John Lennon On the Myth of Over-population

mech_2

exprog wrote: »

Not sure you’ve really been following the Climategate scandal.

I've been following the claims. Access to real information seems strangely scarce.

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.

As I've pointed out: No it doesn't. No one has a monopoly on climate data. Show me the science that disagrees with CRU and I'll look at it. So far none of it has.

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.

Please provide the evidence. (Hypocrisy much?)

I'm not interested in your opinion of the politics. Show me some science.

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.

You seem to be ranting. And confusing the Met Office with the CRU. Probably due to a confusion between weather and climate. To me, 2009 looks like a warm year for the UK, but with a colder than average January and December. Overall then: warmer than average, just like the other noughties. But this is still only local, not global.

Cerisa

the over population 'myth' was solved by fossil fuels. I suggest you OPT out of having more than two kids; population growth needs to be stable. Understand i'm not advocating reproductive fascism or forced abortions; just plain common sense.

waqasahmed

Whether or not anything comes out of the copenhagen climate summit, nations are moving to a new low carbon economy instead of an economy just built primarily on the way we do finance. As fuel prices go up, it means that running costs are higher, cutting into people's wages obviously. If you've studied carefully, why in a recession are companies putting more research into more efficient products? Its all to reduce power. One thing us computer geeks have over car mechanics is that computer manufacturers ALWAYS researched on products that were more efficient after bringing out power hungry components. This was not the case with the car industry, until this year, where they were basically forced to because of gov't legislations.

Population is rising, but fuel is running out at a colossal rate. I personally think there will always be space to grow enough food and we in the UK might eventually be forced to grow GM food, but developing countries are ....developing, using more fuel etc... putting OUR prices up and the economic strength has moved from the West to the East(aka the gulf states and Asia-China and India)

exprog

mech wrote: »

I've been following the claims. Access to real information seems strangely scarce.

Not strange at all when the emails show the efforts made to hide (and delete) the data so it could not be verified.

mech wrote: »

As I've pointed out: No it doesn't.

You are simply wrong.

mech wrote: »

No one has a monopoly on climate data.

Not in principle. In reality data on which the hype is based has been intentionally hidden from the world by those who have monopolised access to it. Energetic efforts have been made, especially in the UK, to try to prevent fair-minded scientists from obtaining funding for independent research. That’s why the UK has become the global home of this gobbledygook.

mech wrote: »

Show me the science that disagrees with CRU and I'll look at it. So far none of it has.

Google is your friend. There are plenty of professors of physics, geology etc (especially outside Britain) who are working in the field and who do disagree with CRU. Just because UK journalists (who love their freebie holidays) don’t like to mention it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. However, even the BBC has started to better report such work. You can expect way more next year now that the scam is on it’s last legs. Just keep your eyes open and you may learn something.

mech wrote: »

Please provide the evidence.

Obviously not a demand you make of your CRU friends.

mech wrote: »

I'm not interested in your opinion of the politics.

Nor, it would seem, are you concerned with the destruction of industries in Britain so that, for example, Indian companies are paid to relocate them to India; while people in Britain sit in freezing houses they cannot afford to heat because of all the extra expenses loaded onto bills to pay for the scam. Good to know your loyalties.

mech wrote: »

confusing the Met Office with the CRU.

Nope. Wrong again. Why are you so keen to exclude scientists from the debate unless they already agree with your conclusions? The days of a small band of so-called scientists getting away with bombarding the public with propaganda are over. What we need is 10 years of scientific debate with full access to all data and research. Just like in any other branch of science. After that we may consider whether there is anything to worry about.

mech wrote: »

To me, 2009 looks like a warm year for the UK

But not for those who haven’t noticed much warm weather, even in summer, for years. Perhaps you spend too much time next to a radiator. Or read too much dodgy data. A theory unable to make correct predictions but needing continual adjustments to excuse actual conditions is fake.

mech_2

exprog wrote: »

Not strange at all when the emails show the efforts made to hide (and delete) the data so it could not be verified.

Quote them. Show me.

Not in principle. In reality data on which the hype is based has been intentionally hidden from the world by those who have monopolised access to it. Energetic efforts have been made, especially in the UK, to try to prevent fair-minded scientists from obtaining funding for independent research. That’s why the UK has become the global home of this gobbledygook.

