An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore

[Lonan3]

There have been so many sources quoted on this subject that it's almost impossible to know whether or this one has. It is, however, a farly well-balanced one IMO.

 

Source: Swedish Research Council

Date: February 17, 2005

 

A new study of climate in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2000 years shows that natural climate change may be larger than generally thought. This is displayed in results from scientists at the Stockholm University, made in cooperation with Russian scientists, which are published in Nature on 10 Feb 2005.

 

The most widespread picture of climate variability in the last millennium suggests that only small changes occurred before the year 1900, and then a pronounced warming set in. The new results rather show an appreciable temperature swing between the 12th and 20th centuries, with a notable cold period around AD 1600. A large part of the 20th century had approximately the same temperature as the 11th and 12th centuries. Only the last 15 years appear to be warmer than any previous period of similar length.

 

This study builds on an analysis of indirect climate data, such as information from ocean and lake bottoms, ice sheets, caves and annual tree rings. The use of this kind of material to reconstruct climate far back in the past is nothing new in itself. The difference between the new study from previous ones, is the selection of data series and the method used to estimate temperatures from them.

 

A 1000-year long climate simulation, undertaken (by another research group) with a computer model for the physics of the atmosphere and the oceans, show large similarities with the new reconstruction. The climate in this model is governed by reconstructed variations of solar radiation and the amount of volcanic dust in the atmosphere (which reflects sun-light back into space). The fact that these two climate evolutions, which have been obtained completely independently of each other, are very similar supports the case that climate shows an appreciable natural variability - and that changes in the sun's output and volcanic eruptions on the earth may be the cause.

 

This means that it is difficult to distinguish the human influence on climate from natural variability, even though the past 15 warm years are best explained if one includes human influence in the simulations. The new study underscores the importance of including natural climate variability in future scenarios. It is not only the humans that can cause appreciable climate changes - nature does it all the time by itself.

[Albert Tatlock]

And there is another problem Albert ... you keep posting critiques from the usual suspects.

Don't put words into my mouth. I have posted several links from 'the usual suspects', but underneath there are a lot of other sublinks, including if you dig deep enough, even the MBH98 data itself.

 

I am interested in data accuracy and the correct use of staistical techniques - and not personalities or philosophical analogies, which are irrelevant to this debate.

[VinnieK]

I am not (interested) in personalities or philosophical analogies, which are irrelevant to this debate.

 

And yet you deal in them throughout, from drawing analogies between those who agree with your view and a mythic view of Einstein and Galileo as maverick geniuses who were proven right, right down to characterising the entire debate as one between those same scientists and some monolithic establishment that seeks to control another part of our lives through ecological dogma based on what you've described as pseudoscience.

 

A person could be forgiven, based on the tactics you employ, for thinking that personalities and other aspects irrelevent to the actual scientific debate are the only thing you actually are genuinely interested in: where the controversy surrounding the debate on the environment is nothing more than just another opportunity to take a pop at a so-called establishment that seeks to tell us what to do, and the science behind the skeptical point of view is just another exercise in self justification of a more general opinion on governmental regulation of the individual (or more specifically you) that's entirely irrelevent to the actual debate.

 

Don't get me wrong, that may not be how it is, but that's how it could easily seem.

 

There is a legitimate debate to be had, and aspects of the controversy surrounding conclusions drawn on both sides is justified, but endlessly firing off citations and dismissing all that stands in your way of being guilty of pseudoscience (especially when, and I sincerely don't intend offence with this, there are better scientists than you who hold an opinion you've dismissed as such) does a disservice to both sides of the debate.

[Albert Tatlock]

I am not (interested) in personalities or philosophical analogies, which are irrelevant to this debate.

 

And yet you deal in them throughout, from drawing analogies between those who agree with your view and a mythic view of Einstein and Galileo as maverick geniuses who were proven right, right down to characterising the entire debate as one between those same scientists and some monolithic establishment that seeks to control another part of our lives through ecological dogma based on what you've described as pseudoscience.

 

A person could be forgiven, based on the tactics you employ, for thinking that personalities and other aspects irrelevent to the actual scientific debate are the only thing you actually are genuinely interested in: where the controversy surrounding the debate on the environment is nothing more than just another opportunity to take a pop at a so-called establishment that seeks to tell us what to do, and the science behind the skeptical point of view is just another exercise in self justification of a more general opinion on governmental regulation of the individual (or more specifically you) that's entirely irrelevent to the actual debate.

 

Don't get me wrong, that may not be how it is, but that's how it could easily seem.

 

There is a legitimate debate to be had, and aspects of the controversy surrounding conclusions drawn on both sides is justified, but endlessly firing off citations and dismissing all that stands in your way of being guilty of pseudoscience (especially when, and I sincerely don't intend offence with this, there are better scientists than you who hold an opinion you've dismissed as such) does a disservice to both sides of the debate.

