tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post5675863672453419036..comments2024-01-23T16:53:02.428+00:00Comments on Mark Thompson: Delingpole is as hidebound as the "Climate Bullies" he so eloquently rails againstMark Thompsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-52293380449148671782014-02-17T18:08:06.477+00:002014-02-17T18:08:06.477+00:00I'm prepared to accept that man is having an ...I'm prepared to accept that man is having an affect on the climate, to paraphrase Bill Shankly- if we aren't what are we doing here. <br /><br />My problem is that nobody defines "consensus" and greenies just love to say "scientific consensus yah boo sucks you're climate denier" whenever you raise questions about what we are being asked to put up with in the name of Climate Change. Take the woman who said recently that all MPs who oppose the "consusus" should be removed fro Government. How fascist is that?<br /><br />And the issue has been hijacked by people with their own agendas. Just listen to the first 5 minutes of this BBC Analysis programme to realise by how much. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00q3cnl<br /><br />Finally, if we are to listen to the UN IPCC who are effectively the consensus that says we do have man made climate change shouldn't we also listen to what they say we should do about it as well? As far as I'm aware there's only one person beating that drum: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/in-which-i-fully-support-natalie-bennett-of-the-green-party-of-england-and-wales<br /><br />probably because it doesn't chime with what a lot of greenies really want, to use Climate Change to their own ends.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Simon Fawthrophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09725351503536755124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-38245903918593358292014-02-17T10:52:12.338+00:002014-02-17T10:52:12.338+00:00"it's a very complex system, probably the..."it's a very complex system, probably the most complex anyone has ever tried to model in all of human history"<br /><br />Precisely, and anyone who tells you that 'the science is settled' on how the climate of the Earth works is an idiot who has an ideological axe to grind. The bald fact is that we just don't know. And we are being asked to make massive changes to our lives on the back of not knowing.<br /><br />And yes, it will be one of the biggest scandals ever when this thing falls apart, though I think so many people are implicated (not through malice but acceptance of what they've been told) that there will never be a big mea culpa and righting of wrongs. It will all be swept under the carpet. New technologies will solve the fossil fuel energy supply problem, and everything will go back to normal. The powers that be will pretend the whole thing never happened.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-75943935552616298332014-02-16T10:36:54.920+00:002014-02-16T10:36:54.920+00:00I don't think we're really getting anywher...I don't think we're really getting anywhere now. Like I said it's a very complex system, probably the most complex anyone has ever tried to model in all of human history so I am not surprised when things change. I don't think that means you throw everything out and start again from scratch and it is perfectly legitimate to adapt models to accommodate the new data. Just because exactly what was predicted 10 or 20 or 30 years ago has not come to pass in precisely the way predicated does not mean AGW is demonstrably junk science.<br /><br />I still don't understand how people can sincerely believe that almost all scientists working in this field are either deluded or venal. That attitude simply does not fit with the approach of pretty much every scientist I have ever met. It would be incredible if what you are saying on this is true and would be the biggest scandal in history given what is at stake.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-25183808861373398192014-02-16T10:06:27.894+00:002014-02-16T10:06:27.894+00:00Ah, the 'heat is hiding in the oceans' con...Ah, the 'heat is hiding in the oceans' concept. When did we start hearing about that? Was it years ago, when temperatures were rising and all was dandy in Global Warming camp? No of course not. No one was saying 10 years ago that global temperatures would stop rising because the heat was disappearing into the oceans (which incidentally it isn't, on the actual measurements available from the Argo temperature buoy system - again, its a theory, not fact). Its only since the official global temperature figures, produced by the Warmists themselves, stopped rising that were suddenly been bombarded with all these reason why the heat must be somewhere else.<br /><br />Don't you see that if you predict X, and X fails to happen, the scientific method says that your theory on which you based your prediction is wrong. Go back to the beginning, re-evaluate the data and formulate a better theory, and make a new prediction. Then test that against reality.<br /><br /> Global Warming models predicted runaway heating. Thats all in the official literature. That heating hasn't happened. Ergo the models are junk. They don't work. So instead of saying 'the science is settled' perhaps the scientists should admit they were wrong, they don't actually know why the temperatures have moved as they have, their previous theories cannot account for it. That is the truth. And its not a truth that one can or should base a complete overhaul of the global economic system, which is what we are being told to accept.<br /><br />And you haven't answered my question. How long would global temperatures have to stay level before you personally would start to question whether the 'science' is real or polemic?Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-14715708388917507932014-02-16T09:38:03.652+00:002014-02-16T09:38:03.652+00:00Hi Jim
"if just one thing goes against the t...Hi Jim<br /><br />"if just one thing goes against the theory that proves it is not correct"<br /><br />Scientific research adapts all the time and that is what we are seeing. If something happens that goes against the model, that is an argument for adapting the model, not totally abandoning it unless the evidence is so overwhelming that it is clear the model is completely wrong.<br /><br />Also, I am afraid that you are doing what I accused James on in my piece, you are cherry-picking the evidence. On one, very narrow measure, the temperature on the surface of the earth there has been little warming in the last 10 or so years. But that is to completely ignore the fact that the oceans have been warming during that period (between 100m and 300m below the surface) with all sorts of measurable effects. That cannot be ignored. I found this out after 2 minutes of googling so someone as well informed as yourself must be aware of it too. Why are you ignoring this?<br /><br />I'm not going to get bogged down in an argument about whether it's 97% or a slightly smaller amount, it is still an overwhelming majority of scientists working in this field.