The Science & Skepticism Thread

Rapscallion said:
I think if you are looking at the money aspect, and conclude that the scientists are on the wealthy side of the discussion as opposed to the oil companies....

2 questions:-
Do you think the evidence shows there is global warming?
What evidence will lead you to believe that there is a significant human contribution to global warming?
Click to expand...


Re the money aspect. Just how much money is actually being spent proving & trying to stop climate change? Billions! Oh & who is paying for it?

As Phil alluded to, but it isn't the sole reserve of the oil industry. be it the tobacco industry, chemical industry, the church, the Greens, or any other wealthy group or individual you care to mention, all seem to be able to lobby quite successfully, (rightly or wrongly)

re the 2 questions;

I actually don't like the term `global warming`, it should just be Climate Change (which is what it is & always will be) I'm not even denying we're entering into a warmer period atm, whether that be for 20 yrs or 200 yrs no one knows. Crikey, 500 yrs in the history of the Earth isn't even the blink of an eye!
The Earth has been much warmer (and much colder) over the millennia & it will continue after we have gone. By definition climate is chaos.

I'm really not sure what `evidence` will convince me, because I'm not actually sure there is hard evidence, but I'm not blindly going to accept something without first trying to understand all points of view, especially when there is going to be an increasing financial burden on us + tighter controls on civil liberties. Certain scientists, news corps, even Govts, trying to stop debate is deeply worrying in itself, but also being a natural sceptic, makes me wonder why & actually makes me more cynical.
 
OldCarlos said:
Certain scientists, news corps, even Govts, trying to stop debate is deeply worrying in itself, but also being a natural sceptic, makes me wonder why & actually makes me more cynical.
Click to expand...
Nice summery (y)
(and not just the quoted bit)
 
OldCarlos said:
Re the money aspect. Just how much money is actually being spent proving & trying to stop climate change? Billions! Oh & who is paying for it?

As Phil alluded to, but it isn't the sole reserve of the oil industry. be it the tobacco industry, chemical industry, the church, the Greens, or any other wealthy group or individual you care to mention, all seem to be able to lobby quite successfully, (rightly or wrongly)

re the 2 questions;

I actually don't like the term `global warming`, it should just be Climate Change (which is what it is & always will be) I'm not even denying we're entering into a warmer period atm, whether that be for 20 yrs or 200 yrs no one knows. Crikey, 500 yrs in the history of the Earth isn't even the blink of an eye!
The Earth has been much warmer (and much colder) over the millennia & it will continue after we have gone. By definition climate is chaos.

I'm really not sure what `evidence` will convince me, because I'm not actually sure there is hard evidence, but I'm not blindly going to accept something without first trying to understand all points of view, especially when there is going to be an increasing financial burden on us + tighter controls on civil liberties. Certain scientists, news corps, even Govts, trying to stop debate is deeply worrying in itself, but also being a natural sceptic, makes me wonder why & actually makes me more cynical.
Click to expand...


What I don't understand about this is why you pick on climate scientists.
Do you have the same scepticism when considering nuclear physicists, marine biologists, astrophysicists, etc?

Why are they different from other disciplines? Have they not studied at university and gained their degrees/masters/PhDs to your satisfaction?
Are they more susceptible to corruption than other humans?
 
kendo1 said:
What I don't understand about this is why you pick on climate scientists.
Do you have the same scepticism when considering nuclear physicists, marine biologists, astrophysicists, etc?

Why are they different from other disciplines? Have they not studied at university and gained their degrees/masters/PhDs to your satisfaction?
Are they more susceptible to corruption than other humans?
Click to expand...

I'm not `picking` on climate scientists per say, but the idea that man has brought about climate change to the extent that is banded about & the religion that has come out of it + the idea that we can somehow reverse/greatly reduce it.

You mention marine biologists. There have been reports on the news of the Great Barrier Reef suffering because of the warming seas.
There are reefs further North that are actually slightly warmer, yet they aren't being negatively affected. In fact the opposite is true.
 
OldCarlos said:
I'm not `picking` on climate scientists per say, but the idea that man has brought about climate change to the extent that is banded about & the religion that has come out of it + the idea that we can somehow reverse/greatly reduce it.

You mention marine biologists. There have been reports on the news of the Great Barrier Reef suffering because of the warming seas.
There are reefs further North that are actually slightly warmer, yet they aren't being negatively affected. In fact the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

It's not a religion, nor a belief.

It's science.

So do you think that nuclear physicists understand their discipline?

You seem to think that climate scientists are different and not to be trusted.
 
All the talk/hype about CO2 being poisonous & detrimental somehow is massively overstated & in general is a result of warming seas, not the cause.

CO2 today is only around 0.05% of our atmosphere, but Earths early atmosphere was reckoned to have been mainly carbon dioxide with little or no oxygen at all.