 

If you read the original post, you will see I was using the analogy at the time to point out that you, as you have done once again in this post, are forgetting to deal with the issue at hand i.e. whether changes are mainly man-made. Any scientist in 'all man-made climate change denial' is currently being mobbed by this type of psuedo-scientific, political, and philosphical bullshit. What the **** do you know? What's it based on? Have you read any of the discussions on the algorithms and data types and PC's actually used in MBH98? I have...and I believe that they have not been audited properly.

 

Science is not consensus, and correlation does not imply causation. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion Vinnie, but not to his own facts.

 

 

 

_

[VinnieK]

What the **** do you know? What's it based on? Have you read any of the discussions on the algorithms and data types and PC's actually used in MBH98? I have...and I believe that they have not been audited properly.

 

And why do you believe they have not been audited properly? See, this is the problem: You frequently complain other people aren't discussing the situation at hand, or obscuring the issues with less important matters like how many scientists hold this or that few, but you're just as guilty, if not more, of doing the same. Your idea of a convincing argument, despite your apparently encyclopaedic and intricate knowledge of the debate, is to fire off a couple of (often questionable) links and bellowing "See! See! I told you so!" and complaining that other people have put words in your mouth. Yet to date you have provided little good reason as to why anyone should regard the links you've supplied as more reliable than any other.

 

Science is not consensus, and correlation does not imply causation. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion Vinnie, but not to his own facts.

 

Science is all about consensus. The very definition of what is and isn't scientific hinges upon peer review and acceptance amongst the scientific community, but this is beside the point. Of course correlation does not imply causation, but do you really believe that those scientists who've reached the conclusion that mankind is responsible for climactic effects that in their view will continue with detrimental results have confused correlation with causation? That kind of thing wouldn't even get past the first draft review of a paper. And here's the crux of the argument:

 

Both sides in the debate can come up with statistical correlation, or demonstrate the lack thereof, and so the onus is on producing reasonable evidence that whatever the statistics say prove or disprove causation, something that requires a significant knowledge of environmental science. Now, I don't think I'm being unfair to you when I say that I suspect you know pretty much near dick all when it comes to the kind of doctorate level chemistry and biology (and indeed mathematics) that are going to be employed in any sophisticated account of such a complex system as the environment, indeed I pretty much have the same level of knowledge in this area. Nevertheless, what little of a defence that you've provided for your argument is focused near entirely upon issues such as "auditing" and data sets, with maybe a handful of speculation regarding previous trends (ignoring your own advice regarding correlation), which is tantamount to trying to win a complex argument by catching the other side, or to portray them with their statistical pants down - essentially an attempt to discredit rather than argue the point at hand.

 

In brief: you can invoke data sets until you're blue in the face (hell, if you want to argue about statistical analysis, bring it on - despite your petulant "what the **** do you know?", I'm pretty sure I can take you on in the field of statistical analysis and mathematical modelling), but the fact will remain that the real thorny issue in the debate are those scientific arguments for causation (or lack thereof) which few, including us both, are equipped to understand to such a degree as to draw any meaningful conclusion, instead just arbitrarly lauding those scientists who appear to agree with our point of view.

 

Just to make it clear, I am unclear as to what degree man is responsible for climate change, or how far reaching its effects will be, or what we can do to prevent it. However, I'm not so arrogant, or so infatuated with the idea of presenting myself as a scientist, that I would indulge in the flattering delusion that I understand the vast majority of the evidence, and I know all to well that in debates like these the devil really is in the scientific detail that's out of the reach of us. Given that professional scientists have come out on both sides of the debate, and that the controversy is (according to some sources) more or less evenly split. My opinion is unashamedly based on the "gamble of least risk" principle:

 

1. If we go along with skeptics the very best that can happen is that our lives will remain the same, we "win" nothing with this approach other than the satisfaction that we were right (if that be the case). Conversely, if we are wrong humanity stands a fair chance of dying horribly. In short, minimal benefits carrying a massive risk.

 

2. If we go along with advocates of environmental legislation, what is truly the worst that can happen? If we are right to do so, we avert disaster. If we are wrong we'll at least have invested in new technologies and research, managed to improve the efficiency of alternative fuel sources (which is a good thing for economic and geopolitical reasons in themselves), and spent a great deal of time making our management of resources and waste more efficient.

[Chinahand]

There have been so many sources quoted on this subject that it's almost impossible to know whether or this one has. It is, however, a farly well-balanced one IMO.

 

Source: Swedish Research Council

Date: February 17, 2005

 

A new study of climate in the Northern Hemisphere for the past 2000 years shows that natural climate change may be larger than generally thought. This is displayed in results from scientists at the Stockholm University, made in cooperation with Russian scientists, which are published in Nature on 10 Feb 2005.

