So this is what passes for news these days? Global warming content

Chalky

Politics is only for literate folks who hold agreeable views? How Victorian!

Drew_TNBD

Chalky said:

Politics is only for literate folks who hold agreeable views? How Victorian!

Nope. Disagreement is admirable. Being absolutely pigshit thick and ignorant is not.

As much as you can't hold your victim complex in check, you must surely realise that you're approaching the whole topic from a completely ignorant perspective? At least admit that.

Post some evidence to support your viewpoint. Until then, you're nothing more than a spastic half dead gnat on the windshield we call life.

UnclePsychosis

Jock68 said:

they do not allow anyone on air who denies Climate change exists, this keeps the lie alive.

This is just a complete and utter fabrication that is completely at odds with reality. 

Climate change deniers get far more airtime and publicity than they should be entitled to under any kind of rational framing of the debate. They represent a 3% view. Instead of being relegated to the ranks of the flat earthers and the moon conspiracy theorists where all the current evidence says they should be they've somehow managed to inveigle their way onto our screens on a regular basis all in the name of some misguided sense of "fairness". 

If climate science was treated like politics, then giving the deniers primetime slots is a bit like inviting the Socialist Workers Party or the Wessex Regionalists Party to the leader's debate. 

UnclePsychosis

Brian Cox puts this very well (emphasis mine). By all means disagree on policy, but anyone who disagrees with what the science is saying is an idiot. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/03/brian-cox-scientists-climate-change

"Cox told the Guardian that climate sceptics had exploited the misconception that there was doubt about climate change in order to push a political agenda. “It can be a way in for people who have an agenda that’s not scientific.

“You’re allowed to say, well I think we should do nothing. That’s a policy choice. But what you’re not allowed to do is to claim there’s a better estimate of the way that the climate will change, other than the one that comes out of the computer models. It’s nonsensical to say ‘we know better’, you can’t know better.”

He said the strategy of challenging the science of climate change was dangerous because it promoted the idea that science was political and up for debate. This weakens the position of science as a reliable basis for deciding how to respond to the world, he said.

“I always regret it when knowledge becomes controversial. It’s clearly a bad thing, for knowledge to be controversial. We can trace back through history the times when knowledge was considered to be controversial. And that’s what we are actually saying when we talk about climate change. We’re saying that there’s something inherently problematic with knowledge.

“Don’t undermine the science just because you don’t like the economics. That’s a dangerous slope, because the problem of course is you’re not undermining just that, you’re undermining the basis of rational decision-making in society.”

Drew_TNBD

Climate change deniers are the same as abortion prohibitionists and homophobic religionazi's.

hugbot

Antivaxers use pretty much the same lines of argument.

Drew_TNBD

Delusional people that are running on the fumes of feelsies. Same as feminists, sjw's, tumblr babezz, anti-GMO vegan hippy tossers, etc... etc...

They're all different flavours of irrationality, and should be rightly taken the piss out of.

Chalky

And according to Brian above, people withour scientific agendas should not be allowed "in". Does that make him a science-Nazi? )

Chalky

Brian says "“I always regret it when knowledge becomes controversial. It’s clearly a bad thing, for knowledge to be controversial."

So when those professionals who treat for example, mental health issues, there can be no controversy over the use of drug versus non-drug therapies? Surely out of controversy comes debate, investigation and improvement?

hungrymark

Chalky;894598" said:

That's a novel view @UnclePsychosis. 97%% of a category of people think that something is fact, and that validates it as fact? When exactly did fact become democratic?

"97% of Climate scientists" believe something. I note you used the word Climate as the categoric. As @heartfeltdawn alluded, other catergories would give you similar meaningless results - 97% of cancer doctors would say cancer requires more funding, 97% of Financial Directors would argue that CEOs should be qualified accountants, 97% of marine biologists would say something about the cleanup of coastal waters, 97% of any group of professionals would claim their advice must be listened to if the world is going to improve.

Back in the 70s, 97% of climate scientists believed we were heading into an ice age and many were convinced that we would be able to not only predict the weather for weeks in advance but also start to control it within this century. Utter bollocks. Were they wrong? Or are we going to slide into the age old cliche - "Well we didnt have the evidence we do now". Study the history of science and you'll see they never get it wrong. Somehow, unique among the human race, scientists are always right. Arrogance is their natural state of mind.

Scientists get it wrong all the time, and admit to it. If they didn't we wouldn't have anywhere near the advancements that we do today. I know you say you've studied the history of science but did you really? It's just a strange statement to make if you know anything about the subject, no offence.

Chalky

@hungrymark - I was being sarcastic and flippant in saying they never get it wrong. Of course they do. And they then often get it right. But when they get it wrong its usually phrased oddly by the later scientists, with the emphasis on inaccuracy or unavailability of evidence as the sole cause leading to the wrong conclusions. As if the science is a simple computation, not an interpretation of evidence borne of judgement.