It was plants & algae that used the CO2 & produced oxygen in the first place.

As the seas warm they produce vast algal blooms, which in turn continue the cycle.
 
OldCarlos said:
There are reefs further North that are actually slightly warmer, yet they aren't being negatively affected. In fact the opposite is true
Click to expand...

Mountkeen said:
Evidence please.
Click to expand...
Crown of thorns starfish are largely to blame, for the decimation of reefs, grazing on the corals, they themselves are cyclic ( approx 15 years)

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/crown-of-thorns-starfish


"This long-term program has shown that outbreaks have begun in the north and migrated southward over about a 15-year period, with ocean currents transporting larvae between reefs".
http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/biodiversity-ecology/threats/cots.html

So, if the currents are affected by global warning then you could claim that global warming is helping the northern ends of the reef, but also destroying the southern parts.
There have been four documented outbreaks on the Great Barrier Reef since the 1960s, with the latest starting in 2010.
But as this is a cyclic action, I'm sure that mother nature has been doing this for 1000's of years.
They (COTS) are not all bad though, by trimming the larger / faster growing corals, they are also helping to promote the growth of the smaller slower growing corals.
 
kendo1 said:
So do you think that nuclear physicists understand their discipline?
Click to expand...
kendo1 said:
You seem to think that climate scientists are different and not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Not to be trusted ? I wouldn't say that, still have a lot to learn and understand? certainly.
They are making "educated guesses" to fully understand the cyclic actions of mother nature they would need to travel back to the dawn of time, to gather and collate the required data.

From the web,
The history of nuclear physics as a discipline distinct from atomic physics starts with the discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel in 1896,[1] while investigating phosphorescence in uranium salts.[2] The discovery of the electron by J. J. Thomson[3] a year later was an indication that the atom had internal structure. At the beginning of the 20th century the accepted model of the atom was J. J. Thomson's"plum pudding" model in which the atom was a positively charged ball with smaller negatively charged electrons embedded inside it.
Nuclear physicists on the other hand have been around ""almost" within living memory.
 
Cobra said:
Crown of thorns starfish are largely to blame, for the decimation of reefs, grazing on the corals,
Click to expand...

I remember the chap I knew talking about them & how destructive they could be.
It was a few years ago now (maybe 10) that he said some areas recovered really quickly from bleaching, whilst others hadn't.
 
OldCarlos said:
that he said some areas recovered really quickly from bleaching, whilst others hadn't.
Click to expand...
A lot of it is down to stress, apparently, ie repeated attacks ( it can take 10-15 years to recover) before its recovered, water quality, pollutants being washed into the sea due to the tropical storms and the like.
 
OldCarlos said:
Re the money aspect. Just how much money is actually being spent proving & trying to stop climate change? Billions! Oh & who is paying for it?

As Phil alluded to, but it isn't the sole reserve of the oil industry. be it the tobacco industry, chemical industry, the church, the Greens, or any other wealthy group or individual you care to mention, all seem to be able to lobby quite successfully, (rightly or wrongly)

re the 2 questions;

I actually don't like the term `global warming`, it should just be Climate Change (which is what it is & always will be) I'm not even denying we're entering into a warmer period atm, whether that be for 20 yrs or 200 yrs no one knows. Crikey, 500 yrs in the history of the Earth isn't even the blink of an eye!
The Earth has been much warmer (and much colder) over the millennia & it will continue after we have gone. By definition climate is chaos.

I'm really not sure what `evidence` will convince me, because I'm not actually sure there is hard evidence, but I'm not blindly going to accept something without first trying to understand all points of view, especially when there is going to be an increasing financial burden on us + tighter controls on civil liberties. Certain scientists, news corps, even Govts, trying to stop debate is deeply worrying in itself, but also being a natural sceptic, makes me wonder why & actually makes me more cynical.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. Your opinion on the matter is not willing to be influenced or directed by evidence that may show climate change is influenced by humans, and you are happy quoting and accepting any evidence that backs up your (imho) biased view. It makes the debate you are pretending to have wholly meaningless. It is like discussing evolution with Christian fundamental, no matter how complete the evidence and scientific model, you cannot be converted from an apparently religious belief on human influence on climate change.
 
Rapscallion said:
And therein lies the problem. Your opinion on the matter is not willing to be influenced or directed by evidence that may show climate change is influenced by humans, and you are happy quoting and accepting any evidence that backs up your (imho) biased view. It makes the debate you are pretending to have wholly meaningless. It is like discussing evolution with Christian fundamental, no matter how complete the evidence and scientific model, you cannot be converted from an apparently religious belief on human influence on climate change.
Click to expand...

