[Alan CD]

Whatever way you wish to re-arrange my post is fine by me Mike

I shall not pursue this because it will lead to madness.

[MikeTV]

Let's review what you said, verbatim:

Originally Posted by Alan CD

The lack of hard scientific results through the analysis of available data

If there were a lack of hard scientific results, nobody would have published any papers. Research papers are based on hard scientific results.

Originally Posted by Alan CD

and the resultant in-fighting between scientists

There you go trying to discredit scientists, by accusing them of in-fighting. Again this is in your imagination. Scientists publish their findings and analysis, and deduce theories based on those findings. They don't engage in in-fighting, or if they do, it's not science, by definition of what is science. Fighting is not science. It's fighting. And there is scientific consensus about global warming.

Originally Posted by Alan CD

because the analysis can be 'swayed' depending on political agenda

If analysis is swayed by political considerations, it isn't objective, and it isn't science. This is how you are trying to discredit the scientists. Science, is by definition, an objective process, and is not swayed by political considerations.

Originally Posted by Alan CD

or even straight forward 'grabbing the limelight' has led to the current situation. Senior scientists love the media limelight.

Again you are trying to discredit scientists.

Originally Posted by Alan CD

In a nutshell, too much money and power has been thrown at this global warming issue and we haven't (yet) got the correct scientific analytical tools to make clear sense of the massive amounts of data.

Yes we do. We have the correct analytical tools to make clear sense of the amounts of data. If we didn't, we wouldn't have scientific consensus. That wouldn't be science then. It would be guessing.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Alan CD

Whatever way you wish to re-arrange my post is fine by me Mike

I don't care that you don't understand scientific method. But I do care that you repeatedly accuse me of being deceptive, which is plainly untrue.

[instigator]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Is that because he said "people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence" by any chance? Although, he actually highlighted the findings of the published scientfic paper "Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes - Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact (Psychological Science, February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195)".

But I can see why that might upset some people of a right-wing persuasion!

I wonder if you ever heard of the "scientist" chap that briefly popularized a similar style of thought that people of particular races were less intelligent than certain other races...

Sanity, common sense and real science prevailed... Thankfully...

But obviously we still have people trying to justify their bigotry and hatred even today...

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I don't care that you don't understand scientific method. But I do care that you repeatedly accuse me of being deceptive, which is plainly untrue.

I would say that you are more deceived Mike.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Cloverleaf

'Germany's George Monbiot' turns climate sceptic – Telegraph Blogs

Even the Germans say that Global Warming finished 12 years ago - now I'm pretty sure this has got nothing to do with the Dail Mail

Dr Fritz Vahrenholt was the CEO of power company, and worked for Shell.

He is hardly the George Monbiot of Germany. He's a chemist by education. And has no academic qualifications in relation to climate science. And well known climate skeptic, of course. Could it be because of his affiliations with energy industry, by any chance?

Good example of corruptive influences. Well done!

[instigator]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Dr Fritz Vahrenholt was the CEO of power company, and worked for Shell.

He is hardly the George Monbiot of Germany. He's a chemist by education. And has no academic qualifications in relation to climate science. And well known climate skeptic, of course. Could it be because of his affiliations with energy industry, by any chance?

Good example of corruptive influences. Well done!

And yet climate change advocates that fabricate data Or have a financial stake in business profiteering from it can't be held to the same standard?

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Dr Fritz Vahrenholt was the CEO of power company, and worked for Shell.
He's a chemist by education.

Hang on. Wouldn't that make him a...............wait for it...........it's on the tip of my tongue..............a............................. ......................................

SCIENTIST then ?

So much for your " scientific concensus" then, Mikey boy

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by instigator

I wonder if you ever heard of the "scientist" chap that briefly popularized a similar style of thought that people of particular races were less intelligent than certain other races...

Sanity, common sense and real science prevailed... Thankfully....

I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by instigator

But obviously we still have people trying to justify their bigotry and hatred even today...

I genuinely don't know whether you are trying to criticise the prejudices of the right wing, Monbiot, or those responsible for the research paper.

