View Full Version : Extreme Weather event in Dundee yesterday
Just saw this and thought someone might be interested as well. Things just get weirder and weirder as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKLdXJpOhVQ&feature=player_embedded
Bandwagon's full, please catch another
Green_not_greed
24-Jun-11, 13:06
Just saw this and thought someone might be interested as well. Things just get weirder and weirder as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKLdXJpOhVQ&feature=player_embedded
May as well have said things get wierder and weirder the more we post to the .org................
"I urge your Honour to throw out this case as there is absolutely no causal link between any cigarettes which were made by my client and that of the cancer suffered by the plaintiff"
Bandwagon's full, please catch another
+1.........
George Brims
24-Jun-11, 18:10
People in Canada and the US plains will be wondering what the fuss was about with that one. In Calgary we saw a car dealership having a hail sale. The cars had a lot of big dimples. Just up the road a sports shop was advertizing "Golf balls as big as hail".
Mystical Potato Head
24-Jun-11, 18:20
Just saw this and thought someone might be interested as well. Things just get weirder and weirder as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKLdXJpOhVQ&feature=player_embedded
Isnt hail formed in thunderstorms when the clouds are high enough in the sky for the water within them to freeze? Was sure it was all about water vapour,the most potent greenhouse gas there is.
Been happening long before we ever started pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere hasnt it?
Ok,thats the reply you were obviously trolling for so its over to you.
Green_not_greed
24-Jun-11, 20:26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt
N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt)o doubt all due to "global warming"....... if any happened these days that is exactly what a bunch of brainwashed promoters of or investors in windfarms would have us believe.
John Little
24-Jun-11, 20:32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt
N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt)o doubt all due to "global warming"....... if any happened these days that is exactly what a bunch of brainwashed promoters of or investors in windfarms would have us believe.
August 8 1992. John Little pelted with hailstones on his bicycle between Reay and Tongue.
June 1 1944 D Day postponed because of gales and rain with low temperatures lashing the Channel.
June 18 1815 Highland division beds down at Waterloo in their plaids but all men soaked through by pouring cold rain...
Global warming - obviously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt
N (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt)o doubt all due to "global warming"....... if any happened these days that is exactly what a bunch of brainwashed promoters of or investors in windfarms would have us believe.
You know what? I've heard that any objections to wind farms from organisations or individuals who remotely deny the existence of Global Warming will carry much less weight or even an opposite effect in the planning process.
It must be about a month since I last read about global warming on here and I am still frozen. Now we are heading towards the winter again. !!!!!
Seeing that it's CO2 emissions that's causing global warming -has anyone any idea what a passengers carbon footprint would be if flying, say to New York and back on a 747 Jumbo?
Mystical Potato Head
24-Jun-11, 22:46
Wowsers,i'm in a state of shock.I just got the dreaded Red Rep along with this little ditty........."you are the troll, I pity you for being infiltrated by the nay sayers, I expected better things from you as you seem to like nature."
OK Rheghead,prove to me that huge storm clouds(cumulonimbus) or even cumulus for that matter are not generated by the sun.Water evapourates into the air - air rises - as air rises it cools - condences to form clouds - droplets become larger as more moisture evaporates - guess what happens next? Yep you guessed it. The droplets become too heavy and fall to earth as rain,sleet,snow or HAIL.
The only greenhouse gas thats required for this is the one thats naturally occurring and is the most abundant and that would be?...yep,you're right again.....water vapour.
Have no idea how this makes me not care about nature or mean i've been infiltrated(ooo errr missuss)by the nay sayers.
Oh btw,the worst hailstorm on record happened in India in 1888,THATS 1888,resulting in the deaths of 246 people.Proof that the subject matter of your post happened long before we put anything more than fart gas into the air.Yes i know it contains CO2 and Methane.
secrets in symmetry
24-Jun-11, 23:47
You know what? I've heard that any objections to wind farms from organisations or individuals who remotely deny the existence of Global Warming will carry much less weight or even an opposite effect in the planning process.Good. I think that's the right thing to do. The planning process should be objective, and giving a low weight to evidence provided by deniers is a good start.
Wowsers,i'm in a state of shock.I just got the dreaded Red Rep along with this little ditty........."you are the troll, I pity you for being infiltrated by the nay sayers, I expected better things from you as you seem to like nature."
OK Rheghead,prove to me that huge storm clouds(cumulonimbus) or even cumulus for that matter are not generated by the sun.Water evapourates into the air - air rises - as air rises it cools - condences to form clouds - droplets become larger as more moisture evaporates - guess what happens next? Yep you guessed it. The droplets become too heavy and fall to earth as rain,sleet,snow or HAIL.
The only greenhouse gas thats required for this is the one thats naturally occurring and is the most abundant and that would be?...yep,you're right again.....water vapour.
Have no idea how this makes me not care about nature or mean i've been infiltrated(ooo errr missuss)by the nay sayers.
Oh btw,the worst hailstorm on record happened in India in 1888,THATS 1888,resulting in the deaths of 246 people.Proof that the subject matter of your post happened long before we put anything more than fart gas into the air.Yes i know it contains CO2 and Methane.
Hi Mystical Potato Head; Welcome to the 'red rep reggy club' in getting a bad one from Rheghead about your posting re climate change - he's completely hypocritical, considering it's a fact that he posted; 10th February 2005 on this very Org; "Fair enough, but I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming, and if we are why should we try to stop it?" - yet YOU received a bad rep from this poster! how sanctimonious..
Anyway I've just given you a green good rep to balance it..
John Little
25-Jun-11, 08:14
Hi Mystical Potato Head; Welcome to the 'red rep reggy club' in getting a bad one from Rheghead about your posting re climate change - he's completely hypocritical, considering it's a fact that he posted; 10th February 2005 on this very Org; "Fair enough, but I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming, and if we are why should we try to stop it?" - yet YOU received a bad rep from this poster! how sanctimonious..
Anyway I've just given you a green good rep to balance it..
I would too but already gave you one. That's the third person I know who's got a red rep for disagreeing with this odious and small minded troll who then calls the person who disagrees with him a troll - or a forum bully.
Green_not_greed
25-Jun-11, 09:46
You know what? I've heard that any objections to wind farms from organisations or individuals who remotely deny the existence of Global Warming will carry much less weight or even an opposite effect in the planning process.
And whats that got to do with hail in Dundee? As John Little illustrated, hail is a naturally occurring phenomenon which has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
Dynamic Sounds
25-Jun-11, 10:23
Strange weather has been happeneing for years and can't just be attributed to the greenhouse effect.
My Gran told me that as a child in the 1920's she remembers seeing hail stones on Christmas Day. Nothing unusual there you may think, but my Gran was born and raised in South Africa where it was the middle of summer.
