Main Menu

“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

Started by The Legendary Shark, 18 March, 2011, 06:52:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Proudhuff

Italian shoes have their own belts! Proof or WHAT!
DDT did a job on me

The Legendary Shark

I think that anthropogenic global warming is a scam by the global elite to hoover up more of the Earth's wealth using global carbon taxes as the weapon of choice. I have thought for a long time that the sun is far more likely to affect our climate than a gas that only makes up about one half of one percent of our atmosphere. Some scientists are willing to entertain and investigate this theory and some are not...

CERN Scientists Gagged On 'Politically Incorrect' Global Warming Data

"In a shocking illustration of how the man-made climate change establishment has seized control of the scientific process, physicists at the CERN lab in Geneva were gagged from drawing conclusions about data that seeks to replicate studies which prove the sun is the main driver of climate change, after their boss told them that such heresy was politically incorrect.

"Despite the fact that global warming alarmists have claimed there is no link between the huge raging fireball in space that is over 100 times bigger than the earth, drives the seasons and causes ice ages, and climate change, the data produced by Henrik Svensmark's studies shows a clear historical correlation between cosmic ray penetration and temperature, as can be seen from the graph below."




Full article here: http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/20/cern-scientists-gagged-on-%E2%80%98politically-incorrect%E2%80%99-global-warming-data/
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Speaking of CO2, hands up how many people think that putting this gas into the atmosphere is bad? (I'm looking at you, Al Gore...)

In actual fact, more CO2 equals bigger and better plants (and crops) and is contributing to a re-greening of the Earth. For example:

The Increasing Prowess of a Stand of Danish Beech Trees: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N29/B1.php

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

#723
I don't get it.  The CERN chief advocates that the results of some very important climate research be presented clearly and in full, but with a minimum of interpretation. 

His reasons?  Because the phenomenon being examined represents only one of many parameters in the (literally) chaotic system of climate change, and he fears that any conjecture presented is going to be picked up and used as a blunt instrument in the climate debate to the exclusion of all other factors by people who are apparently either incapable of understanding the complexity of the system in question or so eager for supportive soundbites that support their conspiracy theory that they will willfully ignore it.   

But I will return to the first point:  the results of the research will be presented clearly and in full, so that anyone who is actually interested in understanding climate change can take the facts on board without an ideological spin.  Nothing is being buried here.  Thus is how science should proceed, rather than be seen as fuel for a media circus.

EDIT:  Incidentally, I'm not knocking Nigel Calder here, he's been a great voice for science, but he's missing the point here, possibly because he's in his 80's.

The Legendary Shark

So, science is actually aided by the restriction of debate? In what way?
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




JOE SOAP

Quote from: TordelBack on 21 July, 2011, 02:38:44 PM
EDIT:  Incidentally, I'm not knocking Nigel Calder here, he's been a great voice for science, but he's missing the point here, possibly because he's in his 80's.


...so's Christopher Lee.

JOE SOAP

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 July, 2011, 02:35:47 PM
Speaking of CO2, hands up how many people think that putting this gas into the atmosphere is bad?


Try breathing a higher % in.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 July, 2011, 02:49:11 PM
Try breathing a higher % in.

That's the point. Plants will breathe more in, grow bigger, forests will breathe in, expanding the natural carbon sinks of the Earth to keep step with the CO2 available for it to use. That's more plants for us to use, exhaling more oxygen for us to enjoy. Gaia adapts.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




JOE SOAP

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 July, 2011, 02:56:02 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 July, 2011, 02:49:11 PM
Try breathing a higher % in.

That's the point. Plants will breathe more in, grow bigger, forests will breathe in, expanding the natural carbon sinks of the Earth to keep step with the CO2 available for it to use. That's more plants for us to use, exhaling more oxygen for us to enjoy. Gaia adapts.

Only if we maintain enough forestry and flora which we don't.


Gaia me arse, nature is anarchic otherwise there'd neve be anything new, 'balance' is stasis and that is not nature.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 July, 2011, 03:08:33 PM
Gaia me arse, nature is anarchic otherwise there'd never be anything new, 'balance' is stasis and that is not nature.

I don't agree that "'balance' is stasis". Take the sun, for example; it orbits the galaxy in what we perceive with our limited senses to be a balanced way. But we know that the sun doesn't orbit the galactic core in a simple straight line - it rises and falls over millions of years like a roller-coaster, but this happens on such vast time scales that it really makes no difference to us at all. Likewise, the Earth wobbles as it spins, but that wobble lasts for so long that it takes thousands and thousands of years to make a difference to the constellations we can see in the night sky.  That is balance, but not stasis.

