[J1mbo]

Suitably tabloid thread title for you

Amazed that this hasn't been posted here. Dividing up 'general chat' was a real error if you ask me...

Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change | Environment | The Guardian

[Wild Weasel]

Lomborg was never a skeptic. It's just Grauniad spin.

[J1mbo]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

Lomborg was never a skeptic. It's just Grauniad spin.

Er...yes he was.

[Wild Weasel]

Na, he has always believed in global warming. As a statistician he just wasn't happy with the fabricated data & doom-monger nonsense put about by the like of the WWF and Greenpeace (of whom he is a member). Perhaps that's enought be called a heretic skeptic.

[Broadsword]

Whats this "grauniad" about, seen it a few times now.

[Wild Weasel]

The Guardian "Grauniad" newspaper was famous for its appalling spelling, usually due to mistakes by the typesetters. They even spelt the name of the newspaper itself wrongly once. I think it was Private Eye that gave it the nickname originally.

[Toko Black]

As far as I could tell, the highest profile global warming skeptics fit into 2 categories:

The totally unqualified to comment, and the qualified but heavily funded by the fossil fuel industry*.

The same sorts you would have expected to see back when the ciggarette companies were trying to deny the link between smoking and cancer.

Same techniques used, miss information, miss direction, capitalisation and miss representation of simple human errors.

*or related partisan organisation.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

Na, he has always believed in global warming. As a statistician he just wasn't happy with the fabricated data & doom-monger nonsense put about by the like of the WWF and Greenpeace (of whom he is a member). Perhaps that's enought be called a heretic skeptic.

It's the very fast and loose usage of the word skeptic that makes me smile.

A scientific skeptic:

with the abilities to quantify and validate the empirical data to a point of making a qualified assesment as to whether it meets their stringent requirements for a supported hypothesis.

Has some scientific credibility and respect.

A public skeptic or personality:

A member of the general public or a personality in the public domain that decides to follow a particular school of thought based not on any particular qualified assessment, but on their own personal feelings and understanding of the analysis of others.

Only has respect based on popularity or pure charismatic ability to persuade.

Most of us posters are going to generally fall into the public skeptic category if we wish to challenge what is understood to be the general scientific consenus or in some cases the world view if the consenus of the public is not that of science.

From my perspective, the main high profile sources of scientific skepticism come from scientists that have been shown to have financial links to the fossil fuel industry.

The main high profile public skeptics are usually associated with Fox News and other clown shoes broadcasting networks with their thinly disguised extreme partisanship and their demonstratable lies.
There are other exceptions, like David barmpot Bellamy, but mostly they tend to have links to industry, churches or the media looking to sell airspace and book deals.

From the non skeptic side, the vast majority are highly qualified, highly talented and high profile individuals and organisations, many with total political freedom and no financial motivation.

Royal Society guide to climate change vs' Fox News.

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

Royal Society guide to climate change vs' Fox News.

nope Hefty physicist: Global warming is 'pseudoscientific fraud' • The Register

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

nope Hefty physicist: Global warming is 'pseudoscientific fraud' • The Register

Yep .... the Royal Society, that's the UK's world famous and prestigious science accedemy published a guide to the issues and science behind the issues and the relative levels of consenus and agreements.

I trust their guidance to be free from prejudice, clear, conscise and the best available body to trust.
If you aren't prepared to trust the RS, you might as well pretty much accept that no science is open for you to trust, like those of the skeptics that have far less respect and credibility than those in the RS I can assure you.

Rather than say Fox News and a physicist from the US having a rant about some people milking the potentials for research grants.
People jumping on the bandwagon does not detract from ALL the other scientists that are not envolved in attracting grants for global warming that have reviewed the research and published the Royal Societies guides.

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

ALL the other scientists

thats laughable.

[Wild Weasel]

I trust their guidance to be free from prejudice, clear, conscise and the best available body to trust.

Well you shouldn't. They're a disgrace to the people who founded them.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

thats laughable.

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

Well you shouldn't. They're a disgrace to the people who founded them.

Let's say we obviously come from very different backgrounds and approaches to science, politics and empirical evidence.

I am not sure why I should value your opinions on the science as say compared to that of the President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, who I don't think many people consider laughable or a disgrace.... but each to their own conspiracy theory fantasy world

.... which ofc I noticed envolved talking about the lefties in america and comments through out these forums that mark you clearly in the Fox News demographics. (even worse than daily mail readers tbh )

[Wild Weasel]

You believe what you want to believe. I really don't give a ****.

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

Let's say we obviously come from very different backgrounds and approaches to science, politics and empirical evidende

well thats interesting as i am degree educated in a science, but dont let that hold you back from sticking labels on people you dont know and throwing about some insults for good measure, nice.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

well thats interesting as i am degree educated in a science, but dont let that hold you back from sticking labels on people you dont know and throwing about some insults for good measure, nice.