This stuff is not science it's more like climate astrology, anything published on it is top-heavy with bureaucrats or green campaigners or massively edited by them so actual scientists have asked many times and unsuccessfully for their names to removed, they've been going on about it since the early 1900s with things like 'the population bomb'. Anyone of my generation will remember the Captain Planet TV show and the adverts they had on television back then, there was a big similar campaign in the 70s also.
For the record, I'm not opposed to developing any form of renewable energy and I'm not in favour of dumping waste in lakes or anything, just saying that this CO2 stuff et al is crap.
Now to play Devil's Advocate and on the very unlikely but off-hand it might be true then with China opening a new coal fired power station every week and the US refusing to commit to anything then I don't see why I should pay more or cut my CO2 when it will make zero difference. Let's just develop renewables ready for when it all does run out.
Once again the above paragraph is not my opinion and is very unlikely, but it's just a what if.
EDIT: I lived in Dundee for five years and I've seen weather like that a few times, it's perfectly normal or rather just your standard weather aberration and in no way relatred to any supposed man-made climate change.
There is a difference between climate and weather.
And whats that got to do with hail in Dundee? As John Little illustrated, hail is a naturally occurring phenomenon which has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
More CO2=more heat=more evaporation=more clouds=more rain fall
I don't argue with physics.
[SIZE=2]Anyway I've just given you a green good rep to balance it..
Yes you treat the rep system like a game, like when I red repped you last time for trolling, you PMed me to complain that my red rep reduced your rep by 30 points each time. To know that you must have been taking a lot of notice about the rep system. No wonder you make such a public fuss of it if you are obsessed with getting to the top of the rep ladder.
John Little
25-Jun-11, 18:19
I forecast that Northerner, Joxville, Kevin Milkins, Golach and Scorrie will be red-repped in the very near future...
Yes you treat the rep system like a game, like when I red repped you last time for trolling, you PMed me to complain that my red rep reduced your rep by 30 points each time. To know that you must have been taking a lot of notice about the rep system. No wonder you make such a public fuss of it if you are obsessed with getting to the top of the rep ladder.
Oh come come Reggy.. you're burbling again I'm afraid, looks like I'll have to remind you of the PM I actually sent:
'I've just had three PM's to say you are trying to knock me back from going up the good rep ladder - I did not know it, but your red reps it seems, each take off 30 points i.e now 90 points so I slip further backwards.. I really was surprised, by what I was informed of, but it's clear now.. Bit sad, but if you need some kind of ego boost, carry on lad...;) Yours in mirth; Beks'
To clarify; 'I did not know'.. 'really surprised'... clear enough?
So in reality I had no idea what the heck reps (good or bad) actually meant, so not bothered in the slightest where I am, I enjoy the Org for the friendly chats and laid-back discussions, I had no idea whatsoever that your immature actions actually did anything - apart from showing your lack of mature discussion..
But anyway aside from your obvious faux pas YOU must know the answer to this?: "Seeing that it's CO2 emissions that's causing global warming -has anyone any idea what a passengers carbon footprint would be if flying, say to New York and back on a 747 Jumbo? "
I forecast that Northerner, Joxville, Kevin Milkins, Golach and Scorrie will be red-repped in the very near future...
I don't think so, they post on the org without resorting to insults and trolling.
Yes you treat the rep system like a game, like when I red repped you last time for trolling, you PMed me to complain that my red rep reduced your rep by 30 points each time. To know that you must have been taking a lot of notice about the rep system. No wonder you make such a public fuss of it if you are obsessed with getting to the top of the rep ladder.
Right Reggy, seeing as you seem to really think I give a toss about reps and where they put me on the 'popularity list' I'm going to disable my reputation.. AND as you also think the same, i.e. it's not important, you will follow suit of course?
Nah, did not think you would...
But before I disable the reps :
Does anyone else see the irony of someone who spouts about humans polluting the earth with their CO2 to discover that the same person actually flew to New York in July 2005?.. maybe it's me... Oh sorry it was Rheghead ruining the planet...:roll:
More CO2=more heat=more evaporation=more clouds=more rain fall
I don't argue with physics.
....more greenhouse gases = more heat = more evaporation = more clouds = greater albedo = greater reflection of solar energy = lower temperature........... Or am I missing something?
....more greenhouse gases = more heat = more evaporation = more clouds = greater albedo = greater reflection of solar energy = lower temperature........... Or am I missing something?
Yes
It is true that lower level clouds have a negative effect on temperatures but higher level clouds have a positive feedback on temperature.
There is a lot of scientific discussion about the effects of these sort of things but overall, as the hockey stick graph clearly shows, more greenhouse gases means higher temperatures and in turn means more water drops back as rain or hail as the case may be.
Does anyone else see the irony of someone who spouts about humans polluting the earth with their CO2 to discover that the same person actually flew to New York in July 2005?.. maybe it's me... Oh sorry it was Rheghead ruining the planet...:roll:
You seem to think that trying to be green is all about not doing the things that you want to do and living in a cave or something. If that was the case then nobody would want anything to do with going green. The world will only change if people run out of fossil fuels or they lobby public opinion or governments to implement change on how we go about our normal human business. The real crime is being in denial about what the human race is doing to the planet.
If it was left to individualism to change the planet then it is doomed to failure because nobody, unless you are a ecowarrior, will change if your neighbour, or anybody else for that matter, is not going to change either, we need to change because we are forced to change or to change because not changing would be silly.
I'll continue doing what I want until I'm stopped by economic or statutory measures which I want to see implemented. In other words, please Government, tax me, stop me and everybody else.
John Little
25-Jun-11, 19:48
Sanctimonious cant.
I'll continue doing what I want until I'm stopped by economic or statutory measures which I want to see implemented. In other words, please Government, tax me, stop me and everybody else.
No self control then Reggy, or is it lack of willpower? Fancy going on a Jumbo Jet to New York, of all the things to do when you are supposed to be teaching us all to save the world!!! Shame on you Reggy!!
C3.....:eek::eek::roll:
Mystical Potato Head
25-Jun-11, 20:10
Sanctimonious cant.
Is that how you spell cant?
Is that how you spell cant?
Yes, come on John, where's the apostrophe????
C3.....:eek::roll::lol:
John Little
25-Jun-11, 20:13
Is that how you spell cant?
Sure is MPH. See here -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cant
I refer to definition 2
orkneycadian
25-Jun-11, 22:34
Just saw this and thought someone might be interested as well. Things just get weirder and weirder as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKLdXJpOhVQ&feature=player_embedded
Could be some kind of nuclear fall out blowing up on the wind from Torness? ;)
Weather extremes just get even worse and weirder with growing levels of carbon dioxide
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html
John Little
26-Jun-11, 07:59
Hypothesis presented as fact.
