I must say I find this polarised sort of nonsense quite tiresome.
Science is not about consensus and rhetoric has no part in the scientific method.
I am an environmentalist and an anarchist no freind of either the corporate main stream or Political tyrranies in place over the world.
My own view on the CO2 debate is that it is a Straw man that lets the poluters off the hook who is bluffing who and why is impossible to tell
what is clear is that actually the Climate modelling is as suspect as the economic modeling in its over enthusiastic use of techniques that are both probabalistic and in many cases being applied outside of their designed purpose.
Before wringing ones hands and looking like a complete Flake I would suggest some reading, I have been resolved to studying the science and indeed matyhamatics of this for the past 3 years soap boxes no not make for good science labs.
I blogged a conversation I had with a freind on Facebook, he uses the denial type rhetoric too, Claes Johnson I think is actually on the side of seeking truth reading his stuff will at least lead to a better understanding of the science.
On 13 February 2013 11:55, NatCAN wrote:
Perhaps we should seriously consider an article about Global Warming that contains these words:
‘There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.’
When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing and indeed pushing climate ‘scepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 ‘clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.’
‘Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.’
‘Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.’
To see the entire article, which contains spectacular video footage of ice collapse, follow this link http://bit.ly/YWHw1z
Cheers, Joe – NatCAN Help ~Team
Visit NatCAN at: http://nationalcan.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network
To control which emails you receive on NatCAN, click here
This email was sent by NatCAN. You can disable emails here.
Roger Glyndwr Lewis What a truly awful film Roy. I do wish that the focus could be more sharply drawn on the Shale Sands destruction of the environment in Canada and also the other poisons Industry spews into the environment with impunity. Making the polluters pay makes all the sense in the world. Turning it into a religion as an excuse to terrorise an already terrorised Human Family is a disgrace. Using renewable again makes all the sense in the world no disagreement from me on that who should pay Industry the capitalists not the already overburdened productive populations and those who would be if the system wasn’t built with the purpose of built in structural unemployment and extraction of resources from Developing Nations.
January 15 at 6:30pm · Like..Roger Glyndwr Lewis I offer no comment but science is supposed to examine all points of view. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMHuQthzeg
The Bolt Report
Episode 23. Special climate panel discussion with Professor Garth Paltridge, Professor Peter Ridd and Professor Bob Carter..January 16 at 9:24am · Like · Remove Preview..Roy Madron No Roger. science has to consider and test all the EVIDENCE. Points of view are for the dinner table and the pub. Science is doing its work as honestly and rigorously as it can within the constraints that political and corporate Neanderthals have imposed upon it.
January 16 at 10:26am · Like..Roger Glyndwr Lewis Highly recommended, what to do on the question of the crazy economic model the world pursues at the end of the barrel of a gun, actually. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/
Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist
Do the Math
WHilst on the Subject of doing the MAths, Claes Johnson is worth a read,
Exponential Economist Meets Finite PhysicistPosted on 2012-04-10 by tmurphy1347 …views this month; 0 overallSome while back, I found myself sitting next to an accomplished economics professor at a dinner event. Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, “economic growth cannot continue indefinitely,”…See More.January 16 at 10:38am · Like · Remove Preview..Roger Glyndwr Lewis Roy the original film is far from scientific and is worthy of Fox news. Something needs to be done but the whole carbon thing seeks to obscure the drivers of our mad notions of growth and competition and goes very easy on the underlying money system which is equally nuts. The politicos and Economists are calling the shots here not the Hard science wonks and he who pays the piper is calling the tune. Occupy the environomet!
January 16 at 10:43am · Like..Roger Glyndwr Lewis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method In modeling Roy you can’t escape the choices you adopt in your parameter definititions and limits thats a point of view they are open to selective bias and can be used to emphasise ones convictions.
Scientific method – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for …investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific p…See More.January 16 at 12:11pm · Like · Remove Preview..Roy Madron Agreed the film is not scientific, but that is not the point. It relies on evidence from science to make its argument. Evidence is what ultimately shapes and redefines scientific work. Sure as Kuhn showed, the dominant paradigm determines a lot of wh…See More
January 16 at 12:33pm · Like..Roger Glyndwr Lewis My main concern about the dominant paradigm Roy is whether the FIx allowed by the Neanderthalls does what is required in areas that will make a difference( as you know that has to get away from Growth into steady state and sustainable models, the econo…See More
January 16 at 12:56pm · Like..Roger Glyndwr Lewis John Phillips
Not speaking for Jerry, but models can be confirmed and improved by testing. Testing climate models is difficult and takes time (by measuring actual climate over time and comparing with the models). Testing how the climate processes the p…See More
January 16 at 2:11pm · Unlike · 1..Roger Glyndwr Lewis Above from here, Scientists do discuss this stuff scientifically still there is no such thing as settled science. http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/10/american-thinker-the-difference-between-a-smoking-gun-and-a-science-paper/
American Thinker – the Difference between a Smoking Gun and a Science Paper
Gary Thompson at American Thinker recently produced an article The AGW Smoking G…un. In the article he takes three papers and claims to demonstrate that they are at odds with AGW. A key component of…See More.
WHilst on the Subject of doing the MAths, Claes Johnson is worth a read,