John Lennon On the Myth of Over-population

cepheus

Cardew wrote: »

The job of scientists is to present facts, pure unadulterated facts!

We elect politicians, to make the decisions!

On average they do an excellent job of presenting facts, certainly better than any other profession. What makes you suggest otherwise, checked the non existent climategate yet?

Politicians are indeed elected by the public, and the public are heavily influenced by the media. No doubt a fair proportion of marginal Tory voters, will read the Express, Mail and Telegraph, all with notorious Climate Denier editors and columnists such as Melanie Phillips and Christopher Booker

http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/climate-denial-the-stupid-it-burns/

so I ask again how do we prevent them telling blatant lies?

mech_2

exprog wrote: »

The only peer review going on is the gang of 40 telling each other to carry on the evil work. There has been no independent validation of their work. Nor could there have been any. That is why they hide (and have possibly destroyed some of) their raw data and their methodologies. That is not science. That is pseudo-science and a disgrace. Real scientists have their work available for independent reviewers to check their data and try reproducing their results. Obviously you have no understanding at all of the scientific process. Surely you must be from the pretend university of East Anglia.

You don't need their data to reproduce the research. Actually... if you use their data, then surely you would get the same conclusion. That's not checking their data, that's just using their data. To properly reproduce the results you need to gather your own tree-ring records and see what that tells you. If your results then match theirs, then there wasn't a problem. If they don't then you can start analysing the sources of the data and go back and modify the theory. THAT's the scientific process. What we have at the moment is a bunch of people saying the data must be wrong without any basis.

cepheus

It seems that unscroupolus people use 'debate' as an excuse to delay and confuse, without any intention of establishing the truth.

We have to consider what is more fundamental, the freedom to establish truth, or the freedom to spread whatever information suits your personal selfish whims.

I believe the former is essential which is why we must fight the blatant lies and propoganda sown by the denierist media and use legal action wherever possible, so the public can see who are the liars.

It's time to take the gloves off there is no time to lose!

Hadrian

Global warming (or whatever's the name today) ? I couldn't give a damn. I was bombed out twice in the Second World War (with the Germans), lived for 25 years under the threat of instant annihilation from atomic war, served in the army shooting at guys in a country I'd never heard of and still don't know where it is. Worked outside 7 hours a day for a pittance for over 40 years in winters that would make you cry. Retired with less than £100 pw govt pension, can't afford holidays nor a car but I'm still content and, most days, happy. I ain't going to spend my old age worrying about something that may or may NOT happen. Personally when I look outside it's sub zero and snowing so b*ll*cks to the misery guts who are determined to get me worrying. Roll on the 2c+ as my heating bills are too high as it is.

cootambear

cepheus wrote: »

What particular content are you upset about? Do you have any reason to get upset, have you studied the entire script and reports, or are you just jumping on the bandwagon of CONSPIRACY calling?



Is it? What evidence do you have they were not attempting to reject bad science and stop politically motivated authors just making things up?



Not at all, I work in a closely related discipline and it is obvious the scientific debate was over long ago, beyond reasonable doubt at any rate. The only real debate is political, which is one the scientists are losing because they keep using rational arguments and facts to justify their view, rather than the tried and tested techniques which Deniers use, such as reiteration (volcanoes produce more CO2, no they do, they really do....., sowing confusion (water vapour is the main greenhouse gas), emphasising personality differences (they are eggheads, we had difficulty understanding science like you) and appealing to greed (its all an excuse by governments to raise taxes)

I have debated with career Deniers and presented the evidence time and time again until blue in the face. It is quite obvious to me they have little intention of understanding the science, their motives are of a corrupt nature.

Scientists are handicapped by not being interested in PR and Machiavellian techniques of manipulation and deceit. They are handicapped by the public wanting to believe the Deniers. Scientists work is hard enough without getting into all that nonsense, even if they wanted to.

Why should we allow the Denier lobby to deliberately sabotage the planet? Is their right to lie and deceive more important?

The only `deniers` IMHO are those who wish to deny us a rational debate.

exprog

cootambear wrote: »

Surely you mean the hard right.

Afraid not.

The Church of Climateology is the hard Left's substitute for the Soviet Union. The inadequate little darlings have to have something to love. The eco-liars just need something to lose themselves in; doesn’t much matter what so long as it involves a select group, themselves, getting rich while pretending to be working for the good of others. You only have to look at this thread to see how the real agenda is about coercion and controlling people. It is typically Stalinist and shows an attempt, in effect, to restore Soviet science, which provided actual scientists so much despair and amusement. You seem to have overlooked the fact that the current ruling class is the degraded remnants of the Left. Don’t underestimate the degree to which the prostituted remains of the Left have fallen in love with the rich. The last 15 years of the most morally corrupt government of modern times have made that very clear.

exprog

mech wrote: »

You don't need their data to reproduce the research. Actually... if you use their data, then surely you would get the same conclusion. That's not checking their data, that's just using their data. To properly reproduce the results you need to gather your own tree-ring records and see what that tells you. If your results then match theirs, then there wasn't a problem. If they don't then you can start analysing the sources of the data and go back and modify the theory. THAT's the scientific process. What we have at the moment is a bunch of people saying the data must be wrong without any basis.