Yet again.
[disgust]
Could be some kind of nuclear fall out blowing up on the wind from Torness? ;)
Hailstones- or are they particles?!!
Dundee may turn into another Portgower.
Mystical Potato Head
26-Jun-11, 09:41
Yes
It is true that lower level clouds have a negative effect on temperatures but higher level clouds have a positive feedback on temperature.
There is a lot of scientific discussion about the effects of these sort of things but overall, as the hockey stick graph clearly shows, more greenhouse gases means higher temperatures and in turn means more water drops back as rain or hail as the case may be.
As you say,there is a lot of scientific discussion about whether this increases or mitigates the effects of global warming and i thought the "experts" opinions were split down the middle so even the "experts" aren't agreed on your "as the hockey stick graph clearly shows".
My opinion on global warming seems to be similar to the one you held 5 years ago(since someone pointed out one of your old posts)so i think it only reasonable and fair that i red rep you in return for your hypocracy,considering you were once one of the doubters who sailed perilously close to being infiltrated by the "nay sayers".Childish i know, but then you started it all.I could have ignored it but as red rep seems very important to you i thought i might as well even the score, as there have been numerous comments of your's that i have not agreed with, but i thought it fair to allow you to air your opinion without the recrimination of red rep.
I shall now play be your rules and every comment you make that i dont agree with will be met by red rep.What goes around,comes around.
Humerous Vegetable
26-Jun-11, 10:05
Sanctimonious cant.
Some vowel surgery required here?
I shall now play be your rules and every comment you make that i dont agree with will be met by red rep.What goes around,comes around.
I did not red rep you because I disagreed with you, that would be silly and immature, just like Bekisman and John Little would do, I red repped you for accusing me of trolling when I just posted a link to a video about a severe weather event.
John Little
26-Jun-11, 17:02
Now I'm ashamed to be a Cumbrian.
I did not red rep you because I disagreed with you, that would be silly and immature, just like Bekisman and John Little would do, I red repped you for accusing me of trolling when I just posted a link to a video about a severe weather event.
Me silly and immature? earlier I posted a genuine piece about Greenpeace - you red repped me with the comment; "lies" I did ask you why, but was met with the usual silence..
As has been pointed out, you red rep folk on here for having the same opinions you yourself held previously (doubts that humans cause global warming) - You fly and yet chastise others who do, now that, my friend, is 'silly and immature.
.. there is no rhyme or reason to your utterances
Anyway Reggy, direct question: you accused me of trying to get to the top in good reps (?) so I disabled my reputation to confirm this is not so - please see to the left of this post. Why are you not doing the same?
Me silly and immature? earlier I posted a genuine piece about Greenpeace - you red repped me with the comment; "lies" I did ask you why, but was met with the usual silence..
As has been pointed out, you red rep folk on here for having the same opinions you yourself held previously (doubts that humans cause global warming) - You fly and yet chastise others who do, now that, my friend, is 'silly and immature.
.. there is no rhyme or reason to your utterances
Anyway Reggy, direct question: you accused me of trying to get to the top in good reps (?) so I disabled my reputation to confirm this is not so - please see to the left of this post. Why are you not doing the same?
Keep saying it and eventually it becomes true.
John Little
26-Jun-11, 17:47
At last! The truth!
Working in Yorkshire bit extreme here 29 degrees
Now I'm ashamed to be a Cumbrian.
Eh? thought you were from Scotland?
John Little
26-Jun-11, 18:35
No - part Scots but originally from Cumberland - a county not noted for hypocritical puling misanthropes.
Keep saying it and eventually it becomes true.What part? is where you say that you don't think human activity causes global warming, or your posts where you ay it does?
Or is it that it IS ok to fly, as you did to New York, but flying causes Global Warming?
Or is it that you are doing the same (Disabling reps) or you're not disabling reps...
You'll have to be more precise Reggy :roll:
Hail in Dundee due to greenhouse gases (OP) ? pah!
"From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible"
Revelation 16:21 (New International Version)
More CO2=more heat=more evaporation=more clouds=more rain fall
I don't argue with physics.
Really? You're not a scientist then?
secrets in symmetry
26-Jun-11, 19:35
I did not red rep you because I disagreed with you, that would be silly and immature, just like Bekisman and John Little would do, I red repped you for accusing me of trolling when I just posted a link to a video about a severe weather event.Rheghead, there is no point in arguing with those who know or understand nothing about climate science. Worse than that, this lot appear to be proud of their ignorance.
Rheghead, there is no point in arguing with those who know or understand nothing about climate science. Worse than that, this lot appear to be proud of their ignorance.
I think many actually agree that there is anthropogenic climate change, but may disagree with a single localized weather event being postulated as proof. I also think that there are few who post on these threads that know nothing of climate science so do not really understand who you are suggesting Rheghead should not argue with.
secrets in symmetry
26-Jun-11, 19:59
I think many actually agree that there is anthropogenic climate change, but may disagree with a single localized weather event being postulated as proof. I also think that there are few who post on these threads that know nothing of climate science so do not really understand who you are suggesting Rheghead should not argue with.It's not a one-off event, I've seen enough to invoke the ergodic hypothesis with some confidence. Some of Rheghead's cyber stalkers have a history of announcing their lack of knowledge on these forums, and then screaming like mortally wounded banshees when he reflects their tantrums right back in their faces.
and a 20 degree difference in temperatures between Scotland and the south of England, the staggering contrast even got a mention by the weather presenter.
John Little
26-Jun-11, 20:13
It's not a one-off event, I've seen enough to invoke the ergodic hypothesis with some confidence. Some of Rheghead's cyber stalkers have a history of announcing their lack of knowledge on these forums, and then screaming like mortally wounded banshees when he reflects their tantrums right back in their faces.
Do you believe Rheghead to be a climate scientist?
He isn't.
It's not a one-off event, I've seen enough to invoke the ergodic hypothesis with some confidence. Some of Rheghead's cyber stalkers have a history of announcing their lack of knowledge on these forums, and then screaming like mortally wounded banshees when he reflects their tantrums right back in their faces.
I'm sure you will "both" live happily ever after.
and a 20 degree difference in temperatures between Scotland and the south of England, the staggering contrast even got a mention by the weather presenter.
As I have said before, there is a difference between climate and weather. are you suggesting the climate in Scotland has changed?
I think many actually agree that there is anthropogenic climate change, but may disagree with a single localized weather event being postulated as proof.
