M25 - Why?

[srb7677]

To that in bold Steve it doesn't read to me Borky doubting your intellect but was making a comparison.

And then you do it again to Nick
Another assumption eh Steve?

Borchester's comments were open to interpretation but I am not going to labour the point because it doesn't matter. I am not trying to claim to know better than the vast majority of scientists. Those that do make such extraordinary claims are the ones who need to back it up.

As for Nick, I am not doubting his intellect. I am doubting his wisdom in this area, seeing as he seems to assume he knows more than about the climate than the vast majority of lifelong climatologists.

And in my experience people who do that generally rely on selective reading on the internet, seeking out confirmation of their bias. Which is why I suspect Nick will not read what I supplied. But he is welcome to prove me wrong.

[cromwell]

Neither of us can claim to be a scientist or know more about scientific stuff than scientists. Mind you, same can be said for Nick but it doesn't stop him trying.

Yes, many years ago at the time you got your degrees you would have been more scientifically knowledgeable than me. perhaps. But most of my knowledge is self taught since leaving school. I know a lot more now than I did then. The fact that you have an ancient degree means little unless you have spent the years since then working as a scientist and are currently active as such. As for me sitting on a checkout, if you think that defines the limit of my intellect you are merely showing your own social ignorance and pomposity.

As for my responses to Nick, you might make a better support act if you challenged my basic points instead of trying to be a snob. Because the fact remains that regardless of yours or my scientific knowlegede and who knows more than who, I am not trying to say that the vast majoity of scientists are wrong. Anyone who does claim to be more knowledgeable than the scientists are the ones that need to demonstrate their credentials and offer a convincing reason why they know more, The fact that I work on a checkout means nothing. I am not trying to claim I know better than the scientists. Those that are making such arrogant claims are the ones who need to show why they know more than the scientists do. If you believe that the vast majority of scientists, most of them working in their field all their adult lives, are wrong, you are going to need a lot more than an ancient degree in physics to back you up. Otherwise you will just look as silly as all the other denialists.

To that in bold Steve it doesn't read to me Borky doubting your intellect but was making a comparison.

And then you do it again to Nick

But I doubt you will bother to read any of it because it does not confirm your bias.

Another assumption eh Steve?

[Sheepy]

I have checked out his CV. Conservative politician and former chancellor who now sits in the house of lords. Niowhere does it say that he is a reputed scientist of any kind, let alone a climatological one.

Enlighten me on his significance insofar as the science is concerned. Perhaps you could post a link to any peer reviewed scientific paper he has published, as opposed to denialist witterings similar to yours in the media.

Seems to me the only real significance he has in regards to the actual science is that he agrees with you without actually doing anymore than seeking out stuff he likes the look of from the internet echo chamber.

Check this out. Yes it is only a wikipedia article but it contains linksto many reputable sources and organisations. All of them rather more scientifically knowledgeable than some has been politician.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

But I doubt you will bother to read any of it because it does not confirm your bias.

I am bored now, 10 years ago nobody had an answer to prove it was man made and have spent the last 10 years trying to disprove any point against climate change pseudoscience, now we have turned to frightening kids who think it was a crime to bring them into the world as the end is nigh anyway. But on the other hand, not considering they couldn't cry and whine how bad adults are if they hadn't been born. Not being some fool I know that if you don't look after your own eco systems then it will take a turn for the worst anyway, but there is actually no way anyone can say how much of it is outside the realms of human interference. In that you or no pseudoscientist can without doubt prove or disprove how much is due to factors of the Earth's axis, volcanic interaction, overpopulation which they do know is a factor and won't admit it, or from the Earths relationship with the rest of the solar system especially the Sun. But as I can already see the next generation is so far gone in their belief which might well change with experience, it would be better if we future proof the economy anyway.

[srb7677]

Well, if you are going to be pompous...

I have degrees in both maths and physics. They are shit degrees from a shit poly, but they are still degrees. You, on the other hand, work on the till at Tesco or some such.

So by your logic, I am light years ahead of you education wise so when I tell you that 90% of the stuff you hear about climate change is bollocks and that the other 10% is just plain wrong, you can take my word for it.

