Global Warming not eroding ice shocker

[BadFish]

Terminology designed to intimidate anyone brave enough to challenge the author(s) report. I'm sure it may well be grammatically correct but WTF?

I know who my peers are (I used to have 2 in Brighton, but 1 disappeared)

Reviewed - yeah,OK

Scientist - Clever bloke, white coat, big forehead

Even if the term is as simple as it appears to read, I still cannot be sure of what it means. Bit like small print in financial/legal documents - designed to confuse.

Well this post has shaken my world view and no mistake. Sorry, bit thick here, not really sure what you are going on about?

Do you disagree that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is man made?

 

[drew]

Well this post has shaken my world view and no mistake. Sorry, bit thick here, not really sure what you are going on about?

Do you disagree that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is man made?

Perhaps the problem is that he had only read the headline and not dug deeper, ie read the small print!!!!

 

[BadFish]

Perhaps the problem is that he had only read the headline and not dug deeper, ie read the small print!!!!

Well it is confusing.

 

[Husty]

Terminology designed to intimidate anyone brave enough to challenge the author(s) report. I'm sure it may well be grammatically correct but WTF?

I know who my peers are (I used to have 2 in Brighton, but 1 disappeared)

Reviewed - yeah,OK

Scientist - Clever bloke, white coat, big forehead

Even if the term is as simple as it appears to read, I still cannot be sure of what it means. Bit like small print in financial/legal documents - designed to confuse.

Then educate yourself a bit for **** sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

 

[wellquickwoody]

Then educate yourself a bit for **** sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Thanks Husty, most kind.

That link does also have a quote from Richard Horton, once editor of The Lancet, who says of peer review -

'the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish and frequently wrong'.

Not the most glowing support of a term which has been used to add weight to a report now is it?

 

[brightn'ove]

Thanks Husty, most kind.

That link does also have a quote from Richard Horton, once editor of The Lancet, who says of peer review -

'the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish and frequently wrong'.

Not the most glowing support of a term which has been used to add weight to a report now is it?

But in science peer review involves repeating the experiments of other scientists, journals only get published if results get confirmed.

Whereas in humanities it's more like a bunch of your mates read your paper and go 'yeah that's alright'.

 

[beorhthelm]

But in science peer review involves repeating the experiments of other scientists, journals only get published if results get confirmed.

not true. the peer review is only a sanity check that the method is sound, the conclusions follow, etc. there's no requirement to repeat the experiment and some dodgy claims have slipped through over the years. rather the piont in climate science, there isnt too much actual experimentation, there's no lab version of the worlds ecosystem, they rely on simulations and models. the peers reviewing a climate science paper are other climate scientists, who've subscribed to the same principles as the author.

 

[BLOCK F]

Did you hear the joke about the climate scientists getting trapped by ice in Antarctica?

I've got to say it is very funny.
Amusing take on this by Christopher Booker in today's Sunday Telegraph............and yes I know he is that awful thing a ' Denier ' of the new religion',but someone has to get a sense of proportion and counteract the hysteria propounded by the Believers.
Extra funny that the ship was full of journos from the BBC and Guardian.
Couldn't have happened to a more suitable group of people.Maybe there will be some converts??

 

[Guinness Boy]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to move away from traditional fossil fuels and seek practical alternatives and having something viable to replace fossil fuels when they run out, but it is less scary for Governments, etc to claim that we need to switch asap to new fuels and penalise those who continue to use the old fuels (taxes, etc) because of global warming rather than to say that in anything from 10 to 60 years we could have run out of oil and natural gas completely (estimated 50 years worth of gas left and oil predicted to run out between 2025 and 2070 - source http://www.carboncounted.co.uk/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out.html)

This is one of my biggest issues with the Green Party / Greenpeace etc. No one's disputing that resources are scarce and new energy policies are needed. It's just what those policies are. They would have you believe that Marxism, putting on a hair shirt and frugality are the only answer. That fracking is evil because....well....because it just is and all my friends say so.

But what if capitalism held the answer? Given how quickly oil and gas are due to run out the big oil companies would be insane if they weren't doing serious R&D on how to protect their futures. Sure, some of this involves fracking and Arctic drilling but, if they're not seriously looking at how to bring renewables to the mass market at an affordable price, thus leading the next big energy goldrush, they deserve to go out of business.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

but i paid attention at school and all the scientist say this stuff guff. its a modern version of alchemy, replace lead and gold for water and fuel. you find people have been making the claims for decades, yet the method never comes to widespread public knowledge somehow (or its Browns gas and a battery). thats attibuted to being "suppressed" rather than accept the claims were fraudulant. unless theres a theory to underpin this with some revolutionary new process (as seagul27 points to), then this is the same old.

