Wondering how biassed the media can go - MMGW

[penguin]

I'm no expert, I've done no research, at the moment I'm only listening to what I see on TV etc. so yes my basis is very flawed.

 

But look at people like martini who claim to be studying this kind of thing, he seems to know what he's talking about so I believe it:

 

Whereas in contract you just sound aggressive and shouty, presumably because you feel like you're being taken for a ride. Honestly we may well be, I don't know, but at the moment I'm believing these 'scientists' you keep mentioning.

 

mate, you're not asking the most obvious question - who was measuring 500 years ago? .... it was only 30 odd years or so when attenborough et al talked about the "next ice age" being around the corner....

 

"The amounts of CO2 measured are far beyond what anything 'natural' on this earth can emit (short of all volcanoes erupting... which they are not)"

 

ha, that's a joke right?! that's a pretty big assumption to make!

[Thorin]

Cows!!!1!

[penguin]

Cows!!!1!

 

for once, i agree with you

[tbourner]

mate, you're not asking the most obvious question - who was measuring 500 years ago? .... it was only 30 odd years or so when attenborough et al talked about the "next ice age" being around the corner....

 

Ice boring.

 

//edit: the next ice age IS around the corner. I can't find the info I read before but this is similar and even seems more recent:

http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/8131.php?from=114124

So in the next 3000-5000 years we will drop into another glacial period.

 

Aji, You asked where the data is (actually you asked for verified results), from the same site:

For the first time, scientists have now produced a complete set of data showing measurements of methane going back 800,000 years. The new measurements from the EPICA Dome C ice cores show also that some climate changes are happening faster than those resulting from the long-term cycles in space. About 770,000 years before now, scientists have identified rapid changes in the amount of both CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere. These are very fast changes which have occurred within just a few decades. The dramatic changes indicate that climate changes can take place very quickly. Similar changes took place about 40,000 years ago during the last glacial period.

 

Today, emissions from nature only account for a small amount of the methane found in the atmosphere. Current concentrations are 124 per cent higher than in previous periods, and this is largely due to domestic animals, agriculture and fossil fuels, so the high level is indirectly the result of man’s activities. The concentration of CO2 is 28 per cent higher than before the Industrial Age. And which process might this trigger?"

[AJI]

Its not my intention to sound shouty and agressive, I do appologise if this is how I come across.

I just wish to debate the issue often, incase more light is thrown my way.

 

 

I can tell you that I would happily accept the MMGW theory if there was verified evidence backed up by all the world's scientists whereby the results show exactly what is happening in terms of man's CO2 link and global warming.

But it seems to me that the well established scientific process that we are all assuming is taking place, is not really happening when it comes to the argument for global warming.

 

And we are seeing many conflicting arguments made by scientists but then the governments/media taking one side and claiming science fact on the issue.

 

If the established scientific process ended up with man being the cause factor then yes, I will be striving towards doing my bit to limit the 'damage' to humanity that I cause by living a western style life.

 

If however the established scientific process ended up with natural cycle being the cause factor and human input negligable, then I would hope that I have followed my root upbringing of being a scientific minded person to have questioned it in the first place.

 

 

But I go back to my main point....there seems to be no established scientific process taking place when scientists can not proove the link...and when emails suggest that data and computer models need to be 'fudged' using 'tricks' in order that their proMMGW theory can be prooved.

The denial of freedom of information requests is also not a scientific process, and the whole thing to me is based upon the say so of a few research units which would not have as much funding if it were not for a threat of global disaster stories.

 

(The reason I have placed certain 'scientists' in quotes is purely because if they are not following scientific process then they are not conducting science).

 

 

But you're right Tannhauser, I do feel like I'm been taken for a ride.

Just hope that sense prevails in the end, which ever direction it takes us.

[penguin]

So in the next 3000-5000 years we will drop into another glacial period.

 

"ice ice baby" ... in a nutshell, all you're telling me is we'll get global warming followed by global cooling - which has happened before...

 

i can sleep easy knowing it's gonna be a few thousand years

[ellis]

As I said months ago - go read State of Fear by Michael Crichton - plenty of properly researched info in there about this very subject!

[tbourner]

Its not my intention to sound shouty and agressive, I do appologise if this is how I come across.

More angry really, and mostly your OP.