Neither of us can claim to be a scientist or know more about scientific stuff than scientists. Mind you, same can be said for Nick but it doesn't stop him trying.

Yes, many years ago at the time you got your degrees you would have been more scientifically knowledgeable than me. perhaps. But most of my knowledge is self taught since leaving school. I know a lot more now than I did then. The fact that you have an ancient degree means little unless you have spent the years since then working as a scientist and are currently active as such. As for me sitting on a checkout, if you think that defines the limit of my intellect you are merely showing your own social ignorance and pomposity.

As for my responses to Nick, you might make a better support act if you challenged my basic points instead of trying to be a snob. Because the fact remains that regardless of yours or my scientific knowlegede and who knows more than who, I am not trying to say that the vast majoity of scientists are wrong. Anyone who does claim to be more knowledgeable than the scientists are the ones that need to demonstrate their credentials and offer a convincing reason why they know more, The fact that I work on a checkout means nothing. I am not trying to claim I know better than the scientists. Those that are making such arrogant claims are the ones who need to show why they know more than the scientists do. If you believe that the vast majority of scientists, most of them working in their field all their adult lives, are wrong, you are going to need a lot more than an ancient degree in physics to back you up. Otherwise you will just look as silly as all the other denialists.

[srb7677]

If you can't recognise the significance of Nigel Lawson even when I put it up in lights it isn't worth debating with you.

I have checked out his CV. Conservative politician and former chancellor who now sits in the house of lords. Niowhere does it say that he is a reputed scientist of any kind, let alone a climatological one.

Enlighten me on his significance insofar as the science is concerned. Perhaps you could post a link to any peer reviewed scientific paper he has published, as opposed to denialist witterings similar to yours in the media.

Seems to me the only real significance he has in regards to the actual science is that he agrees with you without actually doing anymore than seeking out stuff he likes the look of from the internet echo chamber.

Check this out. Yes it is only a wikipedia article but it contains linksto many reputable sources and organisations. All of them rather more scientifically knowledgeable than some has been politician.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

But I doubt you will bother to read any of it because it does not confirm your bias.

[Borchester]

Are you trying to suggest that the vast bulk of intelligent scientists who indepenntly look for evidence in the real world, are actually being tricked into believing in climate change by reading shit on the internet?

Well, if you are going to be pompous...

I have degrees in both maths and physics. They are shit degrees from a shit poly, but they are still degrees. You, on the other hand, work on the till at Tesco or some such.

So by your logic, I am light years ahead of you education wise so when I tell you that 90% of the stuff you hear about climate change is bollocks and that the other 10% is just plain wrong, you can take my word for it. 

[Nick]

You provided very little science, what you gave I looked at and it was not convincing that all the climate models are wrong.

As for those names you quote, some of them are not even scientists. Nigel Lawson Cor Blimey ? Seriously?

The remainder are a tiny minority of the scientific community, some of them obvious has beens like the one who edited a science magazine 60 years ago, a magazine which today recognises the reality of climate change cause by human activities  You are clutching at straws, and still have provided no conclusive evidence to support your extraordinary claim that you know more than the vast majority of scientists. Where do you get your facts? The internet? .

And quoting the names of a handful of mavericks, half of them ancient has beens or else not scientidsts at all proves nothing but your desperation.

I mean are you really trying to tell me that a former politician and chancellor is a better authority on the science of the climate than the vast majority of actual climatological scientists? Do me a favour and get back to your echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, .

If you can't recognise the significance of Nigel Lawson even when I put it up in lights it isn't worth debating with you.

[srb7677]

I gave you loads of science but you totally ignored it.

Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace who later became a critic of the organisation.
Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966.
John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama.
Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute.
Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (the man told by Margaret Thatcher to basically make Global Warming up to kill the NUM).

Are the above all crackpots too?

You provided very little science, what you gave I looked at and it was not convincing that all the climate models are wrong.

As for those names you quote, some of them are not even scientists. Nigel Lawson ffs? Seriously?