The rule appears to be: When our new scientific conclusions are accepted by our peers, we are brilliant scientists! Kudos and science prizes to us! When subsequent experience shows those conclusions to be inaccurate, its the fault of the evidence we had, not us!

Heads we win, tails we don't lose.

I don't mind when this stays in the realm of the intelligentsia, but when you form policies based on that science thats going to cost billions of government spending (diverted from other worthy spending areas) and affect billions of lives (predominantly the poorer and weaker populations) then the "evidence was wrong" excuse looks wholly inadequate.

hugbot

One of the points on the table at the Paris talks were that tackling climate change would involve funnelling more funds to developing countries to develop greener infastructure. Not dealing with it otoh would mean they'll be the first to suffer crop failures and the like while we in the western world remain relatively fine. Your argument that tackling climate change is screwing with the poor is the opposite of the truth.

hugbot

Also, you're preoccupied with anthromophisizing science and the idea of scientists being 'arrogant'. Scientists "talk oddly" when discussing inaccuracies by past scientists? What does that have to do with anything? It's not even true in any case. Scientists like pointing out how their peers screwed up as much as anyone else does.

ICBM

Chalky said:

I don't mind when this stays in the realm of the intelligentsia, but when you form policies based on that science thats going to cost billions of government spending (diverted from other worthy spending areas) and affect billions of lives (predominantly the poorer and weaker populations) then the "evidence was wrong" excuse looks wholly inadequate.

The point is that reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing even if global warming isn't anything to do with human activity, or even isn't occurring at all. In the long run renewables and nuclear are cheaper as well as cleaner and more efficient, so it's a good thing to do regardless. The problem is bringing the new technologies on stream fast enough, and breaking the power of the vested interests that control the oil industry who obviously don't want change.

In the long run oil is a far more valuable resource as a raw material than as a fuel anyway, and if we burn it all it will be like what happened to the Central American mahogany and other now-prized hardwoods that went into steam engine fireboxes in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Sibelius

Jock68 said:

Sibelius said:

Jock68 said:

UnclePsychosis said:

People are fucking weird.

If 97% of the world's doctors told you if you didn't change your diet you were going to die you'd do something about it pretty damn quick.

97% of the world's climate scientists tell you that if you don't change your ways the whole human race could die and people bury their head in the sand and invent utter bullshit reasons not to believe it.

The amount of people who are proud to display their own scientific illiteracy when it comes to this topic is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed to see it. No one would ever be happy to admit to being unable to read or write, but are seemingly quite happy to shout loudly about their utter ignorance when it comes to science. Most bizarre.

So will next year be an amazing hot summer full of sun and a mild winter to follow, how many scientists does it take to answer this one ? Less than 97% I would guess.

Climate isn't weather

Sorry Sibelius, Climate is all about Weather, if you look up any definition it mentions weather.  That is why we are being told that more storms, more hurricanes more flooding will happen... When they do not know, where they do not know, but they do know it is going to happen.   This is beginning to be like the BBC, they do not allow anyone on air who denies Climate change exists, this keeps the lie alive.

The change in global climate affect the weather patterns. Can u not comprehend that?

Chalky

Not sure what you mean by me anthropomorphising science. But I admire your belief that in a world of austerity measures, falling markets and rising interest rates, the rich will be "funneling more funds" to the poor. This I gotta see.

hugbot

I mean this

"The rule appears to be: When our new scientific conclusions are accepted by our peers, we are brilliant scientists! Kudos and science prizes to us! When subsequent experience shows those conclusions to be inaccurate, its the fault of the evidence we had, not us!"

Its not an argument that has any relevance to whether the work is valid or not, its just you complaining that scientists apparently see themselves as "brilliant". Its like deflecting an argument about law to complain that lawyers are all smug dickheads or something, its irrelevent to the question.

"Not sure what you mean by me anthropomorphising science. But I admire your belief that in a world of austerity measures, falling markets and rising interest rates, the rich will be "funneling more funds" to the poor. This I gotta see."

Whether or not the countries involved will do it is another question, but thats what the prescription is to address the problem. 

UnclePsychosis

@hugbot

You're wasting your time.

Those who have arrived at a position without using any logic to get there will not be swayed from it by appealing to logic. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. 

Chalky

Ah @UnclePsychosis. My OU course had an interesting conclusion - science is a belief system, effectively a religion. Do you agree?

@hugbot - Science is done by people. How they conduct themselves, their organisation and contextual relationships to both near and far collaborators and antagonists, all contributes to what science is and how it is viewed by society. Its the same for artists, education professionals, the military, etc.

UnclePsychosis

Chalky said:

Ah @UnclePsychosis. My OU course had an interesting conclusion - science is a belief system, effectively a religion. Do you agree?

No.