On 2007-03-20, Ewan Scott wrote:

Every day we dispose of millions of perfectly useful items simply
because they are no longer fashionable. Go to you local amenity tip
and sit and watch perfectly good puschairs, bicycles, and other
household goods being dumped.

BTW you should try your local "freecycle" list if you've not already
done so, they can be quite good and are very popular, I put some stuff
up and it was all gone by the next day. At the very least it saves a
trip to the dump!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

I tell you what, go away and come back when you know how science works.

And you see if you can keep your ego in check!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

I tell you what, go away and come back when you know how science works.

And you see if you can keep your ego in check!

sigh

You really, really don't understand how science works do you? Nothing in
science is the preserve of an elect priesthood, although that is how the
current generation of climatologists act, they are wrong to do so. No
knowledge in the scientific domain is unique to any one type of
scientist and not only can but must be questioned by every other
researcher where the claims made do not seem to be a complete or even
adequate fit to the facts.

Here's a clue about the universality of science. Over my career I have
worked as a university lecturer in my field of study, in several medical
diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, in aerospace, biotechnology,
robotics and in forensic science and computing and latterly in highway
engineering. Nor am I unusual in this, my colleagues who tend to be most
physicists have worked across their subject, in engineering and in
biotechnology as well as data recovery and gasp climate research.

We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to
one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing
about science, so whereas I speak from a basis of both knowledge and
achievement you are admitting that you speak on a basis of faith and
ignorance.

What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience.

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

You really, really don't understand how science works do you?

What I'm talking about steve, is that you can't state with any
confidence that the people who have reached and contributed to the
consensus are wrong, only that they have not proven anything without a
doubt, which is common knowledge.

We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to
one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing
about science, so whereas I speak from a basis of both knowledge and
achievement you are admitting that you speak on a basis of faith and
ignorance.

Have you looked into the work done by those thousands of scientists in
great detail? And decided it's wrong? If not, then how is your
position of faith and ignorance any different?

What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience.

No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from
across all the disciplines.. Would you think it's a good idea to have
peer reviews of medical work done by geologists for example?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Ian Rawlings" wrote in message
.. .
On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

You really, really don't understand how science works do you?

What I'm talking about steve, is that you can't state with any
confidence that the people who have reached and contributed to the
consensus are wrong, only that they have not proven anything without a
doubt, which is common knowledge.

We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to
one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing
about science, so whereas I speak from a basis of both knowledge and
achievement you are admitting that you speak on a basis of faith and
ignorance.

Have you looked into the work done by those thousands of scientists in
great detail? And decided it's wrong? If not, then how is your
position of faith and ignorance any different?

What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience.

No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from
across all the disciplines.. Would you think it's a good idea to have
peer reviews of medical work done by geologists for example?


I'm with Steve on this. They have made a hypothesis and it for them to prove
it is mainly caused by human activity or can now be influenced to a
meaningful degree by human intervention or further activity. Up to now they
have failed to do so in scientific terms but have succeeded hugely on an
emotional level.

The reason that their [the man-made global warming congregations']
hypothesis is becoming accepted has more to do with politics and funding
than with scientific results that provide proof. This is not proof
specifically of 'warming' that I am talking about here, warming and cooling
trends occur naturally over periods of time, but that the warming is
predominantly influenced by man and further, that anything we can do will
effectively stop and reverse this trend. They are on an obvious winner here
because if it continues to warm they can claim that they were right all
along and we didn't do enough to stop the warming, and if it starts cooling
again then they claim that what they did do stopped warming in its tracks
but further research would be needed in case it was a short term blip.

Either way they are playing on fear of the unknown and of an uncertain and
perilous future and they can play this card indefinitely whatever happens
and whether it is a natural phenomenon or not, as people have done since I
can remember, which is back as far as the 30 years of cooling that occurred
until the late 1970's during a time of huge industrial expansion, dating
back at least a hundred years previously and greatly accelerated during the
early 20th Century.

Huw

Ian Rawlings wrote:

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

You really, really don't understand how science works do you?