I (& others?) look at what's available & try to decipher & understand what is being put forward, but it isn't always easy when certain things don't always add up & it certainly isn't clear cut amongst all scientists either, but again money, power & control seem the main driving factors behind much of this.


I TRY to debate points for & against & can certainly see both sides, but imho things don't quite add up, so i'll reserve judgement on a major human influence.

World population issues are the greatest (peaceful) threat to our planet at present, but like most things, there won't be much money in that for politicians & businesses etc.
China's one child policy started to address things, but because they are now getting overly burdened with an elderly population, they need more young to pay/look after parents & G/parents.
 
Flipping warm here today - just needed dry roads and a bit of sun and I would have been up for burning some Shell Optimax for pure fun.....Summer is coming though, lets hope its a Scorchio! need some fun after reading all this climate doom.:D
 
LASTOLITE said:
Flipping warm here today - just needed dry roads and a bit of sun and I would have been up for burning some Shell Optimax for pure fun.....Summer is coming though, lets hope its a Scorchio! need some fun after reading all this climate doom.:D
Click to expand...

Amen to that. :cool:
 
The problem for climate scientists is that their discipline is not a causal science ( eg. if you make Variable A bigger then variable B will alter in proportion with it).
Climate science is based instead on seeking a correlation - between human activity and a average change in global temperature. They have the same problem as early health workers who could only show that there was a correlation between smoking and cancer but could not prove that it caused it. They had to wait until literally millions had died of cancer before they could show that the correlation with smoking was so strong ( note - NOT scientifically proved as it's just a correlation ) you really had to be off your rocker to deny it.
We will have to wait to see if the correlation that climate scientists claim is there & becomes so strong we can no longer deny it ( or conversely have the strong evidence to say it was all rubbish).
The problem is by the time the correlation is so strong it will be too late for most of humanity.
James
 
jbw said:
The problem is by the time the correlation is so strong it will be too late for most of humanity.
Click to expand...

That's presuming they are right.....or worse. :D

We'll all be dead before the Earth boils anyway. (or freeze in the next ice age ;) )
 
jbw said:
The problem for climate scientists is that their discipline is not a causal science ( eg. if you make Variable A bigger then variable B will alter in proportion with it).
Climate science is based instead on seeking a correlation - between human activity and a average change in global temperature. They have the same problem as early health workers who could only show that there was a correlation between smoking and cancer but could not prove that it caused it. They had to wait until literally millions had died of cancer before they could show that the correlation with smoking was so strong ( note - NOT scientifically proved as it's just a correlation ) you really had to be off your rocker to deny it.
Click to expand...
That's a really good analogy.
 
jbw said:
We will have to wait to see if the correlation that climate scientists claim is there & becomes so strong we can no longer deny it ( or conversely have the strong evidence to say it was all rubbish).
The problem is by the time the correlation is so strong it will be too late for most of humanity.
James
Click to expand...
OldCarlos said:
That's presuming they are right.....or worse. :D
Click to expand...
But James makes a good point. *If* the climate scientists have got it right, then it will take a long long time before people are convinced. Just as was the case with smoking diseases. Millions of people died quite unnecessarily prematurely because the link between smoking and fatal diseases was not believed, denied, suppressed, etc.
 
StewartR said:
But James makes a good point. *If* the climate scientists have got it right, then it will take a long long time before people are convinced.
Click to expand...

I was only having a joke btw ;) but even IF they are correct, what big difference can we make?

I'm genuinely interested to know if all the folk that seem to believe everything these Govt climate scientists & doom mongers say & if they have concerns about any mis information or dodgy figures and also the reasons why even questioning this new religion is becoming a no no?
 
OldCarlos said:
I was only having a joke btw ;) but even IF they are correct, what big difference can we make?

I'm genuinely interested to know if all the folk that seem to believe everything these Govt climate scientists & doom mongers say & if they have concerns about any mis information or dodgy figures and also the reasons why even questioning this new religion is becoming a no no?
Click to expand...
What are you possibly getting out of repeating that questioning it is a no-no?

From my simple PoV what I see is you zealously holding onto a belief with no actual evidence. There's not a month goes by without one of the media outlets on the right of the spectrum publishing a climate change denial article. Not to mention every single candidate for the republican leadership, Fox News manically pushing the agenda, etc. etc.