Actually I didn't claim that this single event was proof of global warming and would never claim to do so. Global warming is not in doubt as looking at the temperature records proves that it is happening. I'm just saying that the weather will symptomatically get weirder and weirder as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We cannot expect the weather to continue to be stable if the global average is rising by ~0.2C per decade.
Actually I didn't claim that this single event was proof of global warming and would never claim to do so. Global warming is not in doubt as looking at the temperature records proves that it is happening. I'm just saying that the weather will symptomatically get weirder and weirder as we put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We cannot expect the weather to continue to be stable if the global average is rising by ~0.2C per decade.
When was the weather ever stable?
When was the weather ever stable?
But then how often do you see people who have a month of cold weather then claim Global warming isn't happening. You just have to look at the global temperature record.
Jeez, been away for 24 hours and they are still at it. Yawn.........
John Little
26-Jun-11, 20:31
So it appears that the OP video was not offered as proof of global warming.
Or of greenhouse gases causing global warming.
And that one event cannot be taken as 'proof' of either.
But the earth is warming up anyway.
And that despite the lack of scientific consensus on the matter, the greenhouse gases will still cause the weather to get weirder.
Very scientific.
are you suggesting the climate in Scotland has changed?
Yes I would say it has changed, gardeners often talk of buds coming out earlier, birdwatchers tell of birds finding it hard to find food due to difference in timings of the migration of fish, wind not as blowy as usual, garden plant escapes surviving in the wild, councils and airports being caught out with little salt when we really do have a bad winter, SEPA being called out to more plankton blooms, bumper midgy seasons etc etc
John Little
26-Jun-11, 20:45
Sometimes being an historian is very handy.
http://www.calacademy.org/sciencetoday/why-did-rome-fall-weather/
Yes I would say it has changed, gardeners often talk of buds coming out earlier, birdwatchers tell of birds finding it hard to find food due to difference in timings of the migration of fish, wind not as blowy as usual, garden plant escapes surviving in the wild, councils and airports being caught out with little salt when we really do have a bad winter, SEPA being called out to more plankton blooms, bumper midgy seasons etc etc
so using the Worldwide Climate Classification system what has it changed to?
Rheghead, there is no point in arguing with those who know or understand nothing about climate science. Worse than that, this lot appear to be proud of their ignorance.
secrets in symmetry, calm down dear. Why the hell you think our reggy is a climate scientist I have no idea, but I can state categorically that he is not - so your statement is totally absurd..
Why old chap (from academia) reggy himself previously doubted humans did not cause global warming - is that the position of a fellow 'climate scientist'? of course not, one can therefore surmise that this mention of 'ignorance' is much closer to ones home ;)
And also SEPA mentions climate change as the biggest threat to Scotland's environment, this isn't a wacky tree hugging organisation, it is the Government's own environmental regulator and quotes its own evidence for climate change or global warming.
http://www.sepa.org.uk/climate_change.aspx
And also SEPA mentions climate change as the biggest threat to Scotland's environment, this isn't a wacky tree hugging organisation, it is the Government's own environmental regulator and quotes its own evidence for climate change or global warming.
http://www.sepa.org.uk/climate_change.aspx
Not sure if you have had much dealings with SEPA Rheghead, but IMHO there are much more a political organization, than a scientific one. At a recent conference on NORM in London their representative required to be corrected on several occasions for his misunderstanding of methods used to assess concentrations of radioactivity.
So from my personal perspective I would not put that much faith in the missives of SEPA.
John Little
26-Jun-11, 21:00
Well I may not be a scientist type like a chemist or such, but I can google as well as the next guy.
With so many scientists unsure as to the causes of global warming;
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/climate-skeptic1.htm
maybe they should journey north to sit at the feet of the sage of Caithness.
so using the Worldwide Climate Classification system what has it changed to?
I remember something about that arbitrary system from my school days, temperate and mediterranean zones etc? I am not sure of what qualifies for what but I remember a report saying that most of England will become a mediterranean zone in the 21st century. That was off the top of my memory. I suspect that the change in Scotland's climate classification has not been sufficient yet to merit a change under that system.
Have to declare that I am firmly in the anthopogenic climate change camp......but would never consider proposing individual localized WEATHER events as evidence of such.
Read a good yarn about weather forecasting a year or so ago, Turbulence by Giles Foden.
By the way if you stand with your back to the wind in Caithness the area of low pressure is on your left hand side;-)
Not sure if you have had much dealings with SEPA Rheghead, but IMHO there are much more a political organization, than a scientific one. At a recent conference on NORM in London their representative required to be corrected on several occasions for his misunderstanding of methods used to assess concentrations of radioactivity.
So from my personal perspective I would not put that much faith in the missives of SEPA.
I'm not at all surprised at that, gaffes are made all the time by all sorts of people in charge of scientists, especially if they happen to not have a scientific background or have but spend too much time behind a desk instead of being out in the field. I'm afraid that is how organisations work and it gets interesting when the representatives of an organisation is pulled up for something that they really should be aware of. As for being a political organisation, I think they would have the same people working for them regardless of what administration sits at Holyrood.
Mystical Potato Head
26-Jun-11, 22:06
Rheghead, there is no point in arguing with those who know or understand nothing about climate science. Worse than that, this lot appear to be proud of their ignorance.
Unless you are a climatologist,our opinions are as valid as yours.You've waffled on before about people who are not scientists,not understanding,well you could be a nuclear physicist for all i know or care but that does not make you an expert in Climatology.
It may surprise you that some of us can actually read and can digest as much as we want from both sides of the climate change debate and are as qualified as you to understand and form an opinion about our readings......unless you are a climatologist that is.Do you honestly think that being an amateur astronomer for over 30 years that i dont have any interest or knowlege of our atmosphere?I may not be an expert but i most certainly am not unaware or unimformed on the subject and i resent the unwarrented insinuation of ignorance.
One thing is certain though,saying things like"this lot appear to be proud of their ignorance"proves you are the most supercillious,dismissive person on this forum.There will be no arguments whatsoever on that point.
Unless you are a climatologist,our opinions are as valid as yours.
http://www.realclimate.org
A website written by real climate scientists because they felt that their message was being obscured by the media.
John Little
26-Jun-11, 22:15
Can I be bothered to google for a climatology website that says the opposite?
Nah!
Can't be bothered.
Mystical Potato Head
26-Jun-11, 22:50
http://www.realclimate.org
A website written by real climate scientists because they felt that their message was being obscured by the media.
My comment was directed to secrets in symmetry because of their dismissive ,arrogant comment so why your jumping in on their behalf with yet another website link is beyond me. As i've already posted,we can all google and read from as many "real climate scientists" websites as we wish,we might also wish to get a balanced view by reading some of the "real climate scientists" whose opinions differ.Of course if i believe what they say then i'm apparently being ignorant,and proud of it.