You're not even trying. Get data from outside the UK then. How can you be so sure of your position on this issue when you have no data, by your own admission?

Google is your friend.

Well then. Show me your evidence.

Obviously not a demand you make of your CRU friends.

I have read plenty of stuff from the CRU. And other sources. It all seems to tell a similar story. What's the problem?

(More rhetoric snipped)
Unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that political issues that you dislike are a good argument for climate change not happening. I have no time for this.

But not for those who haven’t noticed much warm weather, even in summer, for years. Perhaps you spend too much time next to a radiator. Or read too much dodgy data. A theory unable to make correct predictions but needing continual adjustments to excuse actual conditions is fake.

Show me the cold summers. Rainy maybe, but not cold. Oh I forgot: you don't have any data. How can you tell me I'm wrong then, when I'm the one looking at data and you're the one just blowing air?

exprog

Zzzzzzzzzz. Now you’re getting boring. It’s not up to anyone to prove something else. It is up to the Climateology church to prove its assertions to real scientists. Which it can’t. So data is hidden, research denied, debate refused. These people would not be operating like a secret society possessing forbidden knowledge if they could demonstrate their theories to professional satisfaction. It wouldn’t need to be sustained by political activists running around screeching about the end of the world and rehashing the pretence.

Anyone who takes any interest in these things will be aware of plenty of work by honest scientists in other countries. The British media usually mentions such work once and then ignores it. Anyone who claims not to have heard it cannot have been listening very hard or else is telling fibs. Where there is an element of truth is that in Europe and especially the UK those scientists disagreeing with the nonsense have been less active than their colleagues in other countries. That is about to change. We all await Sir Muir – truth or cover up doesn’t matter, the fun starts after that.

mech_2

exprog wrote: »

Zzzzzzzzzz. Now you’re getting boring. It’s not up to anyone to prove something else. It is up to the Climateology church to prove its assertions to real scientists.

I think the case has been well made given that you can't seem to provide a counter-argument.

Which it can’t. So data is hidden, research denied, debate refused.

Which data specifically? Debate isn't refused here: I'm trying to debate and you're just hopeless. I ask you questions and you ignore them and just say it's boring.

exprog

Don’t be silly. Everyone knows the emails refer specifically to hiding data. Far from having made a case well you have perpetuated the hoax by trying to justify the dodgy data etc by relying on those very things; made several attempts to misrepresent me; shown your allegiance to science by conspiracy; declared your indifference to the actual economic consequences to ordinary people in the West who are the victims of this con; been entirely unable to justify the disgraceful attempts to have real scientists prevented from researching the issues; and pretended or been ignorant of the many scientific challenges to this rubbish.

Get used to the fact that the days of trickery are over. From now on people are going to insist on real scientists having access to reliable data and providing honest theories. The hijacking of science to underpin political aims is ending. Transparency, disclosure and valid methodology are going to be restored to science. Those who have been living off deception will just have to try to get real jobs, or go on JSA, or start a new scam. If they’re not in prison.

dixie_dean_2

There's no point replying to these idiots. The fact is that the debate is over and won by the truth that climate change is real. The vast majority of the world believe this and until there is any reasonable evidence to the contrary (rather than ignorant, conspiracist tripe) this will continue to be the dominant view.

mech_2

exprog wrote: »

Don’t be silly. Everyone knows the emails refer specifically to hiding data.

"Everyone knows" isn't good enough. I want to see it.

Far from having made a case well you have perpetuated the hoax by trying to justify the dodgy data etc

Show me what data is "dodgy" and what is dodgy about it.

declared your indifference to the actual economic consequences to ordinary people in the West who are the victims of this con;

Er, what? You tried to bring in unrelated issues. Either the climate is warming or it isn't. Concerns over tax etc don't come into it. If the climate is warming, whether people lose jobs or not doesn't change that.

been entirely unable to justify the disgraceful attempts to have real scientists prevented from researching the issues;

Show me who and where.

and pretended or been ignorant of the many scientific challenges to this rubbish.

Specify one of them so that I might evaluate it rather than just relying on your say-so.

(more rhetoric snipped - I want more information, not rants).

I don't believe you.