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

London Climate Protests

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    On the other hand quite a few posters here are just regurgitating what has been presented on mainstream shows by the likes of Brian Cox and theconsensusproject.com so it isn't like much in the way of original thought anyhow.

    I for one if still around will be fascinated to look back in 30-40 years time see how it all turned out.
     
  2. i-bert

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 18, 2003

    Posts: 3,110

    Looking at what that asteroid did to us 12,000 years ago, maybe we should put a bit more funding into stopping that from happening again.
     
  3. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,934

    What does "original thought" have to do with this? This isn't an exercise in creativity or something that requires everyone to go away and independently train as physicists, meteorologists, climate scientists etc... It simply requires understanding the arguments/issue at hand and (in the context of a thread like this) being able to defend the position/engage in debate.

    If someone is incapable of answering questions about the statements/claims they've made and then just resorts to googling for whatever random charts/images they can find then it becomes quite clear that they're full of ****. They've started from the conspiraloon position of "zomg MSM are lying to us, there are agendas here etc..." and then seem to be cherry picking whatever they can in order to try and support (badly) the conclusion they had already chosen in advance.
     
  4. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    Some won't even actually engage in debate, can only see things from one perspective as if that is the only perspective and just repeat the most accepted line as if it is the only valid thinking even going as far as belittling anyone with different thinking.

    For instance something that makes me very cautious as to the official line on climate change is that so much of the thinking is based on forecasts and models by the NOAA, which many other models and observations are referenced against - who have a track record of getting general trends right but being quite wide of the mark for specifics and ranges - I'm not actually being critical of the NOAA as such for that as they are trying to modelling and observe some incredibly complex systems but the way any criticism is handled leaves a lot to be desired - often when I bring things like that up people jump straight to I must be a climate change denier and incapable of seeing any other position on it and/or are adamant that the most accepted vision of climate change absolutely must be the right one.

    Problem is there are those who have already decided someone is full of **** the moment anything they say is contrary to the most mainstream accepted version - and maybe and quite often they are to be frank but sometimes there is more than one valid perspective on a topic like this.

    I think it is important to keep an open mind and not be afraid to change our position and that includes people who have a very "alternative" perspective on climate change - especially it is very easy to fall foul of confirmation bias in this topic if you aren't very careful in researching the background of any source of fact or opinion.
     
  5. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,934

    What criticism are you referring to - it might be more instructive if you actually cite the post?

    Keeping an open mind is what scientists tend to do though! It is generally a self correcting process and most researchers would be incredibly happy if they could find or publish something that was groundbreaking or that demonstrated that previous understanding of some area was flawed.
     
  6. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    It was a general observation - I don't want to get too caught up in specifics as there isn't a cut and dry case as such.

    Ideally yes - sadly, probably due to human nature, it doesn't really work like that.
     
  7. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,934

    But that is the issue with what I've seen over the past few pages - some "skeptics" who seemingly can't lay out what it is exactly they're skeptical of other than to make vague criticisms, ignore questions and seemingly just google for whatever vague images/charts they can find that seem to be sort of in line with the vague position they've taken. It just becomes irrelevant/silly.

    It isn't perfect but it is self correcting and evidence based so in the end it does actually work like that in spite of human nature.
     
  8. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    Sometimes it takes a very long time to work like that though - so many scientist in the past who've been ignored, belittled or faced persecution, etc. due to having an unpopular or controversial theory, especially one that goes against mainstream thinking or a "great" in the field that have turned out to be right in the long run sometimes not getting the respect or recognition they deserved in their lifetime - and it isn't just something that happened in the early days of science. So I'm generally very cautious.
     
  9. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,166

    Location: London

    Yes, but it should be pointed out that the majority of those scientists who were persecuted, belittled or ignored tended to be going up against religious authorities (particularly historically, but it still happens now), governments and powerful business lobbies with vested interests. And yes, sometimes against the mainstream science, but mostly where the mainstream were in the pockets of the aforementioned.

    Wind the clock back only a couple of decades and the climate change scientists were the ones in this position, it's taken a LOT of research and persuasion to win people round to their view. So, now they are finally making some ground and getting some governments, businesses and the public to listen and take some action, I find it a bit dubious that here we are being told we need to question them again. I would suggest your caution and suspicion would be better turned towards investigating who is funding and supporting the denial lobby and what THEIR true agenda is.
     
  10. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    It is actually kind of interesting who is behind some of the funding - for instance Qatar despite their oil is deeply behind a lot of climate change research funding - whether that is because places like that will be amongst the first to feel the impact of runaway climate change and they want to get ahead of the game or whether there is an insidious side to it of controlling the narrative is debatable. There is no doubt a good deal of agenda involved on both sides of the fence.