My comment was directed to secrets in symmetry because of their dismissive ,arrogant comment so why your jumping in on their behalf with yet another website link is beyond me. As i've already posted,we can all google and read from as many "real climate scientists" websites as we wish,we might also wish to get a balanced view by reading some of the "real climate scientists" whose opinions differ.Of course if i believe what they say then i'm apparently being ignorant,and proud of it.
I'm just trying to help you, they are real climate scientists rather than those that label themselves as real climate scientists, they write papers on climatology who get peer-reviewed by other real climatologists instead of those that get 'critiqued'.
secrets in symmetry
26-Jun-11, 23:25
Unless you are a climatologist,our opinions are as valid as yours.You've waffled on before about people who are not scientists,not understanding,well you could be a nuclear physicist for all i know or care but that does not make you an expert in Climatology.
It may surprise you that some of us can actually read and can digest as much as we want from both sides of the climate change debate and are as qualified as you to understand and form an opinion about our readings......unless you are a climatologist that is.Do you honestly think that being an amateur astronomer for over 30 years that i dont have any interest or knowlege of our atmosphere?I may not be an expert but i most certainly am not unaware or unimformed on the subject and i resent the unwarrented insinuation of ignorance.
One thing is certain though,saying things like"this lot appear to be proud of their ignorance"proves you are the most supercillious,dismissive person on this forum.There will be no arguments whatsoever on that point.You are amongst the worst offenders when it comes to lack of understanding and poor interpretation of what you have picked up by osmosis, apparently after 30 years of having your head turned towards and by the stars. None of John Little, bekisman or yourself appears to have the skills needed to distinguish proper climate science from drivel, misinformation or lies (see the content of John Little's most recent link, for examples of all three.)
From what I read on this thread, only Rheghead and Scotsboy have the faintest idea of what the real arguments in climate science are.
Metalattakk
27-Jun-11, 02:13
For a self-proclaimed so-called scientist, s-i-s, you do seem to be incredibly biased.
John Little
27-Jun-11, 06:40
For a self-proclaimed so-called scientist, s-i-s, you do seem to be incredibly biased.
I agree. Completely polemical in fact.
I am left wondering wondering if we are honoured by the presence of Michael Fish.
Mind you he's only a meteorologist - probably not qualified enough to comment on these forums.
Ad hominem.
I do not say this for any logical reason - it's just that no-one's said it on this thread yet so I thought I'd just do it first.
Good phrase that; 'Ad hominem'
rolls nicely off the tongue- like fine old ice cream.
Walter Ego
27-Jun-11, 09:12
I'm lost.
Are we squabbling about local weather anomalies, who wears the biggest Science hat, climate change or who's capable of understanding what?
I'm lost.
Are we squabbling about local weather anomalies, who wears the biggest Science hat, climate change or who's capable of understanding what?
You're not going to have a tantrum and lock the thread are you?! Please don't ;)
John Little
27-Jun-11, 10:54
I'm lost.
Are we squabbling about local weather anomalies, who wears the biggest Science hat, climate change or who's capable of understanding what?
Beats me Walter. Your guess is as good as mine.
But SiS's is better than anyone else's - hands down.
I'm staying out of this one, especially now Walter has joined in!!!.....:lol:
Mind you, if Weezle joins in I might just have to post that it's the Tories wot caused it!!!
C3....:roll:;)
Mind you, if Weezle joins in I might just have to post that it's the Tories wot caused it!!!
C3....:roll:;)
I dunno about that but Margaret Thatcher certainly understood the ramifications of it largely due to her scientific background, something that was lacking in Major's administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSrBO4_qPzo
John Little
27-Jun-11, 17:42
Margaret Thatcher studied Chemistry.
Then she became a Barrister.
So she knows all about Climate change.
Clever people these Chemical Lawyers.
Mystical Potato Head
27-Jun-11, 18:49
I'm just trying to help you, they are real climate scientists rather than those that label themselves as real climate scientists, they write papers on climatology who get peer-reviewed by other real climatologists instead of those that get 'critiqued'.
Sorry that you wasted your time trying to help me but i dont have the skills needed to distinguish proper climate science from drivel,misinformation or lies,even if i tried,i just wish SIS had pointed that out to me earlier, it would have saved you so much bother and me so much embarrassment .I'm just too thick to understand the information,even if it were irrefutable,would that be the correct word? maybe i spelt it wrong.
secrets in symmetry
27-Jun-11, 23:38
For a self-proclaimed so-called scientist, s-i-s, you do seem to be incredibly biased.Metalattakk, I'm not biased. I just despair when people who aren't stupid think they have a worthwhile opinion after reading the sort of rubbish John Little linked to yesterday. Climate Science is complex, and it's very difficult to interpret the data without knowing what the issues are.
I'm sure John Little would call me an idiot if I posted a link to a similarly misinformed and/or disingenuous article entitled "The Roman Empire collapsed at the Antonine Wall because of Poisonous Blue Face Paint" on the "How History Works" web site.
Metalattakk
28-Jun-11, 02:02
Metalattakk, I'm not biased. I just despair when people who aren't stupid think they have a worthwhile opinion after reading the sort of rubbish John Little linked to yesterday. Climate Science is complex, and it's very difficult to interpret the data without knowing what the issues are.
I'm sure John Little would call me an idiot if I posted a link to a similarly misinformed and/or disingenuous article entitled "The Roman Empire collapsed at the Antonine Wall because of Poisonous Blue Face Paint" on the "How History Works" web site.
Yet you've nothing to say about Rheghead's frankly preposterous, unfounded and purely circumstantial hypothesis and subsequent link in the very first post in this thread?
That's bias that is.
John Little
28-Jun-11, 06:50
John Little posted a link as a very good example of what is out there and how much dissent there is. What John Little does not understand is how someone, when faced with a mass of stuff which backs up both sides, can come down so firmly on one side or the other.
The balance of probability inclines him to believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere may have something to do with global warming, but he is by no means certain of it because it is exactly that - a balance of probability.
He therefore has a hearty mistrust of people who proselytise so strongly for one side or the other and thinks them either zealots or that they must have some direct line to truth which makes them so certain.
He has also met many scientists in his life; and although many of them are charming people who are balanced and sane, there's the other kind who think that because they are scientists and apply' scientific method' this qualifies them in some way to comment on all Science, and indeed, on matters in general. It does not, any more than my being a specialist in Conscription allows me to comment with authority on the 100 years war.
So if SiS is a Climatologist and can comment with authority, and will put his arguments out straight, then John Little will both listen and learn. If he is not a climatologist then he is no more qualified to comment on these matters than anyone on this forum.
