When They Tell You The Science Is In, It Never Is

[Aloysius]

Speaking of anecdotal:

 

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/290720...rung-later

 

 

We are besieged by pseudo scientific anecdotal evidence continually.

 

It's in the detail - changes over 100 years are magnified into fact.

 

yep I agree Mello - Anecdotal doesn't cut it 

 

As for less scientific evidence - well how about this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11763...mists.html

 

Two events last week brought yet further twists to one of the longest-running farces of our modern world. One was the revelation by the European Space Agency that in 2013 and 2014, after years when the volume of Arctic ice had been diminishing, it increased again by as much as 33 per cent. The other was that Canadian scientists studying the effect of climate change on Arctic ice from an icebreaker had to suspend their research, when their vessel was called to the aid of other ships trapped in the thickest summer ice seen in Hudson Bay for 20 years.

 

 

Or maybe this:

 

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/...news/62032

The Antarctic is something of an anomaly in climate science. Unlike the Arctic, where the extent of summer sea ice has shrunk severely in recent years, the Antarctic has seen an average annual growth in sea ice of some 15,000 square km. And unlike its northern counterpart, for which a fall in sea ice has been largely consistent with climate-model predictions, the Antarctic’s behaviour has confounded climate modellers who have attempted to explain it.

 

The point here is that some are able to cite the warming Arctic but neglect to cite the cooling antarctic 

 

Is global warming a myth - should it be called "Northern Hemisphere warming" do they have more thermometers up there?

[Aloysius]

I can support much of that however please do not think for a moment that we will not pay to use every harebrained anti warming idea.

 

Just like everything there are major vested interests very eager to pick the taxpayers $$ regardless of the effectiveness or even need for their grand schemes.

 

As for too late - well on the basis that it's been a lot hotter and a lot colder in the past the "too late fear" looks a tad like gratuitous scaremongering.

 

Minimising risk is an excellent thing to do - it is often very good value.

 

The basic thrust of technology has always been to minimise cost and in doing that minimise risk.

 

More efficient diesel motors for long haul transportation are also less polluting.

Automatic switching to minimise electrical energy use is the same.

 

These are more than anything market driven developments.

 

I guess you can be pessimistic or optimistic about these things.

[Aloysius]

Who you talking to pete?

[Aloysius]

denier  is a unit for measuring fibre thickness I think - how very apt in this case!

 

denier¹

<div style="font-size:large;">ˈdɛnɪə/

<div><i>noun</i>
 
<ol class="">[*]

<div>1.

<div>
<div>a unit of weight by which the fineness of silk, rayon, or nylon yarn is measured, equal to the weight in grams of 9,000 metres of the yarn and often used to describe the thickness of hosiery.
"15-denier stockings"
</div>
</div>
</div>

</ol></div>
</div>

[JSmith]

Non-believer?

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Hi JS!!

 

 

Non believer is a real term - unfortunately it is frequently used in a critical manner.

 

Believe is not science - it's religion.

 

This is plainly true in theses environmental issues.

 

Global warming devotees are believers who claim the science is in - but apparently only the science that confirms their belief is "believed"

[Aloysius]

Meanwhile the place you live is experiencing it's coldest snap in 26 years.



Have you noticed this?

[JSmith]

Have you noticed this?

 

Yeah... it's called climate change, remember.

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Oh gosh what was called global warming morphed into climate change.

 

Why?

 

Because the warming theory became untenable.

 

Adopting "Climate change" as the new appellation was both smart and stupid at the same time.

 

Smart because clearly climate changes it is like all living things -continuous change.

Stupid because any thinking person understand that this new notion is in fact as old as the world itself.

 

But what a marvelous methodology it is for confusing people !

 

When mello raises heatwaves in the middle east as indicative of global warming that's OK

 

When Aloysius raises a cold wave in Sydney that's deemed  iŕrelevant because "we are talking about Climate change"

 

 

Bit of a problem here!

[Aloysius]

As long as the earth has existed there has been climate change. 99.9% of the time there have no humans at all.

 

Please be aware of this!

[JSmith]

As long as the earth has existed there has been climate change.

 

Yep... but this time it's human induced since the industrial revolution.

 

Even the Pope agrees Aloysius...

 

In fact a court in the Netherlands just decided climate science was not to be ignored by Government;

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-24/du...ns/6571328

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Heh heh heh you make my point for me!!!

 

So anyway just to help you guys out:

 

You know what the climate was like in ages past by the record in the rock this goes back millions of years.  Not 150 years of human recording.

 

It's all here if you want investigate it.

 

Great forests of 100 m existed in central queensland imagine how much co2 would have driven that.

 

We have had many ice ages and  many hot ages, its all quite normal!

 

 

What is different now? We are neither hot or cold.

 

All the we can say without any spin is that there was a short global warming phase until about 15 years go and then it stopped.

 

If we accept that fact then all talk of humans being the problem just becomes suspect.

 

That the Pope believes this or that has little relevance  to me in this regard!

[JSmith]

Aloy... do you recycle?

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Aloysius believes that a great deal of verified science is being ignored by the current projections, many of which have demonstrably been found wanting.

 

He does recycle, he believes that we have an obligation to be good stewards of the world we live in.

 

Less waste and improvement continue to drive humankind - that's a good thing.

 

He believes that nuclear energy is clean energy.

 

He believes that mere acceptance of popular theory is lazy.

 

Beware politicians who use popular fear to maximize their popularity.

 

He believes that those who believe the current theories are caring people, deserving of respect for their care if not for their beliefs.

[JSmith]

He believes that nuclear energy is clean energy.

 

I assume you mean the holy grail of energy, fusion... not fission?

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/02/fusion-power-not-yet/

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

Obviously, fusion will be better than fission, but fission is cleaner than most bulk generation sources too.


We don't have practical fusion yet but we do have relatively clean fission.

[JSmith]

... clean fission.

 

Ah no...

 

https://theconversation.com/baseload-pow...work-13210

 

"The future of civilisation and much biodiversity hangs to a large degree on whether we can replace fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – with clean, safe and affordable energy within several decades. The good news is that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures have advanced with extraordinary speed over the past decade."

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

That's a mighty big and unsubstantiated claim Smithy!

[JSmith]

That's a mighty big and unsubstantiated claim Smithy!

 

:pacman:

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

 

JSmith 

[Aloysius]

"Stanford's Mark Jacobson and UC Davis' Mark Delucchi (J&D) published a study in 2010 in the journal Energy Policy examining the possibility of meeting all global energy needs with wind, water, and solar (WWS) power.  They find that it would be plausible to produce all new energy from WWS in 2030, and replace all pre-existing energy with WWS by 2050."

 

 

 

Oh yeah it's plausible that we will be shivering in another ice age too.

 

 

Possible as opposed to impossible yeah I can see that!

 

 

 

 plausible


<div style="font-size:large;">ˈplɔːzɪb(ə)l/

<div><i>adjective</i>
 
<ol class="">[*]

<div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div style=";">
<div>(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"


synonyms:

credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable,possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility,convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable,thinkable; <span style="color:rgb(17,34,204);">More</span>
<div>
<div>
<div> 
 

<div> 
</div>
</div>
</div>

</div>


 

 

</div>

• <li>
  <div style="font-size:xx-small;margin-left:25px;">
  <div style="font-sizemall;">
  <div>(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.
  "a plausible liar"
  </div>
  </div>
  
  

</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol></div>
</div>