What I'm talking about steve, is that you can't state with any
confidence that the people who have reached and contributed to the
consensus are wrong,

A strawman, I'm saying no such thing.

only that they have not proven anything without a
doubt, which is common knowledge.

And that's not what I'm saying. I have said that the evidence for global
warming is convincing. The evidence for a man-made element is neither
convincing nor compelling.

We can do this because the fundamentals of science are not confined to
one particular discipline. And you by your own admission no nothing
about science, so whereas I speak from a basis of both knowledge and
achievement you are admitting that you speak on a basis of faith and
ignorance.

Have you looked into the work done by those thousands of scientists in
great detail? And decided it's wrong? If not, then how is your
position of faith and ignorance any different?

sighagain

You are still trying to persist with your line that the number of people
in agreement is somehow to be taken as the compelling aspect of the
research. By your argument phrenology was a valid science as was Weimar
Eugenics. After all thousands of scientists agreed in great detail with
both, and I haven't read every paper that was written on the subject.
Indeed by yoru argument I know nothing about anything since I have not,
to date, read every paper ever publsihed even within the fields where I
do practice. Nor indeed do any of those climate scientists since not one
of them will have read all the papers in the field.

Do you start to see the small flaw in your argument?

What you care to term egotism is simply confidence born from experience.

No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from
across all the disciplines..


Another strawman, I didn't say that.

Would you think it's a good idea to have
peer reviews of medical work done by geologists for example?

I'm not doing peer review. I'm giving my opinion and any geologist is
perfectly capable of giving an opininion on medical research. That
opinion will also tend to be rather better informed than the man on the
street.

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

You are still trying to persist with your line that the number of
people in agreement is somehow to be taken as the compelling aspect
of the research.

It's not totally compelling, but can't be totally dismissed in a
situation where there's no agreement. If those people have worked on
the subject and are of a reasonable standard, then their agreement is
worthwhile.

I'm not saying that the argument is cut and dried, I know that it's
not over and there is doubt, it's just that the pro side has the
edge by a considerable margin, at the moment. Just writing it off
isn't prudent.

By your argument phrenology was a valid science as was Weimar
Eugenics. After all thousands of scientists agreed in great detail
with both, and I haven't read every paper that was written on the
subject.

Those two were small storms in individual, very early disciplines,
this is a cross-discipline storm, and with more mature knowledge of
the underlying subjects than was available to the physicians of the
time. Phrenology was around pretty much before modern science had
really come about, the brain's overall function wasn't really agreed
on at the time for example.

Indeed by yoru argument I know nothing about anything since I have
not, to date, read every paper ever publsihed even within the fields
where I do practice.

No, that's not what I said. However you certainly can't dismiss what
anyone else is saying without even looking at what they did, which is
what you are trying to do.

No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from
across all the disciplines..

Another strawman, I didn't say that.

You're quite happy to say that global warming isn't down to mankind
though, which requires the dismissal of the majority of your peers who
say otherwise. Surely you've evaluated all the evidence across all
the disciplines in order to be sure about this? Or are you just
guessing, like everyone else?

I'm not doing peer review. I'm giving my opinion and any geologist
is perfectly capable of giving an opininion on medical
research. That opinion will also tend to be rather better informed
than the man on the street.

Neither are well informed opinions though.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

You are still trying to persist with your line that the number of
people in agreement is somehow to be taken as the compelling aspect
of the research.

It's not totally compelling, but can't be totally dismissed in a
situation where there's no agreement. If those people have worked on
the subject and are of a reasonable standard, then their agreement is
worthwhile.

And on that you are completely and utterly wrong.

I'm not saying that the argument is cut and dried, I know that it's
not over and there is doubt, it's just that the pro side has the
edge by a considerable margin, at the moment. Just writing it off
isn't prudent.

No one is just writing it off. I'm prepared to accept some of the
argument, and I'm pointing out that part of it is not only not proven,
it's tenuous.