Being on a bandwagon - on either side of the argument does not confer truth.
Snarking from the sidelines will not sway me for or against- what Rheghead says does not convince me.
So convince me - not by links to CO2 zealots, but with your own words.
And at least I can talk to you without you throwing a little pet and red-repping everyone in sight for disagreeing with you- unlike Reggie the Red.
John Little posted a link as a very good example of what is out there and how much dissent there is. What John Little does not understand is how someone, when faced with a mass of stuff which backs up both sides, can come down so firmly on one side or the other.
The balance of probability inclines him to believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere may have something to do with global warming, but he is by no means certain of it because it is exactly that - a balance of probability.
He therefore has a hearty mistrust of people who proselytise so strongly for one side or the other and thinks them either zealots or that they must have some direct line to truth which makes them so certain.
He has also met many scientists in his life; and although many of them are charming people who are balanced and sane, there's the other kind who think that because they are scientists and apply' scientific method' this qualifies them in some way to comment on all Science, and indeed, on matters in general. It does not, any more than my being a specialist in Conscription allows me to comment with authority on the 100 years war.
So if SiS is a Climatologist and can comment with authority, and will put his arguments out straight, then John Little will both listen and learn. If he is not a climatologist then he is no more qualified to comment on these matters than anyone on this forum.
Being on a bandwagon - on either side of the argument does not confer truth.
Snarking from the sidelines will not sway me for or against- what Rheghead says does not convince me.
So convince me - not by links to CO2 zealots, but with your own words.
And at least I can talk to you without you throwing a little pet and red-repping everyone in sight for disagreeing with you- unlike Reggie the Red.
To get a good indication if something is true or likely or a worry to the establishment, I look at what Govenments (of all leanings) spend money on.
I'd say that it is pretty conclusive that the establishment believe in global warming and that we need to do something about it.
John Little
28-Jun-11, 07:13
Our government thought it a good idea to invade Iraq and Afghanistan - and to write off billions in tax owed by corporations. Don't make me laugh Duke - I have a cold and it hurts.
The climate debate includes much more than pure science and it is those social, political and economic aspects which influence the information which is available, how this information is interpreted and how this information is promulgated.
Science itself has been defined as knowledge without prejudice, and one of the traits of a scientist is that they should consistently question and challenge their hypothesis, it appears to me that much of the debate is not done by scientists but by other “stakeholders” and the reason for the debate is more to do with influence and control (whether social, economic or political).
I consider that there is significant evidence to indicate an anthropogenic effect on climate, but the solutions to this require to be holistic, which is a near impossible thing to realize. Carbon credits, unilateral taxations and individual behavior changes in western or industrialized nations are futile when placed against the rampant population growth, industrialization and expansion of the emerging nations, all IMHO of course
Just as an aside, have we actually ploughed through this hyperbole and discovered exactly what type of 'scientist' S-I-S is?
Beg pardon sire for my effrontery, but begs question...
secrets in symmetry
30-Jun-11, 23:30
So convince me - not by links to CO2 zealots, but with your own words.Why would I rescue my prize lab rat from his proud ignorance?
I see you're retiring this week. That should (hopefully) give you more time to read, learn and (above all) understand what today's climate science is all about. Come back and read your posts afterwards...and cringe.
Meanwhile, my acquaintances in climate science psychology are smirking at me cringing because they were right about educated laymen being more critical (and wrong) than uneducated laymen. It's truly fascinating.
Why would I rescue my prize lab rat from his proud ignorance?
I see you're retiring this week. That should (hopefully) give you more time to read, learn and (above all) understand what today's climate science is all about. Come back and read your posts afterwards...and cringe.
Meanwhile, my acquaintances in climate science psychology are smirking at me cringing because they were right about educated laymen being more critical (and wrong) than uneducated laymen. It's truly fascinating.
Well? #69 above
PS I've got acquaintances in Law, but I ain't a lawyer
John Little
01-Jul-11, 06:32
Why would I rescue my prize lab rat from his proud ignorance?
I see you're retiring this week. That should (hopefully) give you more time to read, learn and (above all) understand what today's climate science is all about. Come back and read your posts afterwards...and cringe.
Meanwhile, my acquaintances in climate science psychology are smirking at me cringing because they were right about educated laymen being more critical (and wrong) than uneducated laymen. It's truly fascinating.
Aye - so you're not.
But I'll give you one thing - you must be the Org expert on smirking for you do it so well.
As for 'Lab Rat' - you now have a long uphill road to go before I can take you seriously again, for you think very well of yourself yet the only offering you bring to this thread appears to be a barb on your tongue.
And that seems rather blunt.
And un-necessary.
You did me a kindness not long ago and I do not think you are who you seem...but I won't tell.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jul-11, 17:51
I'm trying to be kind to you here - sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
(I wouldn't have believed I would ever use that particular cliché, but drastic situations need drastic measures.)
I think the problem is that when intelligent people start looking into the evidence for climate change, they immediately see a very complex situation, and because there are no simple answers, they convince themselves that there is significant support (both human and numerical) for the temperature record to be due to natural causes.
As far as I'm aware, no-one can get anywhere near a quantitative account of the temperature history of the last 100 years without including emissions of CO2 and a wide range of pollutants by humankind.
John Little
02-Jul-11, 18:06
Looking back over the last 100 years I would agree with you that the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has gone up over 600% since 1860. That's disgusting and means that we are breathing in stuff that is nowhere near the quality that our great great great great grandparents inhaled.
But living in an atmosphere that is like a polluted sewer is one thing.
Pinning the blame for global warming on it is another. I know the theory and that the Earth does not soak up man made emissions in the same way so the C02 increases.
But then there's Maunder you see. I can't just dismiss it like that!
There have been, as you know, five ice ages and five episodes of global warming which were not caused by man made emissions.
Solar activity affects climate in less spectacular ways and for intermittent periods. The Romans grew grapes in southern England - which was not possible again after the 5th century until the 20th century.
The Northern Sahara was Rome's grain producing area for hundreds of years.
A change in climate and bad harvests in the 5th century, possibly caused by volcanic eruptions is supposed to have triggered the barbarian migrations of the 5th/6th centuries and hastened the end of the Roman Empire.
The famed 'mini ice age' of the 16th-18th centuries allowed bonfires to be built on the frozen Thames and 'white christmases' be written into our folklore.
All before Richard Arkwright was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
The balance of probability indicates that C02 MAY be linked to global warming.
