Global Warming

[Liverpool]

You have used the word "arrogant" to describe the idea that we could understand such a complex system. IMO it is the height of arrogance to suggest that you know better than professionals who have spent their lives on this research. Finally, you are aware that science isn't conducted in documentaries and news reports? The actual science is found in the peer-reviewed literature and is discussed at scientific conferences. Not all science journalists are created equal .

The difference in the scale is ridiculous. The idea that the vested interests of the scientists means that they fabricate (?) data or interpret in a certain way doesn't carry any weight for someone who knows the process. The flaws would be pointed out very quickly due to the competitive nature of the process. That is, unless you believe there is global conspiracy of climate scientists :hihi.

Panthera,
All I have stated is my opinion to the theories that I have read/seen from both sides of the divide.
I am not saying I know more than scientists and have never claimed that.
However, my opinion is not better or worse than you or Tigersnake having an opinion based on what you have read/seen and then deciphered to form a belief.
Our opinions are just different, thats all.

As for scientists having vested interests...well, Tigersnake seems to believe that scientists who either don't believe global warming exists at all or who believe global warming is caused by other means other than man, do have vested interests.
I think Antman (apologies if I accuse the wrong poster here) claimed they were 'crackpots'.
All very well.
But you cannot turn around and tell me that scientists from the AGW believers group also do not have some vested interests? That they are pure and clean and all above board?
I've said many times...if we are going to accuse some scientists of either working for corporations or skewing data to suit an agenda, you have to do it across the board...you can't just say that any scientist who doesn't believe in the theory I believe is just a crackpot and has a vested interest.

 

[AngryAnt]

Going by this logic, out of the 300-odd papers Einstein produced, how many were peer-reviewed?
ONE.
Even his famous theory of relativity in 1905 was not peer-reviewed.

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

Lucky Einstein was not around in the time of Tigersnake or he'd be classed as a crackpot with vested interests and his theories not worth the paper they're written on because they're not peer-reviewed.

Peer review occurs both before and after publication Liverdud. In any case, rigorous peer review for any scientific journal didn't really start til around the 1930s when the Physics Review rejected this particular paper. And they were correct to do so as based on their feedback Einstein revised his theories and submitted it again, this time successfully, to another journal.

Get the full story here dude. http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

Einstein also happily conceded later in his career that he had been wrong and written incorrect papers many times - and he was happy to be corrected by his peers. This is the nature of science.

Einstein won a Nobel Prize without being peer-reviewed, so peer-review obviously isn't a condition of excellence when it comes to science is it?

Fail. The Nobel Prize is itself a peer-reviewed prize. D'oh.

 

[Liverpool]

muddying the waters, second and third rate science. All those examples there have been picked apart previously. I specifically remember the 'gold standard' line. Sorry to be a smart arse but fair dinkum, its crackpot sh!t.

The peer review process is brutal, absolutely brutal. The 'opinion' and 'blog' processes on the other hand....

Whats crackpot about it???

Peer-review process is not the be all of science...Einstein proved that.

 

[AngryAnt]

Whats crackpot about it???

Peer-review process is not the be all of science...Einstein proved that.

All of Einstein's ideas and theories have been comprehensively peer-reviewed, challenged, modified and deconstructed by the global community of physicists, mathematicians, astronomers over the past 80 years. They have been built on or discarded. Einstein rejected quantum physics for most of his career - the empirical evidence and stronger theoretical position largely supports the quantum mechanics model of physics.

Of course, my understanding of the scientific method and the history and philosophy of science is just an "opinion", and your opinion based on a faulty reading of a blog piece is "equally valid".

 

[Liverpool]

Peer review occurs both before and after publication Liverdud. In any case, rigorous peer review for any scientific journal didn't really start til around the 1930s when the Physics Review rejected this particular paper. And they were correct to do so as based on their feedback Einstein revised his theories and submitted it again, this time successfully, to another journal.

Get the full story here dude. http://physicstoday.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_9/43_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

Einstein also happily conceded later in his career that he had been wrong and written incorrect papers many times - and he was happy to be corrected by his peers. This is the nature of science.

Fail. The Nobel Prize is itself a peer-reviewed prize. D'oh.

Exactly my point Antman!
The peer-review process isn't the be all of science.
Many of his theories were not wrong because he wasn't peer-reviewed and if he was, I am not sure if he was that "happy to be corrected" as you claim:

The Einstein-Rosen paper was sent out for review, and came back with a (correct, as it turned out) negative report. Einstein’s indignant reply to the editor is amusing to modern scientific sensibilities, and suggests someone quite unfamiliar with peer review:


Dear Sir,

We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the in any case erroneous comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.

Respectfully,

P.S. Mr. Rosen, who has left for the Soviet Union, has authorized me to represent him in this matter.