Not sure you’ve really been following the Climategate scandal. Scientific method involves obtaining genuine data, producing a theory from it, and then publishing the data and trying to show how the data justifies the theory. It all has to be open to other scientists to check the work and see if they reach the same results. (That, for example, is what happened with ‘cold fusion’ and why it was so quickly rejected.) The information released with the emails show they have not, for example, used “tree-ring records”; they excluded tree-ring data they didn’t like and used part of the data from one tree. Not all the data from that one tree could be used because it clashed with the theory. The tricksters have been rejecting data that didn’t suit them and cherry-picking bits ad hoc.

‘Climate science’ is the intellectual equivalent of media studies. Thousands of real scientists have rejected this scam. Just because the British media try to ignore them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The emails do show the attempt to exclude genuine scientists and hide data and the data manipulation. Debate with real scientists has been prevented or evaded because when it happens the tricksters lose. Where they have had success is in controlling and intimidating the grant-awarding bodies. To obtain grants for real research genuine scientists have to pretend to believe in this climate change twaddle. Otherwise they can’t work.

The ‘data’ recently released by the Met Office is not raw data. It is ‘data’ after it has been cherry-picked and ‘adjusted’: it still takes a statistical microscope to detect these trends that are supposed to be so obvious and even that is problematic. In the Church of Climateology god is revealed only to the high priests. People who signed the accompanying letter ‘supporting’ the supposed conclusions said they felt pressurised into signing for fear they would not be given more work. The Met Office took dodgy weather data and tried to cram it into a model of climate change. Then they tried to use the model to predict weather. So we had the non-existent barbecue summer and the mild winter currently freezing us. No sensible person any longer takes much notice of these silly weather forecasts. Nor is there any reason to trust them on climate.

exprog

Hadrian wrote: »

Global warming (or whatever's the name today)… Roll on the 2c+ as my heating bills are too high as it is.

Quite right. This notion that if there is any warming it must be a disaster is just more absurdity from these loons. In the past warmer periods have been more beneficial than colder periods. It used to be called ‘global warming’ until the scammers were forced to admit the world has been cooling, after which they called it ‘climate change’ and just carried on as before.

exprog

cepheus wrote: »

I work in a closely related discipline

Naturally! :rotfl: Any freebie all expenses-paid holidays to exotic locations? - to ‘raise awareness’, natch. :rolleyes:

cepheus wrote: »

it is obvious the scientific debate was over long ago, beyond reasonable doubt at any rate.

Even more hilarity!

The emails established what was long suspected – a systematic attempt to prevent genuine scientific debate. Snake oil salesmen have had a good run with other people’s money but the wheels are coming off the gravy train. Up to a point, at least. Obviously Copenhagen did the only thing it really had to do i.e. keep the carbon trading dosh rolling. So far as ‘climate science’ is concerned the writing is on the wall. Come the New Year you can expect a lot more efforts by real scientists to restore honour and truth to science. The attempt by ‘environmentalists’ to subvert science for political projects is being brought to an end. The denying of research funds to legitimate scientists and the anxious attempts to prevent publication of other views will not be allowed to succeed.

The scientific debate is only just beginning. The tricksters can look forward to having a very busy (and hopefully expensive) New Year. Real scientists have had enough of dodgy data and high priests deciding who is allowed to say what, they are going to have the truth fully exposed. I’ll give the scam about another 40 months before it ends. Apart, perhaps, from any long criminal proceedings.

cepheus wrote: »

unscroupolus people use 'debate' as an excuse to delay and confuse, without any intention of establishing the truth.

You got anything at all to back that up? Or just another lying smear? You thought of any excuse to justify the other one yet?

cepheus wrote: »

the freedom to spread whatever information suits your personal selfish whims.

Another smear (though somehow interesting coming from someone who gets dosh from “a closely related discipline”.

cepheus wrote: »

blatant lies and propoganda sown by the denierist media

ditto

Do you suppose these people who turn you blue in the face see you as mouthing nothing but one long ranting stream of smears?

Bamber19

dixie_dean wrote: »

Just to move the bickering on, my belief in climate change means I try not to waste things and I take fairly basic measures that usually save me money and have no negative impact on my life, for example having an insulated house, flying less, not wasting energy or water. What about this do any deniers think is wrong?

It's a great position, use only what you need to, be more economical with finite resources and generally be less wasteful.

However, having the prices of all these things artificially raised to pay some tax which in turn pays the guy that created this lie under the carbon trading scheme is not such a great position.

Wouldn't it be nice to be less wasteful because you choose to rather than because someone forces you to on the basis of a lie while he gets rich.

We're cutting funding in areas that actually need it in order to further this lie, it's only money until people start losing their jobs and worse, their lives over it.