You are the one quoting my comment as laughable, which quite frankly is pretty ridiculous considering the sheer percentage of scientists on the none skeptic side of climate science.

You quoted one article about one american physicist.
He does not represent the massive consensus of opinion, he represents an incredibly small number of skeptics that is massively over popularised by the media, especially by the likes of Fox News and similar outlets.....

..... or do you deny this ?

(which would make my initial conclusion pretty valid in my own person opinion)

The other comments were mainly aimed at wild weasle since he regularly establishes his right wing credentials.

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

You are the one quoting my comment as laughable, which quite frankly is pretty ridiculous considering the sheer percentage of scientists on the none skeptic side of climate science.

You quoted one article about one american physicist.
He does not represent the massive consensus of opinion, he represents an incredibly small number of skeptics that is massively over popularised by the media, especially by the likes of Fox News and similar outlets.....

..... or do you deny this ?

(which would make my initial conclusion pretty valid in my own person opinion)

The other comments were mainly aimed at wild weasle since he regularly establishes his right wing credentials.

well there you have it, you won me over there........ i believe

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

well there you have it, you won me over there........ i believe

I am not interested in winning people over, I am neither a politician nor am I trying to sell you double glazing or a new car.

I am merely pointing out that:

a) the Royal Society published guides to understanding the climate debate and the levels of consenus of opinion.

Which I would say is the most trustable source currently available worldwide as least likely to be political, most likely to adhere to scientific principles.

b) That the majority of climate skeptisim comes from the Fossil Fuel industry and the right wing orthodox christian movements and the media they support and are supported by in the US.

c) That there are large numbers of well respected scientists from world respected accademies and institutions with no political or finanical motivation who support the general evidence of climate change and they form the general scientific consensus.

d) that several of the highest profile skeptic scientists have been shown to be in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.

e) that there are very few serious and respected scientists that are skeptics and NOT embroiled in scandals with politics and industry money.

f) that went put in context next to the above, one scientist have a rant over other scientists jumping on a gravey train and human errors do not detract from the fact that the consenus and therefore the sensible position is on the side of climate change unless you are an expert specialising in climate change and hold a skeptical view based on your own qualified analysis to be even remotely able to rock the boat.

These are demonstrable facts would you agree ?

The Royal Society's Simple Guide to Climate change controversies

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by Wild Weasel

You believe what you want to believe. I really don't give a ****.

Too busy watching Fox News ?

The difference is that I don't believe what I want to believe unlike yourself.
I use a set of guidlines and principles that provide me with answers whether I like what that answer is or not. It is totally devoid of my will, empathy, passions, fears or hopes. It is simply a combination of following scientific principles, reason and logic and the consensus of opinion of those experts qualified to provide the best answers available using those techniques at any given moment in time.

To choose to believe otherwise, if not an qualified expert using reasonable skeptism is irrational.
You may as well argue against the current consenus of opinion on quantum mechanics or quantum gravity.
To attempt an opinion based not on the current consensus without being a theoretical physicist is completely insane. It's delusional egotism to convince oneself that we could possibly have a greater understanding than that of the experts in the field.

One clever man says the tomorrow it will be sunny, a thousand clever men say it is most likely to rain. All other things being equal, logic and reason says take an umbrella.

That is not opinion, favouritism, fashion, choice or belief. It just is, simple, reason.

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

Too busy watching Fox News ?

The difference is that I don't believe what I want to believe unlike yourself.
I use a set of guidlines and principles that provide me with answers whether I like what that answer is or not. It is totally devoid of my will, empathy, passions, fears or hopes. It is simply a combination of following scientific principles, reason and logic and the consensus of opinion of those experts qualified to provide the best answers available using those techniques at any given moment in time.

To choose to believe otherwise, if not an qualified expert using reasonable skeptism is irrational.
You may as well argue against the current consenus of opinion on quantum mechanics or quantum gravity.
To attempt an opinion based not on the current consensus without being a theoretical physicist is completely insane. It's delusional egotism to convince oneself that we could possibly have a greater understanding than that of the experts in the field.

One clever man says the tomorrow it will be sunny, a thousand clever men say it is most likely to rain. All other things being equal, logic and reason says take an umbrella.

That is not opinion, favouritism, fashion, choice or belief. It just is, simple, reason.

busy watching fox news ? no i actualy have a life away from a computer, fancy that... more insults eh, lovely.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

busy watching fox news ? no i actualy have a life away from a computer, fancy that... more insults eh, lovely.

Firstly, that was directed at Wild Weasel in rebuttle "I don't give a <whatever>" comment.

Is that your arguement then ?

Deal with the facts laid out in the Royal Societies Guide and the rational arguments I have put forward.

Otherwise, one can only assume you don't have any valid arguments, and that your are prefering to buy into the conspiracy theories. This is not that different from belonging to a religion or cult where one only accepts evidence that supports their own ideas. Credible evidence against ones position is rejected or ingnored in favour of any evidence no matter how tenuous that bolsters ones world view.

