 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Whitegold, I'll bet you a pound that it doesn't
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Raise you 6 jelly beans and a skittle that it will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
arv, just realised that you have changed your name 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Sad newspaper that nobody reads in global warming exclusive is maybe another title for this thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ssnowman, the Independent is an excellent paper! Perhaps a bit too much cricket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a gash newspaper. But the article was readworthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Whitegold, so are in for the pound or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
II, I don't believe it will happen either just yet, but for the sake of enterntainment I will side with publicity-hungry scientists and bet you one Pound that the ice at 90 degrees north may well have melted away by the peak or end of summer 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Franklin would be turning in his grave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
achilles, that's an interesting read.
i do think there's some truth in the "there's lies, damn lies and statistics" though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rogg wrote: |
achilles, that's an interesting read.
i do think there's some truth in the "there's lies, damn lies and statistics" though |
Rogg, you might want to have a look at all sides of the story, here's a fairly concise overview of McKitrick's work:
http://timlambert.org/category/McKitrick/
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I thought this was a thread about the poor barman skills up there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I've got no real desire to get into a climate change discussion (life's too short and I still haven't finished with the creationists) but I just find it very interesting that those who take issue with the IPCC don't extend their critical thinking skills any further and subject the counter theories, claims & data of the deniers to the same level of scrutiny.
For instance, you could believe everything you read in the Telegraph op-ed piece linked to above, or you could look into the McIntyre & McKitrick criticisms of the Mann graph in more detail and weigh up the evidence:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The nanobots'll sort us all out. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Seany, the register is not particularly reliable or otherwise, but I quoted it as a it is a response to the published 'facts'. I do not need to justify it any more than that.
My intention was purely to highlight that there are differing conclusions that can be drawn and at least one cycle of claim/counterclaim. At what point the cycle is deemed to have been adequately reiterated so the original contention has been reduced to or deduced to an acceptable level of certainty, is open to discussion.
I am not denying global climate change: or even a human element contributing towards it.
I am saddened by shoddy science; especially when it appears to be driven by patiallity in an organisation that claims otherwise. Like most people, I dislike being lied to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| lampbus wrote: |
| My intention was purely to highlight that there are differing conclusions that can be drawn and at least one cycle of claim/counterclaim. |
That's a fairly subtle message to try and get across in the phrase "its mostly newspaper bollox"
| lampbus wrote: |
| At what point the cycle is deemed to have been adequately reiterated so the original contention has been reduced to or deduced to an acceptable level of certainty, is open to discussion. |
I don't think that the standard of scientific critique given by the likes of McIntyre, McKitrick & Goddard is bringing much to the party.
| lampbus wrote: |
| I am saddened by shoddy science |
I can't recommend this enough:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198?tag=amz07b-21
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| lampbus wrote: |
Seany, the register is not particularly reliable or otherwise, but I quoted it as a it is a response to the published 'facts'. I do not need to justify it any more than that.
My intention was purely to highlight that there are differing conclusions that can be drawn and at least one cycle of claim/counterclaim. At what point the cycle is deemed to have been adequately reiterated so the original contention has been reduced to or deduced to an acceptable level of certainty, is open to discussion.
I am not denying global climate change: or even a human element contributing towards it.
I am saddened by shoddy science; especially when it appears to be driven by patiallity in an organisation that claims otherwise. Like most people, I dislike being lied to. |
Hear hear.
Why is it that whenever anyone so much as diffidently opines that human induced climate change may be a more complex phenomenon than is sometimes asserted, they get their b*llocks bitten off ?
The debate is more often infused with quasi-religious fervour than scientific rigour. Comparing people who have reservations about the mechanism of climate change to flat earthers/creationists is not helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| jonty wrote: |
Why is it that whenever anyone so much as diffidently opines that human induced climate change may be a more complex phenomenon than is sometimes asserted, they get their b*llocks bitten off ?
The debate is more often infused with quasi-religious fervour than scientific rigour. Comparing people who have reservations about the mechanism of climate change to flat earthers/creationists is not helpful. |
Firstly, I don't think anyone was opining that 'climate change may be a more complex phenomenon than is sometimes asserted'. However, it tends to be climate change sceptics who don't understand the true complexity of the science involved, which is why they often trot out the same simplistic and debunked arguments again & again (e.g. that Telegraph article above was out of date in 2004).
Secondly I wasn't biting anyone's b*llocks, I was bringing some scientific rigour (rather than quasi-religious fervour) to the poor arguments made by previously anonymous IT lecturer in The Register. If people like these can't keep up with or understand the science (whilst still feeling qualified enough to denigrate, belittle and smear those who can) then you have to question their motivation. I think some of the hardcore deniers are exactly the same as creationists in their thinking, in that theirs is a faith position and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. Personally I don't think publishing poorly thought out and demonstrably wrong critiques of climate science is 'helpful'.
Show me the good evidence against AGW (one published piece of peer-reviewed research would be a start) and I'll assess that evidence against the current body of knowledge we have built up. If the evidence is good enough I'll happily admit I was wrong (the same goes for homeopathy, reiki, crystal healing, dowsing, etc.) And whilst I'm happy to discuss the science in both camps, it's fruitless to debate with people who aren't willing to change their point of view in light of the evidence - it's nearly impossible to reason people out of positions that they didn’t reason themselves into.
Anyway, that's all you'll hear from me on the subject [/dismounts hobby horse], I'm off to spend a week sliding down a glacier 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Seany wrote: |
| jonty wrote: |
Why is it that whenever anyone so much as diffidently opines that human induced climate change may be a more complex phenomenon than is sometimes asserted, they get their b*llocks bitten off ?
The debate is more often infused with quasi-religious fervour than scientific rigour. Comparing people who have reservations about the mechanism of climate change to flat earthers/creationists is not helpful. |
Firstly, I don't think anyone was opining that 'climate change may be a more complex phenomenon than is sometimes asserted'. However, it tends to be climate change sceptics who don't understand the true complexity of the science involved, which is why they often trot out the same simplistic and debunked arguments again & again (e.g. that Telegraph article above was out of date in 2004).
Secondly I wasn't biting anyone's b*llocks, I was bringing some scientific rigour (rather than quasi-religious fervour) to the poor arguments made by previously anonymous IT lecturer in The Register. If people like these can't keep up with or understand the science (whilst still feeling qualified enough to denigrate, belittle and smear those who can) then you have to question their motivation. I think some of the hardcore deniers are exactly the same as creationists in their thinking, in that theirs is a faith position and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. Personally I don't think publishing poorly thought out and demonstrably wrong critiques of climate science is 'helpful'.
Show me the good evidence against AGW (one published piece of peer-reviewed research would be a start) and I'll assess that evidence against the current body of knowledge we have built up. If the evidence is good enough I'll happily admit I was wrong (the same goes for homeopathy, reiki, crystal healing, dowsing, etc.) And whilst I'm happy to discuss the science in both camps, it's fruitless to debate with people who aren't willing to change their point of view in light of the evidence - it's nearly impossible to reason people out of positions that they didn’t reason themselves into.
Anyway, that's all you'll hear from me on the subject [/dismounts hobby horse], I'm off to spend a week sliding down a glacier |
Precisely my point.
[dismounts hobby horse and hands it back to Seany] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I thought all the Arctic sea ice melt was decreasing salinity but no, it appears that the waters around the north pole have become a super-saturated solution of sea salts and antifreeze. 