The remainder are a tiny minority of the scientific community, some of them obvious has beens like the one who edited a science magazine 60 years ago, a magazine which today recognises the reality of climate change cause by human activities  You are clutching at straws, and still have provided no conclusive evidence to support your extraordinary claim that you know more than the vast majority of scientists. Where do you get your facts? The internet? .

And quoting the names of a handful of mavericks, half of them ancient has beens or else not scientidsts at all proves nothing but your desperation.

I mean are you really trying to tell me that a former politician and chancellor is a better authority on the science of the climate than the vast majority of actual climatological scientists? Do me a favour and get back to your echo chamber where everyone agrees with you, .

[Nick]

No. I imagine that Nick thinks that department heads (and anyone hoping to be a department head) in the better universities, is expected to publish a paper every year or so and right now climate change is the fashion. And no one is going to get far or be popular by suggesting that it is just weather, shit happens and the money being spent on this pseudo science might be better spent on something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P1UXYS6Bmg

Are any of these departments or heads funded by Climate Change grants I wonder 🤔.

[Nick]

Are you trying to suggest that the vast bulk of intelligent scientists who indepenntly look for evidence in the real world, are actually being tricked into believing in climate change by reading shit on the internet?

I would suggest that you are the one more likely to be doing that. You have still failed to offer any credible. credentials by which you can claim to know more than most of the world's scientists. Have you spent years studying the subject not by reading crap on the internet but by taking measurements and making experiments, testing hypotheses and then publishing peer reviewed, evidence-backed papers on the subject in scientific journals? Do you do this for a living and have you done so all your adult life? No? Then on what intelligent basis can you credibly argue that they are all wrong and that you are right? The arrogance and ignorance of such an assumption is breathtaking, but nevertheless typical of conspiracy theorists, who tend to be the ones believing bullshit in ininternet echo chambers.

Where is your vast array of solid evidence, backed by years of measurements and experiments, constantly peer reviewed, that shows you to be right and almost all the world scientists to be wrong? You have still offered none. And quoting a post from me elsewhere concerning internet echo chambers and the abundance of lies to be found there, does not constitute such evidence.

If you have no credible evidence that the scientists are wrong drawn from sources other than internet echo chambers, from your own investigations and measurements and experiments, then perhaps you think all the scientists are lying? If so why, what motive do you assume they might have for doing so, and where is your evidence for either the supposed fact of their dishonesty or their motives for it? And again quoting a post by me about internet echo chambers, and lies and bullshit on the internet does not constitute such evidence. In no way does my quote suggest the world's top scientists are either wrong or lying. It is in fact far more likely to be what lies behind your your own arrogant and ignorant assumption that you are right and all the world's top scientists are wrong

I gave you loads of science but you totally ignored it.

Your so called scientists get a salary based on there being a problem and have done for a long time, of course they are going to find a problem. Their climate models are based on C02 increases: C02 goes up, temperature goes up, that's how they're programmed. The problem is the relationship is the wrong way round: C02 lags temperature by hundreds of years. The second problem is that the temperature increase is in the wrong place. If it was the greenhouse effect, the temperature rise would be seen more in the upper atmosphere and it's not.

You on the other hand failed to give one bit of science. BTW climate models are not science, they are just sausage machines. You put meat in and you get out exactly what it was designed to give you. Sausages!!



Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace who later became a critic of the organisation.
Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966.
John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama.
Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute.
Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (the man told by Margaret Thatcher to basically make Global Warming up to kill the NUM).

Are the above all crackpots too?

[Borchester]

Are you trying to suggest that the vast bulk of intelligent scientists who indepenntly look for evidence in the real world, are actually being tricked into believing in climate change by reading shit on the internet?

No. I imagine that Nick thinks that department heads (and anyone hoping to be a department head) in the better universities, is expected to publish a paper every year or so and right now climate change is the fashion. And no one is going to get far or be popular by suggesting that it is just weather, shit happens and the money being spent on this pseudo science might be better spent on something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P1UXYS6Bmg

[johnofgwent]

The problem is that the right to protest is a fundamental human right in any free society

But they are not seeking to protest.

They and their XR comrades seek to disrupt and destroy.

Yes, you have a right to peaceful protest.

