david dissadent
New Member
Oh while I am here how can we orginise to try to get "The great global warming swindle" infront of a judge?
Court finds 11 inaccuracies in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter bigfish
- Start date
How come so many of the screw-the-environment brigade are so old?
Isaac Asimov's First Law of Prediction: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
david dissadent said:
so there is actually good scientific evidence i favour of the stuff the judge rejected? good grief :
btw it looks like the Viscount Monckton chap was a backer of Dimmock and is putting out a video of his very own slideshow talk debunking climate change with the intention of distributing it to schools (along with the swindle doc) and all financed by an american rightwing think-tank. Lovely stuff!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2652851.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2652851.ece
co-op said:
Mr Justice Burton does not agree with you. His judgement is available here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
co-op said:
I' afraid that's simply not true. Dr William Gray, one of the worlds leading authorities on hurricane, says that:
Those who had linked global warming to the increased number of hurricanes in recent years were in error. He cited statistics showing there were 101 hurricanes from 1900 to 1949, in a period of cooler global temperatures, compared to 83 from 1957 to 2006 when the earth warmed.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/...696238792.html
So according to Dr Gray warmer = fewer hurricanes not more as you're suggesting above.
co-op said:
Yes, I accept that the planet has warmed by about 0.7 degrees Celsius through something called rebounding (natural recovery) since the end of the Little Ice Age. According Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, a Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, the rebounding rate is estimated at 0.5 degrees Celsius per century. Since our present warming rate is roughly 0.6 degrees Celsius per century, the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 may represent only a 0.1 degree Celsius increase in temperature over the course of a century, if that. Which in my view is nothing to get alarmed about.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I thought it was 9 innaccuracies?
Anyway: rich, liberal opportunist. The Bono of politics.
Anyway: rich, liberal opportunist. The Bono of politics.
bluestreak said:so there is actually good scientific evidence i favour of the stuff the judge rejected? good grief :
I know, why don't you launch an appeal against the High Court ruling? That way you can call New Scientist, RealClimate and the IPCC as expert witnesses. Personally, I'd pay money to watch those guys being cross examined under oath.
david dissadent
New Member
Yes the BBC and New Scientist are all liars and anyone who publishes a paper that disagrees with you is a fraudster.bigfish said:
Science is easy when you are totaly right and everyone who has data you dont like is lying.
david dissadent said:
Science is an open subject, wherein scientific theories must be able to withstand theoretical criticism, in order for them to stand.
The BBC is the British State's personal propaganda megaphone, witness their performance during the invasion of Iraq, for example.
New Scientist has been shilling for "manmade global warming" since the get go, just like the BBC.
Michael Mann's hockey stick study was not able to withstand theoretical criticism and has been comprehensively demolished... but you wont read that on the BBC website.
Bigfish
What is your role in the New Party then? Are you one of its more important members? Are you perhaps a big fish in a small pond? How small or big is it, how many members? As I said before you come across as an American Republican. Your location is no clue either.
What is your role in the New Party then? Are you one of its more important members? Are you perhaps a big fish in a small pond? How small or big is it, how many members? As I said before you come across as an American Republican. Your location is no clue either.
david dissadent
New Member
I am sorry but this is an increadibly weak definition of science for a science forum. What does "open subject" mean? Why only theoretical criticism not that from experimental data or field research? Of the top of my head Id say that science is the process of accumulating knowledge using the scientific method, that is to say a falsifyable hypothesis is proposed with testible predicitons to try to develop a better model of a phenominon in the universe.bigfish said:
Hypoheses and theories can be altered to better conform with data when they do not meet predicted outcomes. (this is called learning) or (relevant here) methedological flaws are pointed out in them.
Where you fail badly on science is to believe that a published paper challanging elements of a hypotheses or theory automaticaly invalidate it, if it agrees with your expected outcome. However anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the history of science will know that evidence that has appeared to kill a hypotheses dead can later be incorperated into the framework to provide a better model. Further more, often many discoveries and data, lead up blind allys.
Constantly turning up with one paper and declairing you were right all along about everything ever is as far from science and close to faith as you can get.
The hockey stick model of Mann et al has been amended to take onboard some of the criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick et al. And do declair as an article of faith that the hockey stick is dead is simple minded faith not science the general conclusions have been reached by several research groups independently. Because on paper criticised Mann et al for there methodology does not make the general conclusions wrong but opens them to debate. Nor does it make Mann a fraud. This is gross slander without any evidence.