But aren't you even a little bit intrigued by it all? There is so much unharnessed energy out there, even in the random Brownian motion of molecules, that the potential once harnessed is massive. And there are many serious scientists and engineers working on trying to do that. And suppression becomes easy once the default view is 'why would it be suppressed' - no-one believes it. But if something as basic as a long-lived light-bulb could be suppressed for 20 odd years, why not this hypothetical car on which you will need no fuel and pay no fuel duty? There's the likes of Stephen Meyer who claimed to have invented a car that runs on water and then died suspiciously, and he's now passed off as a loon. Easy to do. My engineer friend who works on this says that water-powered cars have been invented at least 27 times, but they don't see the light of day because of bought-out patents/threats and so on.

But maybe he's a loon. But he sounds convincing to me - sorry I can't transfer that to this page, I'm a scientist in a very different field (partly to do with global warming but I see little point in getting into that argument here) - and at the very least I'm intrigued by the possibilities. Are we really saying that in the midst of all the amazing human achievement the only efficient way we can power our cars is by burning oil? One of the oldest technologies around has barely changed? You'll remember at school being taught the magic of the cathode-ray tube for making televisions work - and yet we don't even use these any more. There has to be so much more.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Oh, you were being serious?

Yeah, why not, live a little

 

[Soulman]

Here we go. Just scaremongering and a cash cow for some.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82160&src=share

 

[sydney]

Opinions based on what though?

The scaremongering by those who push global warming / climate change and say we are doomed if we don't change now?

Why is it no longer called global warming? - because the planet is not actually warming!
Can't the climate change thing be down to natural factors such as El nino weather patterns which occur naturally and so on and in a few years time when the latest scare tactics no longer hold up, they move onto the next guess which they will sell as fact and vilify those who question it.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to move away from traditional fossil fuels and seek practical alternatives and having something viable to replace fossil fuels when they run out, but it is less scary for Governments, etc to claim that we need to switch asap to new fuels and penalise those who continue to use the old fuels (taxes, etc) because of global warming rather than to say that in anything from 10 to 60 years we could have run out of oil and natural gas completely (estimated 50 years worth of gas left and oil predicted to run out between 2025 and 2070 - source http://www.carboncounted.co.uk/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out.html)

When we do run out of oil, what will things like computers and so many other everyday products be made of instead (how does wind power or solar energy make packaging and drinks bottles and so on? (why are we even using plastic for bottles when we can use metal which can be recycled easily?)

Taking the last paragraph of this webpage
Is the green scaremongering really just a way to get us more willing to switch earlier? (or should we wait and allow other countries to develop the tech and great expense and reap the benefits later when the cost is considerably reduced and the tech is far more efficient?)

Why haven't we on things like nuclear fuels and trying to solve the issue of the radioactive waste produced, if this can be resolved, we have a source of fuel with zero CO2 emissions that could help us meet our future energy consumption needs without having to buy energy from foriegn countries and increasing our deficit in our balance of trades, making the country poorer and harder to fund social projects like infrastructure, and public services?

what... honestly,if you are not prepared to accept the fact that the planetary climate is currently being adversely affected by human input/output/ action then i really think you should chugg off back to your armchair and not bother posting on this thread any more.....we are a disease ...fact....deal with it..!

if you honestly think we can carry on as we are for another 4 or 5 hundred years you are seriously deluded .....imho....!!

 

[sydney]

oh hold on ,my opinions are based on travelling around the world for the last 26 years and watching lots of telly.....yours

 

[BLOCK F]

what... honestly,if you are not prepared to accept the fact that the planetary climate is currently being adversely affected by human input/output/ action then i really think you should chugg off back to your armchair and not bother posting on this thread any more.....we are a disease ...fact....deal with it..!

if you honestly think we can carry on as we are for another 4 or 5 hundred years you are seriously deluded .....imho....!!

Not everyone who doesn't accept that man is doing untold damage to the planet by using fossil fuels deserves to be told to 'chugg off '.
Mankind is a disease,is it?Well,that is a strange way of putting things.I thought it would be a good thing to do away with disease,so why don't we just kill ourselves off,then the planet could chugg on without us.
I don't think many people disagree that the planet's climate is changing as it always has done and always will.The big arguments are:does mankind's activities contribute to global warming and if so,is it in a significant way?Despite what the warmists say,there is not agreement about this.There is only agreement amongst those who believe that man is contributing significantly to global warming.
Don't know what we can do about all the billions of animals on the planet who live , breath and fart.....are they a disease as well?
Don't worry,we won't continue on in the same way for the next 4 or 5 hundred years.Why should we;we haven't stayed still for the last 500 years and believe it or not man's ingenuity and technology may have a few tricks up their sleeves that we haven't even dreamt of yet.
What pisses many people off is the alarmist stand that warmists take and the absolute belief that they are right,despite many views to the contrary.I just hope sanity prevails before countries bankrupt themselves by taking delusional steps to prevent a catastrophe that isn't going to happen.
Anyway,manmade or not,if the planet is getting warmer and CO2 levels are rising,why not concentrate on some of the benefits that can bring.There are a few I can think of without even trying.

