Home Entertainment & Technology Resource

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Liam Fox, The Tea Partiers, Global Warming Deniers and Oil Companies

Discussion in 'Politics & Economy Forum' started by MikeTV, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. Alan CD

    Alan CD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    10,850
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +2,425
    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.

    :eek:
  2. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    Let's review what you said, verbatim:
    If there were a lack of hard scientific results, nobody would have published any papers. Research papers are based on hard scientific results.
    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.
    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.
    Again you are trying to discredit scientists.
    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.
  3. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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.
  4. instigator

    instigator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +71
    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...
  5. Cloverleaf

    Cloverleaf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +42
    I would say that you are more deceived Mike.
  6. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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!
  7. instigator

    instigator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +71
    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?
  8. Cloverleaf

    Cloverleaf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +42
    Hang on. Wouldn't that make him a...............wait for it...........it's on the tip of my tongue..............a...................................................................

    SCIENTIST then ? :rotfl:

    So much for your " scientific concensus" then, Mikey boy :hiya:
  9. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    I couldn't agree more.
    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.

    :confused:
  10. Cloverleaf

    Cloverleaf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +42
    I think it was more aimed at you, Michael :)
  11. kav

    kav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    23,103
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +10,423
    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.
  12. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    Have no role in science. Who are these people fabricating data? We should imprison them at once!
    Science holds everyone to the same standards. It either is valid scientifically, or it isn't.
  13. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    Whatever, Kav.
  14. Cloverleaf

    Cloverleaf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +42
    Spoken like a true scientist.

    Archimedes jumps out the bath, shouting "Whatever !"

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

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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!
  16. Cloverleaf

    Cloverleaf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +42
    Correction.

    Deceived AND deluded :laugh:
  17. instigator

    instigator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +71
    Is this thread the interweb equivalent of Jehovah witness knocking at one's door?

    Do you get this in Britlandia?
  18. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    To me it feels more like Wicker Man.
  19. Wild Weasel

    Wild Weasel Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    5,507
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +667
    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/
  20. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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.
  21. instigator

    instigator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +71
    Dude, are you being paid to post this crap?
  22. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,740
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,968
    Sanctimonious virgin rocks up, completely misreads what's going on and gets flamed? Your call.
  23. GasDad

    GasDad Remembered (1964-2012)

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,387
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +766
    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.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  24. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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.
    Good.
    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.
  25. GasDad

    GasDad Remembered (1964-2012)

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,387
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +766
    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.


    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.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  26. instigator

    instigator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +71
  27. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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.
  28. MikeTV

    MikeTV Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,734
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +835
    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.
  29. instigator

    instigator Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +71
    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
  30. GasDad

    GasDad Remembered (1964-2012)

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,387
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +766
    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.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2012

Share This Page