I shouldn't even be arguing in this kind of discussion really cos I don't know anything about it, just going by what I've read. So you may well be right - funny cos I usually go for the cynical view!

[Snooze]

Yep - we appreciate that you'd like hard-and-fast scientific proof that the proposals will have a meaningful effect on global warming.

 

However, I suspect that the ultimate truth is that we will never have absolute proof one way or the other, so surely the point is that if there is a decent chance that we should be making changes to help (as most scientists seem to believe), then it is surely worth pursuing.

If they are right, then we can't wait until every maverick scientist, lone dis-believer or consiparcy-theorist blogger is convinced before we do anything, because that will never happen!

 

To be honest - your OP actually comes across mainly as a complaint about having to pay taxes rather than truly being concerned with the science behind it (I'm guessing this is not the case with you, but I think that's how it will look to many).....and I do appreciate your concerns - there WILL be corrupt people profitting out of this for sure - but isn't that the case with pretty much everything these days?

[AJI]

However, I suspect that the ultimate truth is that we will never have absolute proof one way or the other, so surely the point is that if there is a decent chance that we should be making changes to help (as most scientists seem to believe), then it is surely worth pursuing.

 

 

But the issue is that there is no evidence of even a 'decent chance'. The issue of natural cycle global warming and the human contribution to that are different issues that are constantly being mixed together to support the case for 'action'.

There is still no verified data/results that confirm man is having any effect on the warming of the earth.

True CO2 levels are increasing, but man's contribution of this and its effects are so far negligable in terms of measurable cause and effect.

 

Most sceintists accept the evidence of global warming and this is what the media portrays a lot, but the mis-understanding is that this automatically assumes man is the cause. And this human link is not accepted by most scientists.

 

 

If they are right, then we can't wait until every maverick scientist, lone dis-believer or consiparcy-theorist blogger is convinced before we do anything, because that will never happen!

 

IF it is proven to be true that man is causing global warming then yes I agree, we shouldn't have to wait for people with other vested interests parties to be 'converted' as such. Action should be taken swiftly.

[tbourner]

IF it is proven to be true that man is causing global warming then yes I agree, we shouldn't have to wait for people with other vested interests parties to be 'converted' as such. Action should be taken swiftly.

 

But what about if they are right, but still can't prove it? Surely it's better to play it safe rather than take a gamble for the sake of taxes and profiteering etc?

Unless you're really saying the scientists KNOW it's all cobblers and are all faking it so they can get grants - because I really can't believe that.

[Matt H]

 

You won't be saying that when you jostling for space on top of a mountain with the rest of the world, trying not get your feet wet!

 

I think you need to Wake up bud, in the nicest possible way! Not believing this is like not believing in the moon landing, or thinking that Elvis is still alive.

 

Many world leaders are at a meeting this week, trying to agree a way forward that will financially effect us all. They're not just doing it for a laugh.

[penguin]

You won't be saying that when you jostling for space on top of a mountain with the rest of the world, trying not get your feet wet!

 

I think you need to Wake up bud, in the nicest possible way! Not believing this is like not believing in the moon landing, or thinking that Elvis is still alive.

 

Many world leaders are at a meeting this week, trying to agree a way forward that will financially effect us all. They're not just doing it for a laugh.

 

i'm not planning on sticking around for 3000-5000 years before any of these "theories" evolve.

 

as for "world leaders" ... mate, there are far cheaper and more productive ways - teleconferencing? where is the need to have every tosser ahem i mean "stateman" and his dog to be in one place in the age of technology/information?

 

wonder how much CO2 emissions they have output putting on this freak show!.... it's about time you woke up and realised the con this whole thing is

 

(Ps - i already own a plot of land and have a house ontop of a mountain - will post up pics in Jan)

[Snooze]

.....the mis-understanding is that this automatically assumes man is the cause. And this human link is not accepted by most scientists.

 

Are you sure?? You think that most scientists believe that man's activities are not having any effect on the global climate?

 

My take was that whilst there are several outspoken scientists who believe this, it was still the case that the vast majority of the scientific community, including the majority of experts in the field believed that man was causing a noticable effect that would be worth action to prevent.

 

Is this not the case?

[penguin]

Unless you're really saying the scientists KNOW it's all cobblers and are all faking it so they can get grants - because I really can't believe that.