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

.
I genuinely don't know whether you are trying to criticise the prejudices of the right wing, Monbiot, or those responsible for the research paper.

I think it was more aimed at you, Michael

[kav]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I don't care that you don't understand scientific method.

Given that you have adequately demonstrated that you don't understand the scientific method in this thread, I'd suggest not throwing stones from inside your glass house.

By the way, consensus means that everyone agrees. That's plainly not the case for global warming. There are also those who subscribe to the "insufficient data" point of view, so a consensus it definitely is not.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by instigator

And yet climate change advocates that fabricate data

Have no role in science. Who are these people fabricating data? We should imprison them at once!

Originally Posted by instigator

Or have a financial stake in business profiteering from it can't be held to the same standard?

Science holds everyone to the same standards. It either is valid scientifically, or it isn't.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by kav

Given that you have adequately demonstrated that you don't understand the scientific method in this thread, I'd suggest not throwing stones from inside your glass house.

By the way, consensus means that everyone agrees. That's plainly not the case for global warming. There are also those who subscribe to the "insufficient data" point of view, so a consensus it definitely is not.

Whatever, Kav.

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Whatever, Kav.

Spoken like a true scientist.

Archimedes jumps out the bath, shouting "Whatever !"

Hasn't really got the same ring to it, has it ?

[MikeTV]

Now children, I've dazzled you enough with my superior intellect enough for one day. I've humoured your cheeky tag-teaming taunts, and outwitted you with my outstanding rationalisations. It's now time for all you to go to bed.

Sleep well my lovelies!

[Cloverleaf]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Now children, I've dazzled you enough with my superior intellect enough for one day. I've humoured your cheeky tag-teaming taunts, and outwitted you with my outstanding rationalisations. It's now time for all you to go to bed.

Sleep well my lovelies!

Correction.

Deceived AND deluded

[instigator]

Is this thread the interweb equivalent of Jehovah witness knocking at one's door?

Do you get this in Britlandia?

[MikeTV]

To me it feels more like Wicker Man.

[Wild Weasel]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Dr Fritz Vahrenholt was the CEO of power company, and worked for Shell.

He is hardly the George Monbiot of Germany. He's a chemist by education. And has no academic qualifications in relation to climate science. And well known climate skeptic, of course. Could it be because of his affiliations with energy industry, by any chance?

Good example of corruptive influences. Well done!

Is that the same Shell Oil who funds the infamous Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Or is that BP? Oh wait, no, it's both.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

Is that the same Shell Oil who funds the infamous Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Or is that BP? Oh wait, no, it's both.

History of the Climatic Research Unit

Are you referring to the funding they received in 1971, before anyone had started worrying about global warming?

The CRU obtains funding from a variety of sources, including the research councils (ie. the UK taxpayer), the US department of Energy, and other governmental bodies and institutions. It also receives contracts from external commerce and industry.

It's amazing that an academic unit staffed by a mere 30 people can attract so much world attention.

Any amounts they receive from Shell and BP are miniscule compared to the hundreds of billions of pounds in profit these companies make selling fossil fuels for us to burn. I suspect they may fund the occasional Phd student's beer tokens.

[instigator]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Are you referring to the funding they received in 1971, before anyone had started worrying about global warming?

The CRU obtains funding from a variety of sources, including the research councils (ie. the UK taxpayer), the US department of Energy, and other governmental bodies and institutions. It also receives contracts from external commerce and industry.

It's amazing that an academic unit staffed by a mere 30 people can attract so much world attention.

Any amounts they receive from Shell and BP are miniscule compared to the hundreds of billions of pounds in profit these companies make selling fossil fuels for us to burn. I suspect they may fund the occasional Phd student's beer tokens.

Dude, are you being paid to post this crap?

[Ed Selley]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

To me it feels more like Wicker Man.

Sanctimonious virgin rocks up, completely misreads what's going on and gets flamed? Your call.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Science holds everyone to the same standards. It either is valid scientifically, or it isn't.

Oh that were so!.

