It's Bloody Cold Here - Is Global Warming All Over?

toby3000

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Global Warmists have already cottoned on (very slowly) that they are talking gibberish, which is why they now call it "Climate Change". They want to blame 4 wheel drive merchants for the cold as well, simply because they cannot afford one themselves.

Besides the fact that 'climate' and 'the weather' are different things, Britain is unnaturally warm due to the gulf stream. The huge quantities of fresh water coming from the melting ice in the north will probably disrupt this, so Britain will get colder (probably) as climate change takes hold.

The fact that the only person the BBC seems capable of finding to dispute the science of climate change is Nigel Lawson shows the extent of the consensus on climate change.

andykn

A._Badger wrote: »

Now that is even more risible!

No wonder this farrago of pseudo-science is unravelling if that is the level of debate!

You were the one linking to a former TV presenter's website. Pseudo science would be polite for that site.

Generali

toby3000 wrote: »

The fact that the only person the BBC seems capable of finding to dispute the science of climate change is Nigel Lawson shows the extent of the consensus on climate change.

Not really, it just shows that if you are a scientist that doesn't believe in anthropogenic heating of the planet you won't get funding for studies so your career is effectively finished.

A bit like Lord Young saying, "You've never had it so good".

I'm not taking one side or the other on climate change. All I'm saying is that there is no debate and that is worrying to me. All other bits of cutting edge science have many theories being examined, disproved perhaps or being able to be replicated.

andykn

Generali wrote: »

Not really, it just shows that if you are a scientist that doesn't believe in anthropogenic heating of the planet you won't get funding for studies so your career is effectively finished.

A bit like Lord Young saying, "You've never had it so good".

I'm not taking one side or the other on climate change. All I'm saying is that there is no debate and that is worrying to me. All other bits of cutting edge science have many theories being examined, disproved perhaps or being able to be replicated.

"no debate"? You clearly haven't seen the thousands of sceptic websites.

And "proper" contrarian scientists do get recognition and funding. Look at Dr Roy Spencer or Prof Richard Lindzen. The fact that there is so few is not evidence of funding problems but of consensus.

Climate science does have many theories being examined and disproved, it's just moved on from the basics, which some of the public are unwilling to.

And there's not "one side or the other". There's the IPCC case, backed by all the world's major scientific institutions and then there's lots of other mutually contradictory ideas.

ILW

If there is fair debate, why is it that the government fund a department of "climate change research" at a university but not a department of "climate not changing much"?

andykn

ILW wrote: »

If there is fair debate, why is it that the government fund a department of "climate change research" at a university but not a department of "climate not changing much"?

The same way they don't fund a "Flat Earth Department" or "Creationist Department". The scientific debate has moved on.

ILW

andykn wrote: »

The same way they don't fund a "Flat Earth Department" or "Creationist Department". The scientific debate has moved on.

Or could it just be that there is little revenue to be made from things being roughly the same?

A._Badger

andykn wrote: »

The same way they don't fund a "Flat Earth Department" or "Creationist Department". The scientific debate has moved on.

That would be 'the science is settled' lie, would it?

You started this with the patently absurd claim there was no alternative explanation for 'global warming' (which, of course, is no longer happening). I posted a link to a story reporting the publication of one of many alternative explanations and the best you could do was try to smear the site owner.

It was the intellectual dishonesty of warmists that started me wondering if their position wasn't a complete crock, in the first place. So do keep on ploughing that barren furrow - you'll no doubt help others reach a similar state of profound scepticism.

andykn

ILW wrote: »

Or could it just be that there is little revenue to be made from things being roughly the same?

No, fuel duty was high to stop pollution and congestion long before climate change became a political issue. Other "green" taxes, like the landfill levy, are nothing to do with climate change either.

So no, there's plenty of revenue to be made from things being roughly the same.

Although why you'd expect to be able to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and then expect to be able to describe that as being "roughly the same" is bizarre.

Generali

andykn wrote: »

"no debate"? You clearly haven't seen the thousands of sceptic websites.

And "proper" contrarian scientists do get recognition and funding. Look at Dr Roy Spencer or Prof Richard Lindzen. The fact that there is so few is not evidence of funding problems but of consensus.

Climate science does have many theories being examined and disproved, it's just moved on from the basics, which some of the public are unwilling to.

And there's not "one side or the other". There's the IPCC case, backed by all the world's major scientific institutions and then there's lots of other mutually contradictory ideas.

Within science, debate isn't a bunch of websites, it's articles being published in peer reviewed journals. AIUI, people outside the 'consensus' find it very hard to get funding and there have been allegations that they are being shunned by the journals.

As I say, I have no axe to grind either way. I try to use as few resources as possible (grow my own veggies, cycle to work and so on) but I don't claim any expertise on what is the best theory on climate change. When everyone seems to gather round a single theory and get so upset if anyone challenges it makes me think something is up. Perhaps I'm just being cynical.