 

it is cobblers it's a massive con.

[Matt H]

i'm not planning on sticking around for 3000-5000 years before any of these "theories" evolve.

 

I'm led to believe we'll start seeing some definate signs in 100 years. I'm hoping to be here, altough unlikely, I want the world to be in a decent state for all the little Matt Hs!

 

as for "world leaders" ... mate, there are far cheaper and more productive ways - teleconferencing? where is the need to have every tosser ahem i mean "stateman" and his dog to be in one place in the age of technology/information?

 

wonder how much CO2 emissions they have output putting on this freak show!.... it's about time you woke up and realised the con this whole thing is

 

You have a good point there though!

[penguin]

Are you sure?? You think that most scientists believe that man's activities are not having any effect on the global climate?

 

My take was that whilst there are several outspoken scientists who believe this, it was still the case that the vast majority of the scientific community, including the majority of experts in the field believed that man was causing a noticable effect that would be worth action to prevent.

 

Is this not the case?

 

ok, lets just say man is to blame - what then? do we all stop using our cars, aeroplanes, trains, mobile phones, internet, lights, fridges, etc etc etc? no - they main change would be the tax we pay and the cuts in public spending - more money for the government to use in phoney wars.

[AJI]

But what about if they are right, but still can't prove it? Surely it's better to play it safe rather than take a gamble for the sake of taxes and profiteering etc?

Unless you're really saying the scientists KNOW it's all cobblers and are all faking it so they can get grants - because I really can't believe that.

 

If they are right then it is my view that there would be clear measurable evidence for it.

If man was putting up enough CO2 to have any effect, to the extent they are saying, then this effect must surely be measurable. (Otherwise how do they base such comments?)

 

The problem being that many other sources on the planet are putting up much more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere....and even if man cut his CO2 by 100% globally, the end result would be the same. The climate will still change.

 

There is nothing realistically that we can do to stop natural cycle climate change. We have no control over how the sun affects the temps of the oceans for example.

 

 

When it comes to the scientists involved I'm basically saying that many have vested interests. One way or the other.

Many scientists are emplyed by a company/agency that wants a particular result etc.

Some scientists in the CRU have shown themselves to be very manilpuative of data and requests for data....this is not science.

 

Only when the raw data is shown to produce inescapable verified results that no vested interest party can dispute then I will be happy.

But as you say, this day may never come.

 

One problem with climate science is that many relevant raw data needs a long time to be collected. Historic data is very helpful, but the disaster scenerios that are creating the CO2 taxes are based on future predictions and so we rely on historic data to produce extrapolated computer models....which are highly inaccurate.

 

For this, the computer models that have been heavily used in the past showed temp rises closely correlating to CO2 content in the atmosphere..... CO2 has still been rising but earth temps have not risein in the past 10 years.

 

There are many arguments and counter-arguments....it is hard to create a blanaced judgement.

One reason why I started this post....how have the media/government come to such definitive conclusions?

[Snooze]

ok, lets just say man is to blame - what then? do we all stop using our cars, aeroplanes, trains, mobile phones, internet, lights, fridges, etc etc etc? no - they main change would be the tax we pay and the cuts in public spending - more money for the government to use in phoney wars.

 

Errr - but the whole point is that the tax increases would stop/reduce you using your cars/aeroplanes/trains/phones/internet/lights/fridges/sex toys - we really need to start considering these sort of things as luxuries again, rather than the commodoties they have become.

How the government then uses this money is a separate matter (one would hope that it gets fed into other ecological projects).

 

Personally, I'm actually all for just letting things continue as is - it will sort itself out ultimately. Billions will suffer in the process, but I believe that's going to happen anyway with the crazy over-population we have at the moment..... if it's not from global warming, it'll be from starvation.

We're reasonably immune here in the UK - the only real bit that's in danger is Norfolk!

[AndrewOW]

I'm led to believe we'll start seeing some definate signs in 100 years. I'm hoping to be here, altough unlikely, I want the world to be in a decent state for all the little Matt Hs!

 

 

Oh, bloody hell, bring on the big freeze now, and spare us all!

[Matt H]

Oh, bloody hell, bring on the big freeze now, and spare us all!

 

[Tannhauser]

What annoyed me after the whole University of East Anglia thing was the Prime Minister contacting scientists there asking how they can 'restore confidence' in the whole GW debate.