Anyways...off for now...have a good night all! 8-

 

[Azza]

Anyways...off for now...have a good night all! 8-

Still hanging around Livers?

It's very interesting following your arguments. Tracing the bits and pieces of information you provide back to their sources says a lot about the forces driving the anti-AGW argument. You should apply to the Heartland Institute for a retainer!

I do find it interesting that a couple of Australians foremost anti-AGW scientistrs are geologists (Ian Plimer and Bob Carter). Carter is very dodgy, but Plimer is far from it. I'll have to read his book. But it does strike me that geologists can have a temporal frame of reference that tends to divorce them from processes acting at timescales that impact on humans. I used to work on describing landscape change at the 10's of millions of years timescale, and while the work was valid (yes it was published in peer reviewed journals) it's 'reality' was quite different to that of processes at the more human hundred or even hundred thousand year timescale.

 

[AngryAnt]

Exactly my point Antman!

You have a point?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Given that the carbon tax is based on the premise that the cost of carbon-based energy needs to be increased make the more expensive, cleaner forms of energy more competitive, I don’t think my holding that assumption is a questionable position.

Are you suggesting that the carbon tax is unnecessary?

Nope. I just think it has been high-jacked or poorly sold. I don't agree with the framing of the carbon tax as an impost on polluting processes to make cleaner ones seem more attractive or more competitive. I see it more as a fast forward. The energy sector has the technology to be cleaner now. But it will not reduce it's dependence on old dirty processes without a push. Industry's time-table for change is too slow when left to it's own devices. It requires a shove. The carbon tax is that shove IMO.

aside: We are like a smoker who knows it is bad for him but keeps saying, I'll quit next week. The Victorian Government has a 10 pack-a-day Hazelwood habit. (And an irrational fear of wind turbines) Just like the smoker, things will only get better if we quit.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Whats crackpot about it???

Peer-review process is not the be all of science...Einstein proved that.

As has been pointed out, Einstein's work has undergone rigorous peer-review. His work improved and refined Newton and provided some of the fundamental theories that govern the 'macro' world. They weren't accepted without rigorous empirical testing.

My point is that you have such a vocal and strong opinion on a field that you have only a very vague knowledge of. It is almost a Dunning-Kruger effect.

Science. You're doing it wrong.

 

[mld]

Nope. I just think it has been high-jacked or poorly sold. I don't agree with the framing of the carbon tax as an impost on polluting processes to make cleaner ones seem more attractive or more competitive. I see it more as a fast forward. The energy sector has the technology to be cleaner now. But it will not reduce it's dependence on old dirty processes without a push. Industry's time-table for change is too slow when left to it's own devices. It requires a shove. The carbon tax is that shove IMO.

aside: We are like a smoker who knows it is bad for him but keeps saying, I'll quit next week. The Victorian Government has a 10 pack-a-day Hazelwood habit. (And an irrational fear of wind turbines) Just like the smoker, things will only get better if we quit.

We will just have to agree to disagree I guess, I have not seen any convincing argument for exactly how renewables, to the extent of replacing baseload coal power, will reduce in cost to such an extent, and I really think the onus is on the people making the claim to demonstrate it.

It will certainly be interesting to see how these predictions pan out.

 

[mld]

All that is beyond the point of my original interjection though. I'm not trying to change your mind, it was really just throwing out the idea that there might be more reasons for people not to share your opinion than just that they are stupid and/or evil.

 

[bullus_hit]

Very nice passionate tiger rant bullus. Tremendous, its got everything, very good concise grasp of all the issues from all the angles. Only thing I differ from you is that I'm a bit more optimistic about the future, but I fully appreciate the evidence in front of us backs your line, and I might just be being a little deluded on that.

One hope I do cling to, is that when (if) we do reach the tipping point and finally act in global terms, China's state run economy will be able to act very quickly. They will then be ahead of the game and then competitive forces will make the rest of the world fall into line. Its a long shot though.

I used to be an optimistic on the issue of the environment but not anymore, there's such a great disconnect between people and nature that I can't see the majority reigning in their consumption to preserve our fragile ecosystems. Everything and anything that can be sold on the open market is fair game, from endangered species, to rare minerals which lie beneath rainforests and other wildlife sanctuaries.

Goverments no longer care about the longterm, they care only about their next term in office, and they typically represent the big end of town whose primary objective is to add some fat to the balance sheet and fill their own coffers. Greed knows no bounds, Rinehart and her 29 billion dollars being a perfect case in point.

I'd love to think that China will come to the rescue but they are drunk on materialism like the rest of us. Unfortunately, when the proverbial hits the fan, it will be too late to reverse or even stem the bleeding. It will be case of adapt or perish, with some being better equipped than others. The power brokers of the world would like to think they can cocoon themselves from a changinging environment, but i would suggest that's just wishful thinking. History has an uncanny knack of evening the ledger when things become too skewed in one direction.

