Dr. Stephen Schneider, in the second video I posted, above?
Tim.

 

[Signalcalc]

Hi Tim -

Debate is the fuel that drives the engines that move the world forward. I have no doubt that there is scientific "debate" going on concerning this scientific issue between scientists. I know I'm correct in this because you fella's keep finding scientists who disagree with the climate change scientists, and carrying out research and observations and modelling and all the rest. And that is the proper way for scientific theories to be drafted, tested and re-written. The MSM and the public and politicians and corporations have nothing to do with this process.

To be blunt, what ordinary people think of scientific theory does not count.

Where ordinary people will get a say and should get a say is in determining what we're going to do about climate change - there's a whole spectrum from absolutely nothing at all to changing the entire planet. And at that point, the scientists' role will be downgraded to advisory.

Tom

Not true, ordinary people will have no say on how the money will be spent, or where and who will benefit.

 

[counter_violent]

🤣 Climate Change....the new Brexit debate.....whoodathunkit !

 

[timsk]

🤣 Climate Change....the new Brexit debate.....whoodathunkit !

Well c_v, I know it's easy for me to say this now but, for what it's worth, I thunkit a while back. My prediction is that this will be THE issue of 2020 to replace brexit. In joint second place will be the Labour party and liberal left progressive woke identity politics nonsense, coupled with immigration and (so called) Islamaphobia. Hold me to account on this in 365 days time!
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

I agree Tom. My point though - which you appear unwilling to address - is that Profs. Happer and Dyson aren't lay-people whose scientific theories do not count - they are highly respected scientists at the top of their game. So, tell my why I should ignore them in favour of, say, Dr. Stephen Schneider, in the second video I posted, above?
Tim.

Tim, I've said it so much but it seems to be just unacceptable. I don't accept the climate change denials of these 2 scientists because there will be 3 scientists who confirm it. And if you find 3 denier scientists, there will be 4 who confirm it. And if you find 4, they will be faced by 5.

No matter how far down that road you go, there is a majority of scientists who confirm the climate change hypothesis and I will tend to agree with the majority because there is no reason to disagree with them and to side with the minority.

At least, I cannot see a rational reason. But as soon as its confirmed that the majority of scientists reject the climate change theory I will believe it.

Honest I will.

 

[tomorton]

Not true, ordinary people will have no say on how the money will be spent, or where and who will benefit.

"..........SHOULD GET A SAY........"

 

[barjon]

Tim, I've said it so much but it seems to be just unacceptable. I don't accept the climate change denials of these 2 scientists because there will be 3 scientists who confirm it. And if you find 3 denier scientists, there will be 4 who confirm it. And if you find 4, they will be faced by 5.

No matter how far down that road you go, there is a majority of scientists who confirm the climate change hypothesis and I will tend to agree with the majority because there is no reason to disagree with them and to side with the minority.

At least, I cannot see a rational reason. But as soon as its confirmed that the majority of scientists reject the climate change theory I will believe it.

Honest I will.

Sounds a bit like your trading, Tomo. Go with the trend until it reverses (when you’re sure it has, of course, but that’s another story )

Not quite sure why Tim should think you are ignoring the eminent scientists he mentions. As I see it you are not ignoring their position, but merely giving the greater weight to the opposing view because that’s where the majority of scientists sit.

 

[timsk]

. . .Not quite sure why Tim should think you are ignoring the eminent scientists he mentions. As I see it you are not ignoring their position, but merely giving the greater weight to the opposing view because that’s where the majority of scientists sit.

Hi Jon,
Allow me to explain . . .

If I've understood Tom correctly, he's ignoring all scientists, regardless of which side of the argument they're on, on the grounds that climate science is an extremely complex subject (which it is) and that lay-people like us here on T2W won't be able to get our heads around it sufficiently to make an informed decision. His solution to this is simply to go with the consensus view - the weight of numbers - as he believes that's the safest and wisest approach. (Tom - apologies if I've got this wrong, but it's a genuine assessment of my understanding of your position on this.)

All I've done is to outline - in some detail, I think, why I believe Tom's approach is so flawed as to be unworkable and is a poor way of arriving at a conclusion as whether or not climate change is occurring (for the reasons that the alarmists claim that it is). A far better way, IMO, is to look at the arguments presented on all sides to see what stands up to rigorous scrutiny and what doesn't. After all, historically, scientists of all disciplines have worked this way. They observe something, devise a theory which may explain that which they've observed, then test it in every way imaginable to see if the theory stands up. If and when they believe it's sound, they publish it for peer review and invite others to replicate their results.