To suggest the debate is closed is a bit of a lazy point, but I'm sure me asking you to drop it in light of the above would be more evidence that it's not up for discussion ;)
 
Rapscallion said:
And therein lies the problem. Your opinion on the matter is not willing to be influenced or directed by evidence that may show climate change is influenced by humans, and you are happy quoting and accepting any evidence that backs up your (imho) biased view. It makes the debate you are pretending to have wholly meaningless. It is like discussing evolution with Christian fundamental, no matter how complete the evidence and scientific model, you cannot be converted from an apparently religious belief on human influence on climate change.
Click to expand...
For every argument there is a counter argument

jbw said:
They had to wait until literally millions had died of cancer before they could show that the correlation with smoking was so strong ( note - NOT scientifically proved as it's just a correlation ) you really had to be off your rocker to deny it.
Click to expand...
As above, there is also evidence that some people are genetically predisposed to various conditions and that includes cancer.
I'm sure we all know someone that has died of one form or another and has never smoked in their lives.

Conversely My mum is entering her 91st year, smoked since she was a young girl, ( because it was fashionable back then)
and is very fit and healthy, despite her age.
 
Interesting things, theories...... Aircraft only fly due to a theory, though Bernoulli's Theorem is often referred to nowadays as a principle now since no one has been able to disprove it. Saying that, Newton's Second Law can also be used to describe lift.
 
aliengrove said:
Aircraft only fly due to a theory,
Click to expand...
But its a theory that has been proved time and again with tangible evidence.
So does does that still make it a theory?
 
As far as global warming goes (and flight for that matter :) ) anyone who has ever looked out of an aircraft window while flying over China or India would imo have to be a complete moron to think that the world's climate could remain unaffected by humans.....

In Europe and North America we have managed to make a lot of our pollution invisible to the naked eye but it's still there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Cobra said:
But its a theory that has been proved time and again with tangible evidence.
So does does that still make it a theory?
Click to expand...

Like most theories, it fits observed facts, so remains a convenient explanation until someone comes up with a better idea
 
aliengrove said:
As far as global warming goes (and flight for that matter :) ) anyone who has ever looked out of an aircraft window while flying over China or India would imo have to be a complete moron to think that the world's climate could remain unaffected by humans.....

In Europe and North America we have managed to make a lot of our pollution invisible to the naked eye but it's still there.
Click to expand...
I don't think that anyone is disagreeing that China chucks pollutants into the air.

That will filter the amount of sunlight hitting the earth, so going on the, the earth should be cooling.
 
Yep that is true. If it wasn't for global dimming then global temperatures would be even higher. Global dimming has also caused huge changes in rainfall patterns worldwide, and is believed to have caused the drought that resulted in Live Aid. When the Chinese clean up their act (which they are spending a greater amount of their gdp on than any other country) then global warming will increase.

An interesting article on global dimming...
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-global-dimming.php
 
Cobra said:
For every argument there is a counter argument


As above, there is also evidence that some people are genetically predisposed to various conditions and that includes cancer.
I'm sure we all know someone that has died of one form or another and has never smoked in their lives.

Conversely My mum is entering her 91st year, smoked since she was a young girl, ( because it was fashionable back then)
and is very fit and healthy, despite her age.
Click to expand...
:LOL: I was waiting for the "uncle tommy smoked 40 capston full strength a day and lived to 105, while aunt edna never touched a fag and died of lung cancer in her 40s" ;)

The problem with deniers is they complain that the process of study for climate change is flawed but never produce any peer reviewed work to counter it. If its wrong, then produce your own stuff have it peer reviewed and if your proven to be right then previous studies would have to be amended. Its how the scientific community works.
 
Last edited:
aliengrove said:
As far as global warming goes (and flight for that matter :) ) anyone who has ever looked out of an aircraft window while flying over China or India would imo have to be a complete moron to think that the world's climate could remain unaffected by humans.....

In Europe and North America we have managed to make a lot of our pollution invisible to the naked eye but it's still there.
Click to expand...

The pollution you refer to isn't CO2 though.

I do totally agree though, we are abusing our planet, which will no doubt eventually be our downfall.
 
OldCarlos said:
Nor yours, I guess? Even though there is some evidence to suggest that figures are being manipulated to suit. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about someone neither of us know manipulating figures to suit an agenda though, I'm talking about you continually repeating something you know to be untrue (that the debate is closed and discussing it is a no-no) . ;)
 
OldCarlos said:
Nor yours, I guess? Even though there is some evidence to suggest that figures are being manipulated to suit. ;)
Click to expand...
I hear this all the time from the deniers, so why don't they publish their own research showing that, and release it to the scientific community for review.
 
jakeblu said:
I was waiting for the "uncle tommy smoked 40 capston full strength a day and lived to 105, while aunt edna never touched a fag and died of lung cancer in her 40s"
Click to expand...
I'm saying the reverse:p
jakeblu said:
The problem with deniers is they complain that the process of study for climate change is flawed but never produce any peer reviewed work to counter it
Click to expand...
The problem with the scare mongers is they shout loudest, "the sky is falling in, the sky is falling in"
There is plenty of evidence out there to prove that it a natural phenomenon and a cyclic one at that.
Ask the dinosaurs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top