<br /><br />Your "follow the money" comment is classic conspiracy theorism. In order for it to be true there would have to be a conspiracy between scientists and politicians on a scale never before seen in our history. And the sort of questions you raise about the UEA and their actions are addressed in countless pieces available online. Even I am aware of their responses to these and I don't follow this debate as closely as it would appear you do. So the fact you are still raising them makes them feel like what Ben Goldacre describes as "zombie arguments", i.e. points in a debate that have already been addressed many times before.<br /><br />Im my experience scientists are trying to find the truth. They are not generally ideologically driven. Imagine if a scientist could come up with proof positive that AGW was not happening. He/She would be world famous immediately. The fact this has not happened also tells me something important.<br /><br />You probably think I am siding with the climate change camp for ulterior motives or something but I am not. Simply on the basis of the evidence I have seen and read about, coupled with the fact that most scientists working in this field think there is a real and growing problem Occam's Razor tells me that is probably the side that is most correct.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-56806530058815540842014-02-15T17:56:35.058+00:002014-02-15T17:56:35.058+00:00"I appreciate your point about it not being a..."I appreciate your point about it not being able to be validated and I alluded to this in my post. But equally it is very hard to invalidate."<br /><br />Its not a question of events validating AGW, its a matter of what events are considered to invalidate it. Remember AGW is a theory, not a fact. And the scientific method states it only needs one thing to go against the theory to prove that it is not correct. 100 things that agree with the theory and one that doesn't invalidates the theory. Thats how science works. So if the AGW proponents cannot (or will not) give any scenarios that invalidate their theory, and take everything that occurs as evidence of their theory, we are no longer dealing with science, but a belief system. And I'm afraid thats where we have reached - too many people have belief in AGW and cannot accept anything that looks like it could prove it wrong. <br /><br />And as for the 'scientific consensus' I think you have to follow the money. For all the mud thrown about 'Big Oil' funding the sceptics, the reality is that billions and billions are flowing into universities and NGOs for 'climate research'. And all that money comes with the effective caveat that AGW is real and we want evidence of it. Ask yourself, if you were a scientist, and your results were contrary to AGW, do you think you'd get another grant to investigate further? And if the science is so settled why are the scientists so afraid of producing their data and methodology? Why do they fight FOIA requests tooth and nail? What did the UEA commit criminal acts (destroying emails and data) to hide what they were doing for FOI requests? These are not the acts of people who have controvertible evidence to back up their case. It smacks of something to hide.<br /><br />And the 97% of scientists agree meme is rubbish. Its been cooked up by people with political axes to grind. There are plenty of serious climate scientists who question much if not all of the AGW theory. <br /><br />I will ask you a simple question - the rise in global temperatures from 1980 to roughly 2000, upon which the whole AGW concept is primarily based, took 20 years. We have now had 15 years and counting of flat global temperatures, while CO2 has continued to be pumped into the atmosphere, at increasingly large rates (I think something like 40% of CO2 ever emitted by man has occurred since 2000). How long will temperatures have to flatline (or indeed fall) before the AGW theory is invalidated? Will 20 years do? Does it have to be longer than the rise? If so why?Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-46979307085538513092014-02-15T14:38:13.934+00:002014-02-15T14:38:13.934+00:00Hi Jim.
Thanks for your comment.
I'm not rea...Hi Jim.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment.<br /><br />I'm not really "falling" for anything. As I said the climate is an incredibly complex system. If AGW is correct then we will probably see warming happening in some areas and other effects like more rain and perhaps even colder periods in places like the UK. What little understanding I have on this is related to how it could interfere with the gulf stream. In extremis if the gulf stream was switched off (as could happen if there were large increases in global temperatures) then we could see significant temperature reductions in the UK. It is not inconsistent for scientists to update their thinking on the effects of AGW as the evidence evolves.<br /><br />I appreciate your point about it not being able to be validated and I alluded to this in my post. But equally it is very hard to invalidate.<br /><br />I'm not religious and if the evidence in the coming years starts to suggest that the AGW theory is wrong then I'd be delighted. I have no vested interest in this one way or the other. I fear it's going in the other direction though.<br /><br />But on your general point, can you explain to me why you think 97% of scientists would pretend they believe something in order to push a political agenda? Because that's the part of this I really do not understand and it's the part of it that make climate sceptics seem like conspiracy theorists.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Mark<br />Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3881762807913180318.post-6710112430869812432014-02-15T14:12:39.477+00:002014-02-15T14:12:39.477+00:00I'm afraid you are falling for the 'watch ...I'm afraid you are falling for the 'watch the pea' routine that has been pulled by by the Global Warming crew. Remember Global Warming? That was what we were threatened with just 10 years or less ago. And strangely as the global temperatures have ceased to rise, Global Warming seemed to disappear, and be replaced by Climate Change. A nice little sidestep, because now EVERYTHING is evidence of Climate Change. Hot US summer? Climate Change. Super cold US winter? Climate change. Really wet UK summer? Climate Change. Really wet UK winter? Climate Change. Bear in mind just a few years ago the scientific consensus was that we could expect hotter and drier UK summers. That rather got pushed aside in 2012 though. <br /><br />We now have a political movement pushing a pseudo-scientific theory that cannot be invalidated. There is nothing that can happen weather-wise now that will not be used as 'evidence' of Climate Change. Hot, cold, wet, dry, its all grist to the mill. And all this goes on while global temperatures have not risen for 15 years. <br /><br />Thats not science, thats religion.Jimnoreply@blogger.com