 

[poppa x]

On a different tack, I have a serious question.
Both BMW and Toyota are spending many millions developing engines powered by Hydrogen, which has zero emissions.
So my question is "is hydrogen (not nuclear based), a viable base load alternative energy source"?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

All that is beyond the point of my original interjection though. I'm not trying to change your mind, it was really just throwing out the idea that there might be more reasons for people not to share your opinion than just that they are stupid and/or evil.

Okay, but I will defend myself against the charge that I inferred anyone was stupid or evil. I'm sure there are stupid and/or evil people on this forum but I didn't point the finger at anyone.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I used to be an optimistic on the issue of the environment but not anymore, there's such a great disconnect between people and nature that I can't see the majority reigning in their consumption to preserve our fragile ecosystems. Everything and anything that can be sold on the open market is fair game, from endangered species, to rare minerals which lie beneath rainforests and other wildlife sanctuaries.

Goverments no longer care about the longterm, they care only about their next term in office, and they typically represent the big end of town whose primary objective is to add some fat to the balance sheet and fill their own coffers. Greed knows no bounds, Rinehart and her 29 billion dollars being a perfect case in point.

I'd love to think that China will come to the rescue but they are drunk on materialism like the rest of us. Unfortunately, when the proverbial hits the fan, it will be too late to reverse or even stem the bleeding. It will be case of adapt or perish, with some being better equipped than others. The power brokers of the world would like to think they can cocoon themselves from a changinging environment, but i would suggest that's just wishful thinking. History has an uncanny knack of evening the ledger when things become too skewed in one direction.

Unfortunately this might just back you up, "Rio Summit? More like the absolute nadir" from New Scientist on the gutless lack of action at recent environmental summits.

 

[Sintiger]

I used to be an optimistic on the issue of the environment but not anymore, there's such a great disconnect between people and nature that I can't see the majority reigning in their consumption to preserve our fragile ecosystems. Everything and anything that can be sold on the open market is fair game, from endangered species, to rare minerals which lie beneath rainforests and other wildlife sanctuaries.

Goverments no longer care about the longterm, they care only about their next term in office, and they typically represent the big end of town whose primary objective is to add some fat to the balance sheet and fill their own coffers. Greed knows no bounds, Rinehart and her 29 billion dollars being a perfect case in point.

I'd love to think that China will come to the rescue but they are drunk on materialism like the rest of us. Unfortunately, when the proverbial hits the fan, it will be too late to reverse or even stem the bleeding. It will be case of adapt or perish, with some being better equipped than others. The power brokers of the world would like to think they can cocoon themselves from a changinging environment, but i would suggest that's just wishful thinking. History has an uncanny knack of evening the ledger when things become too skewed in one direction.

You are sounding like a leftie socialist red bleeding heart "liberal" Bullus.

 

[Rosy]

Plant a tree everybody. We've planted enough in the last few years to cover at least one for every PREnder.

 

[bullus_hit]

You are sounding like a leftie socialist red bleeding heart "liberal" Bullus.

You forgot to mention that I sip lattes, hug trees and I'm a paid up member of the communist party. :hihi

But in all seriousness, we've been talking about climate change for 30 years and have done very little to address the problem. Year after year, the same BS is trotted out about non-binding action plans and technology driven reforms. The UN, the EU, ASEAN and all the other regional entities are useless at reaching agreement on just about any topic, let alone something that may impact on their precious economic growth model.

There was a recent article in The Economist which spoke about the great opportunities that await those planning for an iceless Antartica, this is just typical of how the debate has switched from solutions to wilful neglect. As for those countries hovering at or marginally above sea-level, it might be time to grab a canoe and start paddling (but don't come to Australia because we don't take too kindly to potential terrorists arriving in wooden vessels).

 

[Merveille]

Whats crackpot about it???

Peer-review process is not the be all of science...Einstein proved that.

Hi Liverpool. I had heard a little about your previous life on here from someone that was around at the time. I notice you are up against the 'group' on here again. You know you are wasting your time trying to argue against the 'gang' - people of the left tend to prefer to cluster, it gives them a feeling of strength.

I try to forgive this character flaw though, as I tend to think much of it stems from them having been bullied at some point themselves, or perhaps 'left out' or overlooked, so they gravitate to where they know the 'group' is close by, having like-minded people close-by gives them some security and assists with their 'group-think.'

I doubt very much any of these posters would spend time arguing 'one up' against a group of dissenters on a different forum, as you and Glardiasis do here at times. Let me say there would be many 'lurkers' that agree with you, have agreed with you, and admire your enrgy to debate and courage to stand against the 'gang' on here.

 

[MB78]

Don't expect a reply to this post today. The gang are having a Carbon Tax Party ;D