For reasons which remain unclear, this tried and tested method of practising science appears to have been thrown out of the window when it comes to climate change and anyone who dares to suggest that the global warming theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny is marginalised, de-platformed and ignored. This, to me, is quite wrong and it's why - for the time being at least - I think it's right to highlight the likes of Happer, Dyson, Corbyn et al in a bid to redress the imbalance and, hopefully, open up rigorous debate that will lead to a wider understanding of the issues and what should or shouldn't be done about them. To do the opposite and close down debate - as the alarmists are doing - is a sure fire way to swell the numbers of sceptics which, as now, will result in a divided world that can't agree on an appropriate way forward. If the science is as settled as the alarmists claim that it is, they should have no problem at all in welcoming the kind of scrutiny outlined above so that sceptics like me, c_v, Sig' and New Trader etc. can be brought on board. It's win win all round - an absolute no-brainer - so why won't they do it?
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

Sounds a bit like your trading, Tomo. Go with the trend until it reverses (when you’re sure it has, of course, but that’s another story )

Not quite sure why Tim should think you are ignoring the eminent scientists he mentions. As I see it you are not ignoring their position, but merely giving the greater weight to the opposing view because that’s where the majority of scientists sit.

Bang on jon.

I have no criticisms of the scientists combatting the climate change model, nor their qualifications, competence, integrity or observations. The only issue is they are a minority of scientists. They may always be in the minority but I don't even say that. I have already accepted we are at a temporary point of knowledge along a continuum re this subject and the conclusions may change in the future. The minority view today could be the majority view tomorrow. At that time, as the circumstances will have changed, I shall change my beliefs also: it would be bizarrely irrational not to.

 

[tomorton]

Hi Jon,
Allow me to explain . . .

If I've understood Tom correctly, he's ignoring all scientists, regardless of which side of the argument they're on, on the grounds that climate science is an extremely complex subject (which it is) and that lay-people like us here on T2W won't be able to get our heads around it sufficiently to make an informed decision. His solution to this is simply to go with the consensus view - the weight of numbers - as he believes that's the safest and wisest approach. (Tom - apologies if I've got this wrong, but it's a genuine assessment of my understanding of your position on this.)

All I've done is to outline - in some detail, I think, why I believe Tom's approach is so flawed as to be unworkable and is a poor way of arriving at a conclusion as whether or not climate change is occurring (for the reasons that the alarmists claim that it is). A far better way, IMO, is to look at the arguments presented on all sides to see what stands up to rigorous scrutiny and what doesn't. After all, historically, scientists of all disciplines have worked this way. They observe something, devise a theory which may explain that which they've observed, then test it in every way imaginable to see if the theory stands up. If and when they believe it's sound, they publish it for peer review and invite others to replicate their results.

For reasons which remain unclear, this tried and tested method of practising science appears to have been thrown out of the window when it comes to climate change and anyone who dares to suggest that the global warming theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny is marginalised, de-platformed and ignored. This, to me, is quite wrong and it's why - for the time being at least - I think it's right to highlight the likes of Happer, Dyson, Corbyn et al in a bid to redress the imbalance and, hopefully, open up rigorous debate that will lead to a wider understanding of the issues and what should or shouldn't be done about them. To do the opposite and close down debate - as the alarmists are doing - is a sure fire way to swell the numbers of sceptics which, as now, will result in a divided world that can't agree on an appropriate way forward. If the science is as settled as the alarmists claim that it is, they should have no problem at all in welcoming the kind of scrutiny outlined above so that sceptics like me, c_v, Sig' and New Trader etc. can't be brought on board. It's win win all round - an absolute no-brainer - so why won't they do it?
Tim.

Hey Tim.

Its a well put together message and you are right - about my standpoint - I accept the scientific conclusion on a scientific question of the majority of scientists. I don't see anything irrational about that.

As for debate, the scientific argument is still on-going and will never cease, as we are on a continuum of knowledge on this subject and many other scientific issues. Scientists who take the contrarian view continue to research and observe and model and draw conclusions which contradict the climate change theory. This is the way science works.

This debate in the scientific community is not touched by debate amongst the public because the man in the street is not competent (in both legal and academic senses) to make judgements on scientific questions. Its quite rational for the MSM to ignore the climate change deniers who are politicians or lay-people on the same basis - their position is not supported by the scientific consensus and the public have no way to judge anyway. After all, the MSM talk to lay-people, and the MSM is not a peer-reviewed scientific forum for the education of scientists and the development of scientific theory.

Tom

 

[Signalcalc]

Bang on jon.

I have no criticisms of the scientists combatting the climate change model, nor their qualifications, competence, integrity or observations. The only issue is they are a minority of scientists. They may always be in the minority but I don't even say that. I have already accepted we are at a temporary point of knowledge along a continuum re this subject and the conclusions may change in the future. The minority view today could be the majority view tomorrow. At that time, as the circumstances will have changed, I shall change my beliefs also: it would be bizarrely irrational not to.