And yet many anti war campainers regarded the BBC as being the most anti war out of BBC Sky and ITV, and certaily compaired to ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox or MSNBC and so on.bigfish said:
Not to mention the "gas sun model". No psuedoscience is to far for them.bigfish said:
Your idea of comprahnsively demolished differs from the US National Research Council.bigfish said:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
Lie machine? Frauds? Shills? Psuedoscientists..... I await your criticism of this body.
david dissadent said:
But isn't that precisely your position with regard to Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick study? Prior to its miraculous appearance, the generally accepted view of global temperature over the Holocene was that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age really did exist. In fact, there are more than one hundred published peer reviewed papers that document the existence of the MWP from about 900AD to 1400AD in Europe, North America, South America, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and Africa including South Africa. Perhaps you can explain how it came to pass that a single paper, the product of a young and relative novice to the field, managed to overturn the whole of the prevailing scientific paradigm as developed and enunciated by the founding fathers of climatology?
Yes, I completely agree with you, david, but that's precisely what happened with Mann's hockey stick, no?
david dissadent said:
Which anti war campaigners were those then? Can you back up your claim with something a little more substantive than mere verbiage?
Here's an example of what I mean:
Biased broadcasting corporation
A survey of the main broadcasters' coverage of the invasion of Iraq shows the claim that the BBC was anti-war is the opposite of the truth
Among its findings were:
* The BBC was the least likely to quote official Iraqi sources, and less likely than Sky, ITV or Channel 4 News to use independent sources of news such as the Red Cross. Channel 4 used these sources three times more often than the BBC, and Sky twice as often.
* Across all four broadcasters, the bulletins were three times more likely to present the Iraqi population as pro-invasion than anti-invasion. The exception to the ratio was Channel 4, where it was just less than two to one.
· Professor Justin Lewis is deputy head of Cardiff University's school of journalism
http://media.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4705363-111303,00.html
bigfish said:
Are you saying there was great confidence in some earlier version of mwp?
After all there's no instrumental records that far back - we're talking about proxy evidence here, which surely we must have got better at finding and analysing. How many attempts have there been at the global mean T that far back exactly?
I mean you contrarian types are often busy attacking modern measurements which we have direct instrumental records for and here you are implying high confidence in early work with PROXY evidence like tree-rings etc. It's a bit rich.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
bigfish said:
OK Bigfish, I am still trying to work out whether you are just a time-waster so I will accept that you have misunderstood my original post that you quoted.
The website of the New Party that you cut and pasted from said something like (from memory) - "the Claimants evidence was that the ocean conveyer theory was wrong...etc".
My point? - I could file an affadavit in support of a writ today at the High Court stating that the Earth is flat and black is white. It would all be "Claimant's evidence", the fact is it's also obvious bollocks.
So Mr Justice Burton does not disagree with me - my point was to do with obviously tendencious reporting of the case by the NP.
Interestingly though, Mr Justice Burton does down the ocean conveyor claim made by Al Gore. And for why? And on what authority pray? - Why it's the IPCC. So you are relying on IPCC evidence here. How can you pick just one little bit of it and believe that whilst rejecting the rest? (I don't say this is impossible of course, merely that you'd better have some credible reasons)
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Also Bigfish, if you think Mr Justice Burton is an authority here, what do you make of his finding (in the link you helpfully posted) that;
"I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:
"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus."
Again I am curious as to what allows you to cherry pick elements of this judgement and leave out the massive substantive finding that the Judge has accepted the IPCC take on climate change.
"I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists. Ms Bramman explains, at paragraph 14 of her witness statement, that:
"The position is that the central scientific theme of Al Gore's Film is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community. That consensus is reflected in the recent report of the IPCC. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options and adaptation and mitigation. Hundreds of experts from all over the world contribute to the preparation of IPCC reports, including the Working Group I report on Climate Change 2007: The physical Science basis of climate change, published on 2 February 2007 and the most recent Mitigation of Climate Change, the Summary for Policy-makers published by Working Group III on 4 May 2007. A copy of both documents are annexed to the Witness Statement of Dr Peter Stott. The weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
For the purposes of this hearing Mr Downes was prepared to accept that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented the present scientific consensus."
Again I am curious as to what allows you to cherry pick elements of this judgement and leave out the massive substantive finding that the Judge has accepted the IPCC take on climate change.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I should just add that "Mr Downes" in the quote above is counsel for the Claimant (ie the New Party/Dimmock) and "Mr Chamberlain" counsel for the DES/DCSF. In other words both counsel accept the IPCC report as - well, if not true - then "the present scientific consensus"; ie true in effect.
bigfish said:
You need to look up what 'straw man' means, weird one. It is your frothing-mouthed tangent on the BBC which is of no relevance. Lest we forget, what got you started on this was the BBC faithfully reporting a press release from the Danish National Space Center.
Similar threads