Why should I buy your particular snake oil?
secrets in symmetry
02-Jul-11, 18:42
You're still missing the point. Climate science is quantitative, no-one can credibly post-dict the temperature record of the last 100 years without human-generated CO2 and (also importantly) various mid-20th-century pollutants. You need all the other contributions too: solar cycles, El Niño/La Niña, etc, and of course for longer periods you need to include equinox precession, etc.
I encourage you to read the experts. You (may!) have time to do that now.
John Little
02-Jul-11, 18:45
I think you are mis reading the situation.
Even allowing for the variants you mention, why should I jump to any conclusions?
Sometimes the view from the fence is better.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jul-11, 22:00
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really as stupid as you appear?
Rheghead was right, people just believe what they want to believe.
John Little
02-Jul-11, 22:03
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really as stupid as you appear?
Ditto................
John Little
02-Jul-11, 22:08
BTW - you now have the credibility of a gnat.
You would do well to improve it.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really as stupid as you appear?
Rheghead was right, people just believe what they want to believe.
Sorry but you have just lost your Street Cred with me!!!! Anyone that call's John stupid or obtuse is seriously in need of help, you have obviously never done any background into his work!!
C3.......:roll::roll:;)
John Little
02-Jul-11, 22:17
Rheghead is perfectly correct. People do believe what they want to believe.
They have their reasons for doing so.
And they are entitled to believe what they wish.
On this notion this our society is founded.
secrets in symmetry
02-Jul-11, 22:21
Based on his posts on this thread, I conclude not only that he is stupid, but he is significantly more stupid than I would ever have guessed. I'm still not convinced that he isn't just winding me up.
John Little
02-Jul-11, 22:24
Based on your post I have to conclude that since you have put nothing up to back up what you are saying you are nothing more than an empty vessel, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
An airhead.
BTW- I truly could not give a tinker's dam what you think.
John
Just back, but I had better report that from information received - through reliable contacts - that actually secrets in symmetry is as much a scientist as Dick Emery. In fact works in an office - far, far removed from anything scientific..
But I expect you realised that by the pompous buffoonery.
Bit more in; seems male traits may not be genuine, also has a noted protective mode towards Rheghead and quite possibly a sock puppet of a notable person on here
Am sending you a PM
John Little
02-Jul-11, 22:36
Thankyou B - I suspected something like that. Anyone who can say as much as SiS does without arguing or bothering to produce anything to support his/her argument soon becomes a bit of a bore.
Frankly the allure has worn off and I do not believe I have any time for them in future.
So in future;
Blow, blow, thou winter wind
Thou art not so unkind
As man's ingratitude;
Thy tooth is not so keen,
Because thou art not seen,
Although thy breath be rude.
When those who deny climate change do not get their way on the facts then they throw insults even as far as calling scientists Nazis for a new debating low.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1DdrwiiZXQ
Metalattakk
03-Jul-11, 03:02
You're certainly no scientist Rheghead, but even worse, you're a piss-poor excuse for a wind-up merchant.
You're certainly no scientist Rheghead, but even worse, you're a piss-poor excuse for a wind-up merchant.Nah, I seem to have got under your skin and that of your buddies. Result.
Metalattakk
03-Jul-11, 03:48
I refer the 'honourable gentleman' to my comments of a few moments ago.
You might like to focus your attention on 'piss-poor' and 'wind-up merchant'.
John Little
03-Jul-11, 07:31
Nah, I seem to have got under your skin and that of your buddies. Result.
Ah - so this is 'debate' then.
Seems to have rather another purpose. But not one that could be defined as debate.
When those who deny climate change do not get their way on the facts then they throw insults even as far as calling scientists Nazis for a new debating low.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1DdrwiiZXQ
Nazis? Calm down dear! it can be seen that most of us have tried to debate with you.. but your obnoxious statement of 'The [Orgers} don't debate with me for fear of having their views totally shattered. People only believe what they want to believe and like the comfy zone' may well have caused a few posters to desist and a trepidation in getting your famous red reps, I don't give a toss as I've disabled mine (when are you doing the same?)..
As for throwing insults one can only surmise your doppelgänger is ignorant of your interpretation of 'insults'. and PLEASE don't think it's a gang here; Mystical Potato Head, or Metalattakk are no buddies of mine although I do enjoy their postings, I do respect John Little for his articulate and intelligent posting..
Ffor goodness sake Reggy, you know as well as I do that it's basically down to your unfathomable discussion stance of red repping those you do not agree with - this, is annoying and does nothing for sensible and lively discussion with robust interaction.. this clumsy method of showing your displeasure is in the least childish and does, I am sure, cause others to fight shy in a public debate with you..
Reign it in Reggy and you 'may' find that orgers will appear to challenge your opinions without fear..
Climate change? what causes it? why even you had doubts it was manmade - and yet no-one red-repped you for that.. please, Reggy you are not a scientist, I know this, but you are not unintelligent, penny must drop sometime?
Your search for credible evidence of scientists being called Nazis, concluded in a Youtube short (!), I did read "Greens are too yellow.." but obviously the whole thing was a publicity stunt, which I'm sorry to say you've propagated even more..
Wow! it's a lovely day out there - not stopping on here to use up precious electricity.. I'm going OUT!!
John Little
03-Jul-11, 10:34
Nah, I seem to have got under your skin and that of your buddies. Result.
I just gave him a green rep for this; it is such an honest post.
Pure motive without attempting to hide - very refreshing- got to give the devil his due.
Now let me see - what's the definition of someone who posts just to get under the skin of other forum members....?
He is a scientist though - just not a climate one.
I just gave him a green rep for this; it is such an honest post.
Pure motive without attempting to hide - very refreshing- got to give the devil his due.
Now let me see - what's the definition of someone who posts just to get under the skin of other forum members....?
He is a scientist though - just not a climate one.
Well I think the penny has started to drop for you, but the key penny is to realise that there is a wealth of difference from posting stuff about climate change which has been peer-reviewed by climate scientists and stood the test of their scrutiny and stuff which is designed to disingenuously cause doubt and has not one shred of evidence to support it. If the former winds people up then I think it is OK, the latter is a totally different thing.
For an example, I posted a graph on here that showed the annual change in CO2 concentrations over the last 5 decades, it showed without doubt that the changes were increasing and yet certain posters chose to deny what they were seeing on their computer screens. It was like some mental stonewall had fallen down on their cognitive abilities. Those wind ups I enjoy immensely but only so long as it is backed up by solid scientific agreement.
John Little
03-Jul-11, 14:47
This Book is not to be doubted.... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.
"Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Verily he shall be smitten with agues.
There shall be weeping and wailing in the outer darkness and gnashing of teeth; - he doubts the Holy Hand Grenade...
Ain't Wikipedia wunnerful?