Unfortunately science is organized by humans - and though 'right' does tend to win out in the end - the problems for introducing new ideas is as old as science itself.

I'm personally fairly* convinced about ACC, and so more importantly is the scientific establishment. As as a result it would be incredibly difficult for a paper which reaches different conclusions to get published in mainstream scientific press, and even more difficult to get general funding for research for such a paper. Remember science works largely on the basis of peer review - but what happens if you're ahead of your peers ?


* The basic science behind global warming is straightforward - increase atmospheric C02 and the earth will warm (though estimates of by how much vary hugely) - however that assumes all other factors remain the same ; eg albedo etc, continental position, solar output etc etc.

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by GasDad

Oh that were so!.

Unfortunately science is organized by humans - and though 'right' does tend to win out in the end - the problems for introducing new ideas is as old as science itself.

I disagree. I think you are mistaking science with public opinion. Anyone can introduce new ideas, that's the great thing about science. You, me, Einstein, Darwin...if it' scientifically valid.

Originally Posted by GasDad

I'm personally fairly* convinced about ACC, and so more importantly is the scientific establishment.

Good.

Originally Posted by GasDad

As as a result it would be incredibly difficult for a paper which reaches different conclusions to get published in mainstream scientific press, and even more difficult to get general funding for research for such a paper. Remember science works largely on the basis of peer review - but what happens if you're ahead of your peers ?

If you had compelling reasons for thinking the way you did, and the science to back it up those views, your peers must pay attention. And the history of science is full of examples of people doing exactly that. That's how science progresses. Einstein wasn't even a scientist by profession - he worked in the patent office.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

I disagree. I think you are mistaking science with public opinion. Anyone can introduce new ideas, that's the great thing about science. You, me, Einstein, Darwin...if it' scientifically valid.

And you are confusing the end result with the process. A short review of history will show the scorn etc that was heaped on Darwin, the outrage that greated Planck etc.

If you had compelling reasons for thinking the way you did, and the science to back it up those views, your peers must pay attention. And the history of science is full of examples of people doing exactly that. That's how science progresses. Einstein wasn't even a scientist by profession - he worked in the patent office.

And you're rather missing the point - how exactly do you get your peers to listen to you - the only real way is to publish - and for the reasons I've outlined above that is increasingly difficult if you're 'off message'.

This is a known and well studied problem.

[instigator]

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/race/rc5.html

[MikeTV]

Originally Posted by GasDad

And you are confusing the end result with the process. A short review of history will show the scorn etc that was heaped on Darwin, the outrage that greated Planck etc.

Quite right. And those theories prevailed, anyway.

Originally Posted by GasDad

And you're rather missing the point - how exactly do you get your peers to listen to you - the only real way is to publish - and for the reasons I've outlined above that is increasingly difficult if you're 'off message'.

This is a known and well studied problem.

Anyone can publish, but they have to find a journal that will accept their publication. That's where peer review arises. That's not the same as censorship, as you are suggesting.

[MikeTV]

We can talk about scientific method all day. But I am quite happy with the process. It's the best process that humans have been able to come up with so far.

[instigator]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

We can talk about scientific method all day. But I am quite happy with the process. It's the best process that humans have been able to come up with so far.

Yeah, as long as scientists don't make up data in order to prove their political, social or religious dogma...

It works just fine until that happens...

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/race/rc5.html

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by MikeTV

Quite right. And those theories prevailed, anyway.
Anyone can publish, but they have to find a journal that will accept their publication. That's where peer review arises. That's not the same as censorship, as you are suggesting.

If something is very much against the main stream then it won't in todays climate get published by a respected journal - and which peers to you get to review it exactly ?

We don't yet know if theories surrounding ACC will prevail - we don't have sufficient data and certainly haven't performed the experiment. Climate Change theories have no where near the same level of maturity of Evolution etc - and all could be over turned by some forgotten effect.

All we have at the moment is a balance of probabilities, based on crude models and improving data sets (which as before I'm happy with) - but we also have a huge political bandwagon associated with ACC - and that makes it very hard for scientists with contrary opinions (and there are some) to get their voices heard.