From he last few pages of this thread I think that we can establish the following:

If one adopts the position that Tomo has, then there is no more argument to be had, he believes in whatever the majority science believes and he in turn believes that the majority of science believe the theory that is promoted by MSM. Whether it is right or wrong position to take is immaterial, Tomo has stated his position clearly, no further discussion is required about why Tomo believes what he believes.

For the rest of us opened minded people, the argument over the science continues, we don't believe there has been rigourous enough scientific exploration or debate and therefore we are not satisfied that the science of climate change is settled and requires more scientific study to reach a conclusion.

 

[barjon]

Hi Jon,
Allow me to explain . . .

If I've understood Tom correctly, he's ignoring all scientists, regardless of which side of the argument they're on, on the grounds that climate science is an extremely complex subject (which it is) and that lay-people like us here on T2W won't be able to get our heads around it sufficiently to make an informed decision. His solution to this is simply to go with the consensus view - the weight of numbers - as he believes that's the safest and wisest approach. (Tom - apologies if I've got this wrong, but it's a genuine assessment of my understanding of your position on this.)

All I've done is to outline - in some detail, I think, why I believe Tom's approach is so flawed as to be unworkable and is a poor way of arriving at a conclusion as whether or not climate change is occurring (for the reasons that the alarmists claim that it is). A far better way, IMO, is to look at the arguments presented on all sides to see what stands up to rigorous scrutiny and what doesn't. After all, historically, scientists of all disciplines have worked this way. They observe something, devise a theory which may explain that which they've observed, then test it in every way imaginable to see if the theory stands up. If and when they believe it's sound, they publish it for peer review and invite others to replicate their results.

For reasons which remain unclear, this tried and tested method of practising science appears to have been thrown out of the window when it comes to climate change and anyone who dares to suggest that the global warming theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny is marginalised, de-platformed and ignored. This, to me, is quite wrong and it's why - for the time being at least - I think it's right to highlight the likes of Happer, Dyson, Corbyn et al in a bid to redress the imbalance and, hopefully, open up rigorous debate that will lead to a wider understanding of the issues and what should or shouldn't be done about them. To do the opposite and close down debate - as the alarmists are doing - is a sure fire way to swell the numbers of sceptics which, as now, will result in a divided world that can't agree on an appropriate way forward. If the science is as settled as the alarmists claim that it is, they should have no problem at all in welcoming the kind of scrutiny outlined above so that sceptics like me, c_v, Sig' and New Trader etc. can't be brought on board. It's win win all round - an absolute no-brainer - so why won't they do it?
Tim.

Tim

Can’t add a lot to Tomo’s response. The debate and research continues amongst scientists who are the one’s that matter. Funny how different topics garner different responses to the same thing. I seem to recall that brexit “deniers” were very quickly told to belt up, accept the position and stop moaning by the very same people who are now shouting loudly for climate change deniers to be heard. Such is life.

 

[tomorton]

From he last few pages of this thread I think that we can establish the following:

If one adopts the position that Tomo has, then there is no more argument to be had, he believes in whatever the majority science believes and he in turn believes that the majority of science believe the theory that is promoted by MSM. Whether it is right or wrong position to take is immaterial, Tomo has stated his position clearly, no further discussion is required about why Tomo believes what he believes.

For the rest of us opened minded people, the argument over the science continues, we don't believe there has been rigourous enough scientific exploration or debate and therefore we are not satisfied that the science of climate change is settled and requires more scientific study to reach a conclusion.

On scientific matters there is always scientific debate to be continued and for mankind to benefit from. We all know this is continuing.

My position is that at any point along the course of the debate I side with the majority view of the experts (a dirty word these days I know). Right or wrong doesn't come into it - that's too absolute and suggests knowledge is complete and the investigation is over, which I maintain its not. All I can say is that the currently accepted climate change model is the best possible conclusion given what we know right now.

I think we both have valid claims to be called open-minded: you because you doubt accepted wisdom - healthy and in the spirit of scientific enquiry, and realistic given that we know climate change knowledge is inherently incomplete. Me because I am committed to changing my mind if the weight of evidence changes.

 

[Pat494]

Whether climate change is real or not is being hotly debated. The issue is so serious imho that a lot should be done to combat it now even if it turns out to be an exaggerated alarm.. The debate will no doubt continue until the increased damage escalates until such a degree that something must be done.
Russia. China and the USA are so fixated on wasting their resources on the arms race that their present leaderships are just not engaging enough on more important issues.