80 very worthwhile minutes.
I can't get the gif to work, but I'll get the popcorn out.
Last edited:
A little truth for a change.
- Thread starter Phil Pascoe
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
80 very worthwhile minutes.
I can't get the gif to work, but I'll get the popcorn out.
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
You're well within your rights to believe what you like Phil, but you really shouldn't confuse opinion with facts.
80 very worthwhile minutes.
I can't get the gif to work, but I'll get the popcorn out.
What makes you believe this person over all the scientists who would say otherwise?
Ollie78
Established Member
Trouble is facts can be quite seriously manipulated, this is the art of statistics which can be made to say quite a lot of different things with the same data set.
I have seen persuasive arguments from both sides of the climate debate and concluded the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. As it usually is with most stuff.
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
Indeed and opinion is just opinion.
I'll stick with the peer reviewed science.
I'll stick with the peer reviewed science.
Which is why papers are peer reviewed and statistical results published such that bias can be tested for and avoided. The truth does indeed lie in the middle, in the middle of what the statistics say, not in the middle between the statistics and some whacko cherry picking imbicile.
We are all posting on electronic devices developed based on experiment and observation , powered by an electrical system, developed based on experiment and observation, kept healthy by drugs based on experiment and observation. The scientific method is not opinion based, it is evidence based. Yes it is not incorruptible and it is swayed by what is funded, but to say that thousand of scientists whom have researched the subject are all part of some mass lie is utter nonsense, and that one bloke can see the truth is even more ridiculous.
My favourite thing about climate change is that people bang on about how it’s a hoax, the climate has always changed. This is true and with that change has come mass species extinction. The planet will be absolutely fine with the change, ffs it survived a massive bloody meteorite strike. The problem is our survival, and to sit around twiddling our thumbs whilst the evidence says our climate is rapidly changing is idiotic at best. Even if the evidence eventually shows another unknown cause, then saying ‘I told you so’ won’t be possible if we’ve done nothing as a species to adapt our society to the change.
Honestly I think people just don’t want to change what they do and how they live so spread this garbage as an excuse not to change. I’d much rather people say you know what I don’t care and I’m going on living how I want to. I can honestly say I’d respect that position so much more.
Sorry rant over, but the scientific method is responsible for the amazing standard of life we all enjoy, and I get annoyed when it is held hostage by people who don’t understand it, or can’t be bothered to understand it.
Fitz.
John Brown
Freeloading Social media influenza
Very little truth, I suspect.
Ollie78
Established Member
Quite right about the scientific method.
Peer reviewed science should be the gold standard, unfortunately studies must be funded and those who pay for such studies have certain agendas they "prefer". Even highly principled and legitimate thinkers and researchers need to eat.
Many renowned and respected scientists were recently, fired from universities, excommunicated and otherwise shunned because they were not agreeing with certain perspectives. Some of the things they were saying are now being shown to have been correct.
Makes me glad I just make woodwork for a living
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Many years ago a convincing documentary "proved" the moon landings were faked. Such a secret could not have remained confidential. Many hundreds would be aware of the scam - set designers, NASA control staff, cameramen, tracking stations, lunar rover manufacturers, etc etc etc.
The climate debate is similar - it is possible to construct a conspiracy through selective use of data and statistics. Talk to a politician - it's familiar territory. But overwhelming scientific consensus and peer review process makes it highly unlikely that there is any substance to the claims.
Presenting data over many millennia (or longer) and concluding that climate today is well within historical extremes is flawed. Human critical timescales are measured in a few decades only.
There are simple experiments demonstrating the impact of changing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fundamental science is beyond reasonable doubt, although the interaction with other processes is more complex - eg: polar ice cover and reflectivity, rainfall, vegetation loss etc.
A basic sense test also suggests that burning fossil fuels laid down over several hundred million years, then releasing the absorbed gases in a a couple of centuries is likely to be destabilising.
Conclusion - the video is an unevidenced, non-peer reviewed piece of work supported by contributions mainly from those with limited apparent expertise.
The climate debate is similar - it is possible to construct a conspiracy through selective use of data and statistics. Talk to a politician - it's familiar territory. But overwhelming scientific consensus and peer review process makes it highly unlikely that there is any substance to the claims.
Presenting data over many millennia (or longer) and concluding that climate today is well within historical extremes is flawed. Human critical timescales are measured in a few decades only.