 

Shouldn't he have been saying 'let's get all this out now and see what REAL, SCIENCE BASED evidence actually exists?'

 

Maybe that's too much like a reasoned debate for this govt. (Let's face it - they'd loose too much money in taxes that are based on MMGW)

 

I don't agree at all, for several reasons:

 

1) It's not like the UEA is at the bottom of a Jenga data tower, and if their results are deiscredited, anthropogenic global warming collapses. The evidence comes from multiple sources and from multiple independent researchers.

 

2) I've read some of the email extracts and the responses. Some of the phrasing - when they are ripping into their opposition - is an embarassment for them, because they are using the intemperate language you might use in a private email. But I don't think there's anything of substance there.

 

There are words like 'trick' and 'hide' in there which have been leapt upon by an uncomprehending and polarised community. The scientists in question have painstakingly explained these (take a look on realclimate.org). Taking sixteen years worth of emails (IIRC) and quoting one or two lines out of context does not constitute a major rebuttal.

 

If you don't think context makes a difference, take a look at what happened to Carl Wunsch on the 'Great Global Warming Swindle' documentary. He ended up apparently saying the complete opposite to his real views. Context matters.

 

3) There's no reason for GB to ask for a debate on 'real science based evidence'. That's the debate that scientists and their professional associations have had. And the picture is this: (a) the earth is definitely warming (b) IPCC now estimates probability that its man-made as 90% or over © it's likely to be serious. The rest is quibbling about the details.

 

The debate has been ongoing as the data has rolled in. The result of that debate is that year on year the probability of climate change being anthropogenic has risen.

 

If you're going to throw out computer modelling as 'not real science', you're going to end up losing a huge amount of fluid mechanics, behavioural ecology, cognitive science, drug research, theoretical physics and so on.

 

So, I think 'public confidence' is right on the money. The climate scientists who actually study this stuff are confident enough.

[Snooze]

There are many arguments and counter-arguments....it is hard to create a blanaced judgement.

One reason why I started this post....how have the media/government come to such definitive conclusions?

 

But the whole point is that can only ever be speculation - there are, and never will be, any hard evidence saying what effect 7billion humans with modern industry will have on the climate.

 

It will only ever be theory and speculation.

 

So by your argument, we would never do anything about it until it was too late.

 

As for the government's "definitive conclusions", they had to decide one way or the other, didn't they?

If they had decided to do nothing about it, then surely the same argument applies in reverse: "There is no firm evidence that man's activities do not have an effect on global climate change."

[penguin]

Errr - but the whole point is that the tax increases would stop/reduce you using your cars/aeroplanes/trains/phones/internet/lights/fridges/sex toys - we really need to start considering these sort of things as luxuries again, rather than the commodoties they have become.

How the government then uses this money is a separate matter (one would hope that it gets fed into other ecological projects).

 

Personally, I'm actually all for just letting things continue as is - it will sort itself out ultimately. Billions will suffer in the process, but I believe that's going to happen anyway with the crazy over-population we have at the moment..... if it's not from global warming, it'll be from starvation.

We're reasonably immune here in the UK - the only real bit that's in danger is Norfolk!

 

mate on the grand scale of things, we can't change anything, if i stop using my sex toys and mobile phone - you can bet you're pretty penny someone somewhere else who's never had a sex toy or mobile phone will buy them instead

[Tannhauser]

However, I suspect that the ultimate truth is that we will never have absolute proof one way or the other, so surely the point is that if there is a decent chance that we should be making changes to help (as most scientists seem to believe), then it is surely worth pursuing.

If they are right, then we can't wait until every maverick scientist, lone dis-believer or consiparcy-theorist blogger is convinced before we do anything, because that will never happen!

 

Spot on, baby.

 

Science is inductive - it deals with weight of evidence, not with absolute certainties. The phrase 'scientifically proven' is usually used by total non-scientists. Moreover, "science" is a set of conclusions reached by a community.

 

There are always dissenting voices for any theory, and that's a great thing. That's what has interested me from the start about climate change: just how strong the consensus is and how few dissenters there are. To some, that seems like a mass hoodwinking or self-interest or pressure to conform or whatever. Any conclusion other than the most obvious one: that the evidence has convinced them.