You do not have a right to condemn a stroke victim to a life of paralysis thanks to your anarchistic blockade of the queen's highway.

And if carbon dioxide is such a killer, how come the atmosphere trapped in 72 carbon buckyballs from prehistoric times is so much more enriched in it than they the levels of today.

[srb7677]

See you own words below.

Are you trying to suggest that the vast bulk of intelligent scientists who indepenntly look for evidence in the real world, are actually being tricked into believing in climate change by reading shit on the internet?

I would suggest that you are the one more likely to be doing that. You have still failed to offer any credible. credentials by which you can claim to know more than most of the world's scientists. Have you spent years studying the subject not by reading crap on the internet but by taking measurements and making experiments, testing hypotheses and then publishing peer reviewed, evidence-backed papers on the subject in scientific journals? Do you do this for a living and have you done so all your adult life? No? Then on what intelligent basis can you credibly argue that they are all wrong and that you are right? The arrogance and ignorance of such an assumption is breathtaking, but nevertheless typical of conspiracy theorists, who tend to be the ones believing bullshit in ininternet echo chambers.

Where is your vast array of solid evidence, backed by years of measurements and experiments, constantly peer reviewed, that shows you to be right and almost all the world scientists to be wrong? You have still offered none. And quoting a post from me elsewhere concerning internet echo chambers and the abundance of lies to be found there, does not constitute such evidence.

If you have no credible evidence that the scientists are wrong drawn from sources other than internet echo chambers, from your own investigations and measurements and experiments, then perhaps you think all the scientists are lying? If so why, what motive do you assume they might have for doing so, and where is your evidence for either the supposed fact of their dishonesty or their motives for it? And again quoting a post by me about internet echo chambers, and lies and bullshit on the internet does not constitute such evidence. In no way does my quote suggest the world's top scientists are either wrong or lying. It is in fact far more likely to be what lies behind your your own arrogant and ignorant assumption that you are right and all the world's top scientists are wrong

[Nick]

So you think you know more than the vast majority of the scientific community? On what basis of knowledge can you make such an extraordinary claim? And do you think most scientists are simply wrong and you are right? Or do you hold some sort of conspiracy theory by which you believe global scientists are actively lying to us? And what motives do you suppose they might have for doing so?

Because cyclic climatic fluctuations of a kind that you are holding forth are occurring against a background of rising global temperatures overall that has been occurring over a long period. And the measured CO2 in the atmosphere - known to be a greenhouse gas - has increased markedly. The extent and duration of this increase cannot be explained by natural processes, but is a demonstrable by-product of human activity. On what basis do you deny this reality? Wishful thinking?

See you own words below.

One problem with the internet is that it tends to act as a massive echo chamber. Algorithms tend to expose us to the kind of news and views - dodgy or not - that we already agree with, and all of us are prone to seeking out stuff that confirms what we already think. Confirmation bias is simply a common facet of human nature.

[Nick]

So you think you know more than the vast majority of the scientific community? On what basis of knowledge can you make such an extraordinary claim? And do you think most scientists are simply wrong and you are right? Or do you hold some sort of conspiracy theory by which you believe global scientists are actively lying to us? And what motives do you suppose they might have for doing so?

Because cyclic climatic fluctuations of a kind that you are holding forth are occurring against a background of rising global temperatures overall that has been occurring over a long period. And the measured CO2 in the atmosphere - known to be a greenhouse gas - has increased markedly. The extent and duration of this increase cannot be explained by natural processes, but is a demonstrable by-product of human activity. On what basis do you deny this reality? Wishful thinking?

Your so called scientists get a salary based on there being a problem and have done for a long time, of course they are going to find a problem. Their climate models are based on C02 increases: C02 goes up, temperature goes up, that's how they're programmed. The problem is the relationship is the wrong way round: C02 lags temperature by hundreds of years. The second problem is that the temperature increase is in the wrong place. If it was the greenhouse effect, the temperature rise would be seen more in the upper atmosphere and it's not.

So where is your science that proves anthropogenic global warming? Cause I've asked a dozen times and not seen any, except the IPCC report which is a joke. Where's your actual science?