By your argument phrenology was a valid science as was Weimar
Eugenics. After all thousands of scientists agreed in great detail
with both, and I haven't read every paper that was written on the
subject.

Those two were small storms in individual, very early disciplines,

Do you need a canonical list of every case of consensus that has been
overthrown? Do you believe in epicycles and deferents because there was
once universal agreement that the movement of the spheres predicted the
course of hte heavens? Does the universal agreement that the DNA in the
nucleus did not represent sufficient information to code for a new cell
mean that those scientists in agreement were correct?

You are persisting in this belief that consenus means truth not only
does it not, it never has.

this is a cross-discipline storm, and with more mature knowledge of
the underlying subjects than was available to the physicians of the
time. Phrenology was around pretty much before modern science had
really come about, the brain's overall function wasn't really agreed
on at the time for example.

And you are missing the point by a mile.

Indeed by yoru argument I know nothing about anything since I have
not, to date, read every paper ever publsihed even within the fields
where I do practice.

No, that's not what I said. However you certainly can't dismiss what
anyone else is saying without even looking at what they did, which is
what you are trying to do.

That's untrue, and I read papers in climatology as avidly as I read
other work that interests me. Some of it is interesting, some of it
downright bad science. I also read review papers and I still want to
know why if global warming is man made why is Mars warming?

No, it was you stating that you can evaluate all the evidence from
across all the disciplines..

Another strawman, I didn't say that.

You're quite happy to say that global warming isn't down to mankind
though,

No, again you're not reading what I write. The case isn't compelling and
much of climate research is junk science. That isn't the same as saying
something as definite as global warming is not down to mankind. However
we can point at the geological rcord and say "it's happened before" and
"in the (geologically recent) past the changes were more profound than
we anticipate at present and happened over a remarkably short time."
This tends to make the current claims made by some climatologists
dubious. I've seen otherwise sensible people make claims such as
"climate change is happenign faster than it ever has" that's pure
********. Also claims that the changes could (with implications of will)
cause a catastrophic change in weather don't seem to have the support of
the geological record.

which requires the dismissal of the majority of your peers who
say otherwise. Surely you've evaluated all the evidence across all
the disciplines in order to be sure about this? Or are you just
guessing, like everyone else?

Once again you are implying that one has to read every single paper in
able to form an opinion. This is a stupid argument.

I'm not doing peer review. I'm giving my opinion and any geologist
is perfectly capable of giving an opininion on medical
research. That opinion will also tend to be rather better informed
than the man on the street.

Neither are well informed opinions though.

That's just a stupid attempt to be insulting.

On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

No one is just writing it off. I'm prepared to accept some of the
argument, and I'm pointing out that part of it is not only not proven,
it's tenuous.

You don't need to point that out to me. Everyone's guessing, and when
people are guessing, those who are closest to the metal stand a better
chance of being right, and when the majority of them are coming up
with the same thing, it's probably best to begrudginly prepare to do
something if something needs doing, and hope that they are wrong.

You are persisting in this belief that consenus means truth not only
does it not, it never has.

Funny, I don't remember saying that...

And you are missing the point by a mile.

How can you say that when you think that I believe consensus means
correct? Everyone's indulging in guessing, guided by varying degrees
of knowledge, and when the majority of the guesses fall the same way
then it's worth paying some attention. It's certainly not game over
though, until the guessing stops.

I've just been through this blasted argument in alt.fan.landrover, as
I said over there, no one person can say whether global warming is
down to man or not, and I certainly don't think I'm an exception
there. What ****es me off is those who dismiss this argument or that
argument to fit their either green obsession or to try and scrub away
their perceived guilt about driving a "dirty" car, or watch crap
documentaries and cling to them like they were gospel without an
agenda to push. You see people who can barely tie their own shoelaces
stating with certainty that global warming is rubbish because this
study showed something, a study they've never read and wouldn't
understand if it was tattooed onto their brains. You do of course get
the bunny huggers doing the same to justify throwing eggs at 4x4s etc.