    It doesn't really take much investigating in most cases to find out who is behind the denial lobbies.
     
  11. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,934

    We're not living in the Middle Ages here a strong claim simply requires strong evidence.

    It isn't clear exactly what you're objecting to here in the first place?
     
  12. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    It would be naive to write it off as something that just happened in the Middle Ages (aside from which some of the worst occurred in the 17-19th century - prior to that it was more often religious persecution though there is always Galileo).
     
  13. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 38,934

    I didn’t.

    You’ve ignored my second question though. I don’t think there is much to be achieved here with regards to vague arguments about the history of science. The bit you’ve ignored is perhaps more relevant to the thread.

    I mean you seem to have objected to some criticism in this thread but you won’t cite what you’re referring to and you seem to be expressing some skepticism of the subject but are seemingly unwilling to articulate what exactly you’re taking issue with.

    There isn’t much point in carrying on for several more posts with some vague point about some scientists going against consensus in the past... I mean that’s just part of how progress is made, the current body of scientific knowledge is continually updated and subject to criticism.
     
  14. Vexr

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 15, 2018

    Posts: 801

    I've been dealing with the aftermath of a car crash, but I'll sling this site in the mix (it seems to archive from alternative media of varying quality)

    https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo.htm

    Interesting articles going purely by headlines (I do not claim to have read these):

    100 Reasons Why Global Warming Is Natural
    300 Scientists Want NOAA to Stop Hiding its Global Warming Data
    A $14 Trillion Extortion for A Global Warming Scam
    A Lot of Hot Wind - "Global Warming"
    A 'Mini Ice Age' is Coming in the Next 15 Years
    An Indication of Intentional Efforts to Cause Global Warming and Glacier Melting
    Antarctica is Growing, Not Shrinking - NASA Shock Study
    Antarctic Sea Ice hit 35-year Record High 2017
    Antarctic Sea Ice hits New Record High - 2.1 Million Square Miles More than is Usual for Time of Year
    Are We Playing God with Earth? - Scientist Admits he is 'Terrified' of the Technology Being Developed to...
    A Sensitive Matter - How the IPCC buried Evidence showing Good News about Global Warming
    Asymmetric Solar Maximum Suggests Sun Headed for Hibernation - Possible Ice Age
    Australia PM Advisor says Climate Change a United Nations' Led Ruse

    That's their section covering articles beginning with a number or the letter A on the subject of climate change/global warming. I'll have to leave someone else to pick through it and the rest of the alphabet.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
  15. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,843

    This is quite a lot of c**p to be honest. Our cities with their existence alone warm the surroundings because of the concrete, asphalt, etc. Also, we use energy to heat our apartments and houses, and that obviously warms the atmosphere further.
    So many d*** lies! :eek:
     
  16. Vexr

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 15, 2018

    Posts: 801

    Sod asphalt and general claims of 'f**king lies'. Get in there and dispute, I suspect there's more than a few sacred cows slashed in the articles (in English) whose remains you can pick over.
     
  17. Amp34

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jul 25, 2005

    Posts: 28,585

    Location: Canada

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1



    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ting-in-past-140-years?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Well, there goes the argument that it’s volcanoes and other natural events accounting for all the warming.
     
  18. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 62,113

    Not entirely convinced by some of the stuff in the article mind you:

    "Those arguments have always suffered a key physical flaw, namely that cycles are cyclical" - generally true but not all of the cycles put forward as potential influences have cycles where the full range of oscillation fits within the time period attributed to man made global warming.

    And like many other studies they seem to have failed to take into account that small natural influences even when they ebb and flow can work as force multipliers rather than simply an additive effect.

    "This has resulted in a bias, inflating estimated surface temperatures in the early-to-mid 1940s. The new study removed this bias by focusing on temperatures along continental and island coastlines."

    Yet we can see from glacial studies measurements from the 1940s they refer to weren't particularly out overall.

    The only thing I would say if they seem to have amongst other things worked in more data in from the Met, etc. which generally seems to be more accurate than the NOAA data that underpins a lot of climate studies which is probably why they've improved on the understanding of many areas.

    I still stand unconvinced (in either direction) and on the fence.
     
  19. Jase

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 19, 2002

    Posts: 4,556

    Location: Pembrokeshire

  20. Rilot

    Don

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 19,426

    Location: Wargrave, UK

    Hmm, if they do that then I can see it being the end of private drone use in the UK.