Reply to: Tomorrow's World

[FSM with Cheddar]

Tell that to the politicians who have misconstrued scientific evidence as hard fact and taxed absolutely everything they can accordingly… do you think they’ll be giving rebates proportionate to how right or wrong the actual outcome is?

That’s my beef with the whole global warming debate or lack of.

Yes the government are tw@ts, but if they actually do believe global warming is a fact then I would say they are not doing enough proportionally. The problem is that some of the "Green Taxes" are not being reinvested in green technologies, and that is what upsets most people. The government don't have enough balls to really deal with the problem.

[TimberWolf]

When Einstein showed that some of Newtons theories were wrong, that didn't mean that gravity no longer existed, but that our understanding of it had been slightly wrong. It is exactly the same with climate change science. One new scientific finding does not rule out global warming, but does help build a better understanding of what is going on.

Einstein's theories are being continually tested, whereas with climate change the verdict is given, that's the difference. It is a critical departure from the scientific method. Scepticism and enquiry are not features of fundamentalism, but science.

[Mich the Tester]

I know. My point is I wonder what the next big theory will be after the theory of today proves to be "only partly correct, or even totally incorrect". Given the theory has evolved over the last 3 decades, why should we assume that they suddenly have it right now?

Nice attempt at being patronising - unfortunately you have merely made my point for me. Thanks.

Global warming-up-in-some-places-and-cooling-down-in-others-theory doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

[PM-Junkie]

It’s called progress. What we thought we knew yesterday turns out to be only partly correct, or even totally incorrect, so the hypotheses need to be renewed and retested. It’s why we do science.

I know. My point is I wonder what the next big theory will be after the theory of today proves to be "only partly correct, or even totally incorrect". Given the theory has evolved over the last 3 decades, why should we assume that they suddenly have it right now?

Nice attempt at being patronising - unfortunately you have merely made my point for me. Thanks.

[gingerjedi]

When Einstein showed that some of Newtons theories were wrong, that didn't mean that gravity no longer existed, but that our understanding of it had been slightly wrong. It is exactly the same with climate change science. One new scientific finding does not rule out global warming, but does help build a better understanding of what is going on.

Tell that to the politicians who have misconstrued scientific evidence as hard fact and taxed absolutely everything they can accordingly… do you think they’ll be giving rebates proportionate to how right or wrong the actual outcome is?

That’s my beef with the whole global warming debate or lack of.

[FSM with Cheddar]

It’s called progress. What we thought we knew yesterday turns out to be only partly correct, or even totally incorrect, so the hypotheses need to be renewed and retested. It’s why we do science.

Hay there seems to be a bit of rational thought going on in this thread.

Makes a change

[FSM with Cheddar]

Beware of the ad hominem argument. It boils down to the quality of the research and not the motivations of the people making the argument.

Yeah fair enough point, totally agree.

The point was that although science discovers lies in the end, there will always be individuals with an agenda / ego / loud voice that can misdirect the public.

[Mich the Tester]

Not that it is something I profess to know a great deal about, but it seems to me that the "upcoming ice age" in the 70's became "acid rain" in the 80's became "hole in the ozone" layer in the 90's became "global warming" in the early 90's became "climate change" now. I wonder what it will be next?

It’s called progress. What we thought we knew yesterday turns out to be only partly correct, or even totally incorrect, so the hypotheses need to be renewed and retested. It’s why we do science.

[PM-Junkie]

Not that it is something I profess to know a great deal about, but it seems to me that the "upcoming ice age" in the 70's became "acid rain" in the 80's became "hole in the ozone" layer in the 90's became "global warming" in the early 90's became "climate change" now. I wonder what it will be next?

Does sound to me like a bunch of people who really don't have much more of a clue than I do.

And I tend to ignore anyone who harps on about "climate change" or whatever the latest fad is (particularly politicians), unless the word "conservation" passes their lips too. Noticeable how few fall into that category - I wonder why?

[Mich the Tester]

If however the arguments against the evidence are sponsored by oil companies,... they will not.

Beware of the ad hominem argument. It boils down to the quality of the research and not the motivations of the people making the argument.

[FSM with Cheddar]

One lack of difference is that there appears to be little effort expended in trying to falsify climate change theory

Rubbish, there is no agenda in science. Independent scientists from disparate fields have all come to the same conclusion, which is that the overwhelming evidence points to global warming.

The fashion / climate change is a religion side of things is created by the media to allow them all to get excited and publish pseudo science headlines.

If the current evidence is wrong, then most scientists will happily change their mind immediately. If however the arguments against the evidence are sponsored by oil companies, or based on straw man theories they will not.

When Einstein showed that some of Newtons theories were wrong, that didn't mean that gravity no longer existed, but that our understanding of it had been slightly wrong. It is exactly the same with climate change science. One new scientific finding does not rule out global warming, but does help build a better understanding of what is going on.

[dang65]

Four pages and no mention of Brainiac?

My kids love that programme. They all sit down in a row on the sofa and watch it, which normally only happens with Dr Who.

[DimPrawn]

so what's the actual difference between the "no global warming" crowd and the Creationists, MMR dodgers etc? it seems to me they all have a problem with the overwhelming scientific consensus of professionals more qualified than themselves.

answers on a biodegradable postcard...

I think the "no AGW" brigade have one hard to argue scientific consensus behind them. The simple fact that the world in no longer warming and even the AGW's facists agree there is no evidence of warming now.

The world is cooling. So where does that leave the car haters, tax raisers and other AGW fanatics?

[TimberWolf]

so what's the actual difference between the "no global warming" crowd and the Creationists, MMR dodgers etc? it seems to me they all have a problem with the overwhelming scientific consensus of professionals more qualified than themselves.

answers on a biodegradable postcard...

One lack of difference is that there appears to be little effort expended in trying to falsify climate change theory. It may or not be correct as a theory, but unless scientists are actively looking to falsify it, as they do in other areas of science, it's no better than creationism.

[lambrini_socialist]

If they did that, then they would also have to question the whole Global Warming orthodoxy - especially as the the corellation between Green House gases and global warming does not follow, but there is one between Solar activity and global warming - which means more cold winters as solar activity does down.

so what's the actual difference between the "no global warming" crowd and the Creationists, MMR dodgers etc? it seems to me they all have a problem with the overwhelming scientific consensus of professionals more qualified than themselves.

answers on a biodegradable postcard...