John Little
03-Jul-11, 18:22
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/3208-earth-may-be-headed-into-a-mini-ice-age-within-a-decade.html
Crucify Crucify!!!
(Amateurs!!!)
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/3208-earth-may-be-headed-into-a-mini-ice-age-within-a-decade.html
Crucify Crucify!!!
(Amateurs!!!)
Mini ice age eh John?
I thought we had that last year with all that snow and ice!!!
I reckon its all these wind turbines cooling down the earth as they turn and turn and make loads of money for their Masters!!!
C3...:roll::roll:;)........(will the real scientist stand up and show his credentials please?) !!!!!
This Book is not to be doubted.... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.
"Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet has said that
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
Verily he shall be smitten with agues.
There shall be weeping and wailing in the outer darkness and gnashing of teeth; - he doubts the Holy Hand Grenade...
Ain't Wikipedia wunnerful?
Is that the same Richard Horton that was happy to support Dr Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent false link between the MMR jab and autism? I think that it was the peer review process that destroyed that notion.
John Little
03-Jul-11, 20:04
Yawn.
http://home.gwu.edu/~mccull1/criticism.html
Want any more?
Yawn.
http://home.gwu.edu/~mccull1/criticism.html
Want any more?
Well is he the same Richard Horton that supported false findings?
John Little
03-Jul-11, 20:12
Probably- I can't actually be bothered to find out because as you know, that ain't the point.
I have always known that peer review has its critics. You seem to regard it as a sacred cow.
If you object to Horton then I can, as you may or may not be aware, google you dozens of articles critical of peer review.
In your this or that, black or white world I realise that is not a convenient situation, but nonetheless the critiques are there.
Just because the scientists of one lobby or another critique each others' findings does not make them gospel. It makes them worth considering.
Not as a new religion though.
Nina Pierpont's Book, Wind Turbine Syndrome, the author was so mindful of not being taken seriously due to the lack of acceptance in the peer review process, she went on to claim that her findings were peer-reviewed by having it looked at by her husband and her publisher for the book!! LOL
John Little
03-Jul-11, 21:04
Well if you are not so wedded to peer review as appeared, then you might also allow that what you speak of as fact in terms of global warming is actually not. That although a powerful set of circumstances point towards a link between global warming and C02 emissions, they are not proven beyond all doubt. And that there are many other factors to consider when looking for the causes of global warming.
Allow for that and you will sound like a prophet instead of a zealot.
In some Science outcomes are often predictable- put two substances in a test tube and you know how they will react - or not.
But in this matter there is too much unknown for me to follow fanatics - of any faction.
The peer review process is not perfect but it is the best system we have to sort out fraudulent and bogus scientific claims.
The IPCC said 'most likely' that most of the warming seen in the last 100 was due to man made greenhouse gases.
Most likely is a workable basis for further scientific investigation and assumptions, however, Most likely in a court of law as a basis for asserting someone's guilt is not a basis for a conviction.
That is the difference between socio-political debates and those of science. Most people will not accept facts and ideas unless there is evidence beyond all reasonable doubt because they are more familiar with socio-political analysis whereas scientific debate and acceptance is conducted on the balance of probabilities.
John Little
03-Jul-11, 21:41
If that is what you think then what on earth are we arguing about?
If that is what you think then what on earth are we arguing about?
It is and I don't know what but I do know that we are both guilty of misinterpreting irony and tongue in cheek remarks and that we need to start over in a better manner. And yes I do post things which seems like a scientific paper, I do it on purpose but it is not intended to wind up others, it is just my chosen style of posting, and yes, scientific paper writers are arrogant until proven wrong. It is all cut and thrust of debate.
John Little
03-Jul-11, 22:26
Happen. I'm willing to start over in a better manner if you stop red-repping folk for disagreeing with you.
That is not good debate.
But we inhabit the same forum, so if you're square with me then I'll be square with you.
Happen. I'm willing to start over in a better manner if you stop red-repping folk for disagreeing with you.
That is not good debate.
But we inhabit the same forum, so if you're square with me then I'll be square with you.
I agree that bad repping is silly just for disagreeing, that is why I don't do it. (well perhaps I have with Beks once or twice but I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for his previous abusive remarks) If someone accuses me of trolling or some other rude ad hominem remark then I think that is very poor debating which is on a par with bad repping for disagreement. That is fairly simple. Can't we just debate the issues without commenting on the other person? Why do people do it, is it to make themselves look cool or are they trying to harm the other's online reputation?
I tell you what, I'll promise I never bad rep ever again, even if the post is downright insulting, how is that?
I agree that bad repping is silly just for disagreeing, that is why I don't do it. (well perhaps I have with Beks once or twice but I wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for his previous abusive remarks) If someone accuses me of trolling or some other rude ad hominem remark then I think that is very poor debating which is on a par with bad repping for disagreement. That is fairly simple. Can't we just debate the issues without commenting on the other person? Why do people do it, is it to make themselves look cool or are they trying to harm the other's online reputation?
I tell you what, I'll promise I never bad rep ever again, even if the post is downright insulting, how is that?
I thought this sillyness had died - what on earth are you mentioning me for?, I've left you alone, like a grown-up, can't you let it drop?
But at last! so pleased you agree with me that bad repping is silly - apart it seems, from doing it to me.
Ok Reggy (I will ask yet again) why did you bad rep my post ( #16 Anybody on here support Greenpeace and their actions?) with a single word 'Lies'? or was it in fact, as you say above, because of my 'previous remarks' - if so, you are a wee bit sad..
I am surprised you've taken so long to use the knee-jerk 'ad hominem' [Personal attacks] retort, which is a tad tired by now..
You try to indicate I am the only one you bad rep!! Oh come come Reggy, what did Mystical Potato Head do for a red rep? to look cool; eh? to harm your online reputation? Nah
You, telling me I wave the cripple card, was actually rather nasty, you also suggested I try to get more green reps to climb the 'popularity pole'? what utter twaddle Reggy.. So to negate that silly idea, I've actually disabled my reputation! No longer do I appear on the Members List. I have previously asked why YOU do not do the same, i.e. I've put my money where my mouth is; come on Reggy do the same, or can't you do without this unnecessary tool?
It does seem rather perverse that you are not - after all - adverse to receiving 'downright insulting posts' without red repping - re your final sentence.. Hmm rather strange that one..
Relax Reggy, this forum is not a platform just for you, it's for a whole load of diverse folk, from all walks of life, disable your reputation and post away; damn the consequences; enjoy the posting, enjoy the robust discussion, accept we're different, I do and I love it..
Pack it in Reggy and act adult (I'm trying)
PS Blinking Heck I've never been up so late; I see there's 62 others still on line! This old git is off to bed...
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.