 

[Bold Seagull]

What pisses many people off is the alarmist stand that warmists take and the absolute belief that they are right,despite many views to the contrary.I just hope sanity prevails before countries bankrupt themselves by taking delusional steps to prevent a catastrophe that isn't going to happen.

Can you get more contradictory than criticising an absolute belief, by ending with an absolute belief!

How on earth can you type all that, then state as a fact, an environmental catastrophe isn't going to happen. You cannot possibly know that with any more certainty than someone who believes it is going to happen.

Weirdly you actually state you are confident of mankind's advancements over the next 500 years will save us - and yet your stand point appears to be not bothering to make any advancements. It's a very confused argument you're making.

 

[beorhthelm]

...My engineer friend who works on this says that water-powered cars have been invented at least 27 times, but they don't see the light of day because of bought-out patents/threats and so on.

and there's the problem. you cant "buy out" patents to supress them, once they are filed and granted they are public record. its the whole point of the patent process, to say "i invented this first" if someone else comes along and does the same idea (even if independently). Meyers is a perfect example, he claims he found some new techology, but kept it secret and those that followed up on his research afterwards cant quite find how he made it work. why didnt he just release all the info publically? applies just about everytime someone comes up with something similar, they want to save us from the evil government, provide us with free energy... but wont tell us how or want to charge for it. every year thousands of patents are given to inventors that make processes or machines more efficent, say a new battery technology or a material thats superconducting, so why arent those ideas suppressed?

I was intrigued about 10-15 years ago, but these things boil down to the same thing usually, its a con. there are more efficient technologies than buring oil, just they either dont scale, dont work outside the lab, need new infrastructure. i read once of a fuel cycle based on boron, far more efficient than carbon, but it would require new engines and new network of distribution in parallel to petrol. the technologies to replace petrol/diesel are there and will be exploited when the oil really does run out. or become too expensive, because that is ultimatly why we use them, oil, gas, coal is so damn cheap relative to everything else.

 

[sydney]

Not everyone who doesn't accept that man is doing untold damage to the planet by using fossil fuels deserves to be told to 'chugg off '.
Mankind is a disease,is it?Well,that is a strange way of putting things.I thought it would be a good thing to do away with disease,so why don't we just kill ourselves off,then the planet could chugg on without us.
I don't think many people disagree that the planet's climate is changing as it always has done and always will.The big arguments are:does mankind's activities contribute to global warming and if so,is it in a significant way?Despite what the warmists say,there is not agreement about this.There is only agreement amongst those who believe that man is contributing significantly to global warming.
Don't know what we can do about all the billions of animals on the planet who live , breath and fart.....are they a disease as well?
Don't worry,we won't continue on in the same way for the next 4 or 5 hundred years.Why should we;we haven't stayed still for the last 500 years and believe it or not man's ingenuity and technology may have a few tricks up their sleeves that we haven't even dreamt of yet.
What pisses many people off is the alarmist stand that warmists take and the absolute belief that they are right,despite many views to the contrary.I just hope sanity prevails before countries bankrupt themselves by taking delusional steps to prevent a catastrophe that isn't going to happen.
Anyway,manmade or not,if the planet is getting warmer and CO2 levels are rising,why not concentrate on some of the benefits that can bring.There are a few I can think of without even trying.

i've gone past the warmist theory mate........it's not about ambient temperatures any more....most of northern asia is covered by a sort of yellowy/green blanket most of the year ,china , korea, indonesia, india are only just getting to grips with their own industrial revolutions............it's all good

 

[BLOCK F]

Can you get more contradictory than criticising an absolute belief, by ending with an absolute belief!

How on earth can you type all that, then state as a fact, an environmental catastrophe isn't going to happen. You cannot possibly know that with any more certainty than someone who believes it is going to happen.

Weirdly you actually state you are confident of mankind's advancements over the next 500 years will save us - and yet your stand point appears to be not bothering to make any advancements. It's a very confused argument you're making.

Bold Seagull,all kinds of catastrophe may happen to the planet.......nuclear war for example,but what particular catastrophe do you think may occur that is directly caused my manmade global warming?(if it exists in any significant amount?)
Secondly,I am certainly not advocating doing nothing over the next 500 years;that would be crass.I am merely stating that we will not carry on as we are as a human race over the next 500 years and that technology together with man's genius/ingenuity will find answers to all kinds of problems, just as it has done even in our brief lifetimes.I just don't happen to believe that , metaphorically speaking , turning all the lights off and going to live in caves is the answer.

 

[banjo]

So washing out My baked bean cans and recycling them is not going to make a difference then