The overall scientific picture and consensus is that mankind has an affect on global warming and that because of this it is sensible to take action.
There are lots of individual errors, human mistakes, people exaggerating the figures. However, that does not negate all the other data and evidence that isn't exaggerated or in error. There is no credible research or evidence that negates the overall picture. One may argue time scales, specific areas that will be affected, the projections of sea currents or what ever one wants, it does not change the fact that there is an agreed affect overal on the environment and earths climate from mankinds activities.

The brightest and best scientists amongst humanity as a whole state that from all the research and understanding man affects global warming.

[Steven]

Blimey why did nobody tell me about my change of mind

[officerdibble11]

you left it this long to reply to try and sort of prove you do have alife, ohhh thats sweet. sorry i didnt read most of your reply, i doubt i would understand it all anyway, far to cerebral for the likes of me, right then back to fox news and where did i put the daily mail, hmmmmm.............

[Toko Black]

If anyone could provide a reasoned arguement as to a better source of scientific opinion that the Royal Society then and I willing to listen.

As far as I am aware, they recognisably represent the brightest, best minds in science and in general are not politically biased or motivated.

If one were to examine the potential sources of information and analysis on subjects requiring expert opinion, then they should be the prime source.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

you left it this long to reply to try and sort of prove you do have alife, ohhh thats sweet. sorry i didnt read most of your reply, i doubt i would understand it all anyway, far to cerebral for the likes of me, right then back to fox news and where did i put the daily mail, hmmmmm.............

Ah, you have no valid argument then, guessed as much*

Also, look up the word 'hypocrisy' because your posts have all bar one been insulting

PS, I was asleep and just woke up and replied to your post, I don't really have a life atm since I am mentally ill and also going cold turkey on an opiate dependancy week 2.
Not that makes a jot of difference to the evidence, logic and reason at hand.

* because rationally there isn't one (unless you can address and fault my reasoning)

[officerdibble11]

plenty of valid arguements thanks very much, heres one the recent climatgate scandal and the suppression of papers that dont agree with the status quo, hows that ? another is the respected physicist outlined in the above article that you dismiss out of hand, heres another recent one http://www.suite101.com/content/kiwi...tegate-a230307 i could go on and on and on, but then im not really into long drawn out arguements on the internet, there isnt any point to it.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

plenty of valid arguements thanks very much, heres one the recent climatgate scandal and the suppression of papers that dont agree with the status quo, hows that ? another is the respected physicist outlined in the above article that you dismiss out of hand, i could go on and on and on, but then im not really into long drawn out arguements on the internet, there isnt any point to it.

Those arguments have been addressed in my previous posts.

Please provide a better source of opinion that the Royal Society.

Otherwise, you are in essence stating your own ability to analyse ALL the available evidence for and against is better than theirs.

I am well aware of my own fallabilities and would not dare to presume to be in a better position to give a reasoned argument than the Guide the Royal Society published.

We don't need to get into a debate over minutae, because neither of us rationally or reasonably are qualified to do so.

Either you are dismissing the Royal Society as the best source of information analysis and prefering your own abilities, or you are not.

If you prefer your own analysis, then my earlier statement of "Let's say we obviously come from very different backgrounds and approaches to science, politics and empirical evidence", holds very well.
IE what is it that seperates you from the average conspiracy nut on the internet ? Are the Royal Society actually run by the illuminati ?
Do you see where we might run into a problem of distinguishing validity and reality ?

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

Those arguments have been addressed in my previous posts.

Please provide a better source of opinion that the Royal Society.

Otherwise, you are in essence stating your own ability to analyse ALL the available evidence for and against is better than theirs.

I am well aware of my own fallabilities and would not dare to presume to be in a better position to give a reasoned argument than the Guide the Royal Society published.

We don't need to get into a debate over minutae, because neither of us rationally or reasonably are qualified to do so.

Either you are dismissing the Royal Society as the best source of information analysis and prefering your own abilities, or you are not.

you havent addressed any of the above arguements....... The royal society base there findings on evidence from the IPCC, who have been proven to be less than honest with the data.

[Toko Black]

Originally Posted by officerdibble11

you havent addressed any of the above arguements....... The royal society base there findings on evidence from the IPCC, who have been proven to be less than honest with the data.

So you know better than the Royal Society that stand by their guidance ?

Okay......

That means that the Royal Society, that has access to all the information you have, that are well aware of the IPCC issues in the past and are still standing by their position are not as clever or informed as yourself.

You are somehow better at being able to identify the flaws and mistakes and evaluate the overall picture ?

You do realise how that looks ?

[officerdibble11]

Originally Posted by Toko Black

So you know better than the Royal Society that stand by their guidance ?

Okay......

so you blindly follow them despite the very data that they hinge there findings on being suspect, okay ........... if you put garbage data in you get garbage data out.