There are simple experiments demonstrating the impact of changing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The fundamental science is beyond reasonable doubt, although the interaction with other processes is more complex - eg: polar ice cover and reflectivity, rainfall, vegetation loss etc.
A basic sense test also suggests that burning fossil fuels laid down over several hundred million years, then releasing the absorbed gases in a a couple of centuries is likely to be destabilising.
Conclusion - the video is an unevidenced, non-peer reviewed piece of work supported by contributions mainly from those with limited apparent expertise.
Who make their livings from concensus - as was pointed out many times.
Limited expertise like being professors at the world's top universities and being awarded Nobel Prizes.
It would be good if you can all point out which bits of evidence were actually false.
You haven’t answered my question yet.
What I struggle to understand is that if you put it in woodworking terms, if you were choosing a new drill and looking at reviews on YouTube and forums and of the woodworkers who clearly had huge amounts of experience, knew what they were doing and had proven those skills time and again, 1000 of them recommended a drill made by SanityInc.,
Whereas three randoms who had made a couple of videos saying they were excellent woodworkers including uploading one video that showed a box that someone else had clearly made, recommended a different drill made by TwistedShankCorp and said that by the way all the other 1000 were in the pay of BigDrill, then I’m sure you would be leaning towards buying the first drill (and wondering more if the other three are being paid by TwistedShankCorp)
Wouldn’t you?
What I struggle to understand is that if you put it in woodworking terms, if you were choosing a new drill and looking at reviews on YouTube and forums and of the woodworkers who clearly had huge amounts of experience, knew what they were doing and had proven those skills time and again, 1000 of them recommended a drill made by SanityInc.,
Whereas three randoms who had made a couple of videos saying they were excellent woodworkers including uploading one video that showed a box that someone else had clearly made, recommended a different drill made by TwistedShankCorp and said that by the way all the other 1000 were in the pay of BigDrill, then I’m sure you would be leaning towards buying the first drill (and wondering more if the other three are being paid by TwistedShankCorp)
Wouldn’t you?
That is an excellent post
The other thing I can’t understand is the concept that ‘all these scientists are being paid off to say climate change is real’ who by? Surely the vested interest with the biggest money is oil, so why wouldn’t they be paying them off to say the climate is fine?
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
That is untrue.
I have very good friends Yngvar Gjessing and Ole Anders Nøst who work for the Norwegian Geophysics department at Bergen University. They are both respected climate scientists who study the ice and cold water interaction around Antarctica. They carry out serious, impartial and unbiased research which is reviewed by international groups of their peers.
If their research was skewed to agree with a consensus just to get funding, they would be laughed at.
It's best not to get influenced by opinion, try to dress it up as knowledge and post it on the internet.
Phil,
I see you're in Cornwall, I am too - I grew up here and if you did too, you will remember as a child, waiting for the school bus in the cold, frosty weather of winter. If your bus was anything like mine, you spent most of your time on it of a morning, breathing on the window next to you to thaw a small circle out of which to watch the world go by. That weather would last for weeks most winters, but when was the last time we had more than a couple of nights of frost? If you cannot see for yourself the change in the climate over your own lifespan, then you must be one of the most unobservant people out there.
Wake up man and stop peddling lies that suit someone else's agenda, it ill becomes you, unless of course you just like being controversial and get some weird buzz from it.
I see you're in Cornwall, I am too - I grew up here and if you did too, you will remember as a child, waiting for the school bus in the cold, frosty weather of winter. If your bus was anything like mine, you spent most of your time on it of a morning, breathing on the window next to you to thaw a small circle out of which to watch the world go by. That weather would last for weeks most winters, but when was the last time we had more than a couple of nights of frost? If you cannot see for yourself the change in the climate over your own lifespan, then you must be one of the most unobservant people out there.
Wake up man and stop peddling lies that suit someone else's agenda, it ill becomes you, unless of course you just like being controversial and get some weird buzz from it.
artie
Sawdust manufacturer.
I also remember long warm summers, also a thing we don't get anymore.
I don't care which religious denomination you belong to, either climate warming or not, and that is basically what it comes down to, do governments lie, does big business want to sell us more stuff, are there things we don't understand.
Be sceptical, question everything.
name calling and questioning the mental capacity of someone who disagrees or questions the narrative is hardly the best way to convince anyone.