We all make up our minds based on what we know, and as I don't do any
of the work myself, my best bet is to watch what those at the coal
face are thinking and follow the majority of them. If they change
their minds, then fine, I can hardly criticise, but I won't dismiss
them all out of hand because I'm not qualified to do so. Neither are
you, although you're closer than I am.

That's untrue, and I read papers in climatology as avidly as I read
other work that interests me. Some of it is interesting, some of it
downright bad science. I also read review papers and I still want to
know why if global warming is man made why is Mars warming?

And that's relevant how exactly? Surely you can see that's too
simplistic to have any real significance?

No, again you're not reading what I write.

And you're not reading what I write, at least we're reaching a
consensus on that ;-)

The case isn't compelling and much of climate research is junk
science.

Both ways of course, after all there's money to be made!

However we can point at the geological rcord and say "it's happened
before" and "in the (geologically recent) past the changes were more
profound than we anticipate at present and happened over a
remarkably short time." This tends to make the current claims made
by some climatologists dubious. I've seen otherwise sensible people
make claims such as "climate change is happenign faster than it ever
has" that's pure ********. Also claims that the changes could (with
implications of will) cause a catastrophic change in weather don't
seem to have the support of the geological record.

The problem here is that all the above have been countered, I've seen
them before and with counters put up against them, and it's devilishly
hard to decide who's right until things have moved forward some more.

Once again you are implying that one has to read every single paper in
able to form an opinion. This is a stupid argument.

Not to form an opinion, one has to read and understand all of them to
dismiss all of them and state with certainty that the argument has no
merit, but if you're not doing that then we can drop that point.

Neither are well informed opinions though.

That's just a stupid attempt to be insulting.

Not really, although it certainly looks like one.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

"Ian Rawlings" wrote in message
.. .
On 2007-03-20, Stephen Firth wrote:

No one is just writing it off. I'm prepared to accept some of the
argument, and I'm pointing out that part of it is not only not proven,
it's tenuous.

You don't need to point that out to me. Everyone's guessing, and when
people are guessing, those who are closest to the metal stand a better
chance of being right, and when the majority of them are coming up
with the same thing, it's probably best to begrudginly prepare to do
something if something needs doing, and hope that they are wrong.


A good guess is still just a guess. People once believed in a flat Earth.
People still believe in their particular God with absolute faith, in this
case with a complete absence of any real evidence even though believers can
find 'evidence' to suit their faith quite easily. It is no more real
evidence than so far produced to prove that human influence in producing a
little extra CO2 is responsible for global climate change, which
incidentally has always occurred throughout history. Like Steven Firth
though, I am not saying that human influence does not have an effect, just
that the hypothesis is far from being proven. It might turn out to have some
influence and it might not. As illustrated, just because a few, even the
majority of people, including scientists, believe it to be so, it does not
make it so. Proof is what is needed not the present bull**** skewed or at
least sensationalised to generate research funding. So much has been
admitted by even prominent and respected supporters of the hypothesis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6460635.stm

This particular statement is particularly interesting
"Professor Hardaker also believes that overblown statements play into the
hands of those who say that scientists are wrong on climate change - that
global warming is a myth. "

The interesting point about this is that it assumes or implies that there is
only either 'black or white'. Either one does not believe there is global
warming or one does, in which case it is given that it is caused by human
activity. Of course this is nonsense. There is no doubt that climate has
warmed on average over the last twenty years, just as it cooled during the
previous thirty. The question that they try to avoid like the plague is
"where is the evidence that the warming is not predominantly natural but
caused by the action of man"? So far there is no convincing evidence.

In an era of uncertain security for oil production and declining reserves,
it certainly suits the powers that be to use the most acceptable arguments
possible to 'persuade' Joe publicto reduce our dependency on the stuff and
to encourage alternatives, even if the alternatives are expensive and
inconvenient or unpalatable [like nuclear]. If it takes the shear fear of
global catastrophe to make this palatable then politicians [who are our
'leaders'] will be more than happy to go along with it for the ride and to
raise taxes to perpetuate their power based on fear of the unknown.

Huw