 

...

 

This means that it is difficult to distinguish the human influence on climate from natural variability, even though the past 15 warm years are best explained if one includes human influence in the simulations. The new study underscores the importance of including natural climate variability in future scenarios. It is not only the humans that can cause appreciable climate changes - nature does it all the time by itself.

 

How the Editor's of Nature summarize the article:

 

10 February 2005

 

Palaeoclimate: tracking the trend

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A 2,000-year reconstruction of annual temperature for the Northern Hemisphere breaks new ground in the way it combines data from climate proxies with different inherent time scales — such as lake and ocean sediment and tree-ring data — to give full weight to each proxy at its optimum resolution. This technique, using wavelet transformation, makes the most of the available palaeoclimate data. The resulting reconstruction supports the case that multicentennial natural variability has been larger than is commonly thought, and that considerable natural climate variation can be expected in future. High temperatures occurred during the tenth century and notable 'lows' around 1600. But post-1990 temperatures stand out still as higher than at any time in the previous 2,000 years.

 

These results add to, AND IN NO WAY CONTRADICT, the basic conclusions of the Hockey stick. "Higher than at any time in the previous 2000 years" ... now someone earlier in this thread said he didn't believe this was so!

[Lost Login]

VinnieK

 

There is little point with discussing with Albert as he appears to have settled on his opinion and is blinkered to any view. I always think of him as being rather like the West Midlands police in the mid eights in that they made up their mind about something and then looked for the evidence to fit that view no matter how flimsy and ignoring anything to the contrary no matter how overwhelming.

 

Albert has a view on global warming which matches that of the energy lobbyists and their dodgy scientists that he so loves to cut and quote. Intrinsically he accepts what they say as they back his belief no matter how flawed is their thinking or how easily and quickly it can be shown and disproved. The majority view point he does not accept for no other reason than firstly it does match his believe and secondly it appears because the majority is a consensus and the consensus need not always be right. I have a view of Albert being delayed until the tide goes out at Ronaldsaway airport in a few years time as he waits for a winter sun break to Iceland still arguing that it is still not a case that has been proved due to a “scientific” report produced by some energy company’s lobbyist.

 

If you look at the long conspiracy thread in the International section to do with September 11th you will recognise Albert’s exact same position with regard to that. Blind faith in what conspiracy theorist report and print. Complete scepticism to anything independent experts and the majority findings. Again it seems to be founded majority is a consensus and the consensus need not always be right. China hand time after time showed why Albert’s statements were factually incorrect but Albert did not budge an inch and frequently repeated many of the statements that Chinahand had shown to Albert was incorrect.

 

I post the odd reply to Albert not in the expectation he will read or understand but mainly in the hope that others might read and understand that much of what Albert states is either factually incorrect or just propaganda etc dressed up as science by the energy lobby. Worse it is incorrect and deliberately misleading propaganda, otherwise you could call them lies, e.g re thickening ice caps where the report states that they are thinning but the energy lobby selects an extract and uses it as evidence that a report says they are thickening. Albert never replies to such matters as this nor does it seem to cause him for a second to doubt what he believes as you can be sure he will sooner or later add a link to another report repeating the same error even after I have copied the writer of the original report complaining how it is being deliberately misrepresented.

 

The only good news is that Albert may be coming to the end of his assertions as I note he has now started to quote that he is a scientist/engineer. This is exactly the tack he took in the conspiracy thread. I have to admit having studied chemistry and biochemistry at University myself and coming from a family whose relatives worked as research scientists at Unilever I have never known a scientist be so blinkered to the evidence and quite so happy to accept the word of discredited lobbyists. I do not think Albert ever clarified what sort of engineer/scientist he was or how this incorporated in his work. Partly because in Chinahands case it probably appeared that Chinahand was so much ahead of the game in that respect, i.e experience and qualification. I think the conclusion was that maybe just as photocopier maintenance guys now call them selves engineers or lavatory attendants are referred to as sanitary engineers Albert is similarly embellishing his CV by calling himself a scientist/ engineer.

 

Have fun though debunking Alberts pseudo science postings and I may continue to stick my oar in on occasions but only on occasions as life is to short to spend it in discussions with Albert. Just as you will never convince a vegetarian that meat is not murder or visa versa you will never convince Albert he is anything but right and his sources are anything but 100% solid

Science is all about consensus. The very definition of what is and isn't scientific hinges upon peer review and acceptance amongst the scientific community, but this is beside the point. Of course correlation does not imply causation, but do you really believe that those scientists who've reached the conclusion that mankind is responsible for climactic effects that in their view will continue with detrimental results have confused correlation with causation? That kind of thing wouldn't even get past the first draft review of a paper. And here's the crux of the argument:

 