It's the same with climate/life. Over long periods of time Gaia (used here in the climate/life homoeostatic sense) changes, the one influencing the other, the other adapting to the one in a complex dance spanning thousands of years. I think this is where most climate-change extremists are going wrong. They're looking at too short a timespan and interpreting their observations without sufficient context.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

And here's something else to get your hackles up (if you have any hackles left by now...)

9/11 Explosive Eyewitness Testimony: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




TordelBack

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 July, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
So, science is actually aided by the restriction of debate? In what way?

'Debate' is a word which can be applied to a number of different types of discourse, not all of them resembling its intended meaning.  Research produces results, and those results (and the methodologies that produced them) can be debated, new models/theories constructed on the basis of those debates to account for data if it no longer fits old models, and those models tested with subsequent data, until all data is accounted for in the most logically simple fashion. 

In this instance solar or cosmic ray forcing in climate change is one factor in a non-linear mess of factors, whose interactions are poorly understood, and at the reporting stage those papers should only be interpreting what the results mean for the understanding of that factor - conjecturing at the research paper level about how the results feed into an overall model of climate change is pre-judging something that should be the focus of a much larger meta-project. 

The obvious fear at CERN is that a single factor will be popularly mistaken for the whole picture, because it's simple and easy to grasp  - and a wider, more inclusive debate will suffer.  Every offhand remark that can possibly be interpreted as challenging the now-dominant hypothesis is extracted from its context and used as a rallying call to dismiss the entirety of climatological consensus, and to paint every other hard-working climate scientist as a shill or a stooge - something that is deeply damaging to an intelligent discussion.

Like it or not, climate change is a political issue, and thus knocked about by the tides of popular pressure rather than proceeding through the detailed analysis of data by experts, and the intent here seems not to be to restrict debate but to separate it from factual research papers, from the basic level of data collection and analysis. 

It's part of the essential house-style of science, because somebody needs to be establishing basic uncontested elements with which an actual  debate, a sensible discussion, can be conducted.   

JOE SOAP

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 July, 2011, 03:36:33 PM
And here's something else to get your hackles up (if you have any hackles left by now...)

9/11 Explosive Eyewitness Testimony: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony


Flip-flopper.

JOE SOAP

Quote from: TordelBack on 21 July, 2011, 04:15:59 PMLike it or not, climate change is a political issue, and thus knocked about by the tides of popular pressure


A bit like the 'Greens', an issue, not a party.

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: TordelBack on 21 July, 2011, 04:15:59 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 July, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
So, science is actually aided by the restriction of debate? In what way?

'Debate' is a word which can be applied to a number of different types of discourse, not all of them resembling its intended meaning.  Research produces results, and those results (and the methodologies that produced them) can be debated, new models/theories constructed on the basis of those debates to account for data if it no longer fits old models, and those models tested with subsequent data, until all data is accounted for in the most logically simple fashion. 

In this instance solar or cosmic ray forcing in climate change is one factor in a non-linear mess of factors, whose interactions are poorly understood, and at the reporting stage those papers should only be interpreting what the results mean for the understanding of that factor - conjecturing at the research paper level about how the results feed into an overall model of climate change is pre-judging something that should be the focus of a much larger meta-project. 

The obvious fear at CERN is that a single factor will be popularly mistaken for the whole picture, because it's simple and easy to grasp  - and a wider, more inclusive debate will suffer.  Every offhand remark that can possibly be interpreted as challenging the now-dominant hypothesis is extracted from its context and used as a rallying call to dismiss the entirety of climatological consensus, and to paint every other hard-working climate scientist as a shill or a stooge - something that is deeply damaging to an intelligent discussion.

Like it or not, climate change is a political issue, and thus knocked about by the tides of popular pressure rather than proceeding through the detailed analysis of data by experts, and the intent here seems not to be to restrict debate but to separate it from factual research papers, from the basic level of data collection and analysis. 

It's part of the essential house-style of science, because somebody needs to be establishing basic uncontested elements with which an actual  debate, a sensible discussion, can be conducted.   


So, science is not aided by restriction of debate, so long as only sober experts get to do the debating? I see... Should these sober and well-informed debates happen only behind closed doors and the rest of us just be informed of the results afterwards or do ordinary people get to ask impertinent questions?

Climate change is a political issue, yes - and that's a big problem. Politics has no place in science because then you just bring the whole thing into the same arena as religion where dogma becomes more important than discovery. At the moment, corporations have a lot invested in the man-made global warming scam (or perhaps we should be kinder and call it the man-made global warming error) and so they would lose billions if it was discovered that this climate change we appear to be going through is an entirely natural cycle or combination of cycles after all. In such a circumstance, it is difficult to get the funding to investigate alternative hypotheses or to even give voice to conflicting ideas. Now, I'm not a scientist but it seems to me that refusing to investigate, comment upon results or allow debate over unpopular theories is not what science should be about.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]