Both sides in the debate can come up with statistical correlation, or demonstrate the lack thereof, and so the onus is on producing reasonable evidence that whatever the statistics say prove or disprove causation, something that requires a significant knowledge of environmental science. Now, I don't think I'm being unfair to you when I say that I suspect you know pretty much near dick all when it comes to the kind of doctorate level chemistry and biology (and indeed mathematics) that are going to be employed in any sophisticated account of such a complex system as the environment, indeed I pretty much have the same level of knowledge in this area. Nevertheless, what little of a defence that you've provided for your argument is focused near entirely upon issues such as "auditing" and data sets, with maybe a handful of speculation regarding previous trends (ignoring your own advice regarding correlation), which is tantamount to trying to win a complex argument by catching the other side, or to portray them with their statistical pants down - essentially an attempt to discredit rather than argue the point at hand.

[Chinahand]

I think Albert has hit on something important when he questioned how much influence man can have compared to volcanoes, sun cylces etc.

 

The only thing even remotely similar I'd seen previously were debates about the sustainability of Man's impact on the environment, which showed that Man would need more than 100% of the world's land area to sustainably make up for the environmental damage he is causing.

 

Note for the Skeptics I fully know about the work of Bjorn Lomborg which disputes this - as this whole debate shows: science is complicated!

 

With a bit of digging I've found this article from the Union of Concerned Scientists - it gives a mainstream view of the various impacts on climate change - and it shows the influence of CO2 is much more important than the natural cycles.

 

The article tries to answer the question of how significant Man's influence is on climate change and refers to this graph produced by J. Hansen et al in 2005 for NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

 

 

The continuous and increasing influence of CO2 and other Green House Gas (GHG) levels dwarf the effects of volcanoes (which produce atmospheric aerosols which produce Global Cooling) and the sun's natural cycles.

 

Hansen's work again re-produces the Hockey stick.

 

 

This shows that Man's influence on the planet is significant and increasing as CO2 levels grow. Sorry Albert, but this is first class, well recognised science.

[Albert Tatlock]

What the **** do you know? What's it based on? Have you read any of the discussions on the algorithms and data types and PC's actually used in MBH98? I have...and I believe that they have not been audited properly.

 

And why do you believe they have not been audited properly? See, this is the problem: You frequently complain other people aren't discussing the situation at hand, or obscuring the issues with less important matters like how many scientists hold this or that few, but you're just as guilty, if not more, of doing the same. Your idea of a convincing argument, despite your apparently encyclopaedic and intricate knowledge of the debate, is to fire off a couple of (often questionable) links and bellowing "See! See! I told you so!" and complaining that other people have put words in your mouth. Yet to date you have provided little good reason as to why anyone should regard the links you've supplied as more reliable than any other.

 

Science is not consensus, and correlation does not imply causation. Everyone's entitled to his own opinion Vinnie, but not to his own facts.

Science is all about consensus. The very definition of what is and isn't scientific hinges upon peer review and acceptance amongst the scientific community, but this is beside the point. Of course correlation does not imply causation, but do you really believe that those scientists who've reached the conclusion that mankind is responsible for climactic effects that in their view will continue with detrimental results have confused correlation with causation? That kind of thing wouldn't even get past the first draft review of a paper. And here's the crux of the argument:

 

Both sides in the debate can come up with statistical correlation, or demonstrate the lack thereof, and so the onus is on producing reasonable evidence that whatever the statistics say prove or disprove causation, something that requires a significant knowledge of environmental science. Now, I don't think I'm being unfair to you when I say that I suspect you know pretty much near dick all when it comes to the kind of doctorate level chemistry and biology (and indeed mathematics) that are going to be employed in any sophisticated account of such a complex system as the environment, indeed I pretty much have the same level of knowledge in this area. Nevertheless, what little of a defence that you've provided for your argument is focused near entirely upon issues such as "auditing" and data sets, with maybe a handful of speculation regarding previous trends (ignoring your own advice regarding correlation), which is tantamount to trying to win a complex argument by catching the other side, or to portray them with their statistical pants down - essentially an attempt to discredit rather than argue the point at hand.

 

In brief: you can invoke data sets until you're blue in the face (hell, if you want to argue about statistical analysis, bring it on - despite your petulant "what the **** do you know?", I'm pretty sure I can take you on in the field of statistical analysis and mathematical modelling), but the fact will remain that the real thorny issue in the debate are those scientific arguments for causation (or lack thereof) which few, including us both, are equipped to understand to such a degree as to draw any meaningful conclusion, instead just arbitrarly lauding those scientists who appear to agree with our point of view.

 

Just to make it clear, I am unclear as to what degree man is responsible for climate change, or how far reaching its effects will be, or what we can do to prevent it. However, I'm not so arrogant, or so infatuated with the idea of presenting myself as a scientist, that I would indulge in the flattering delusion that I understand the vast majority of the evidence, and I know all to well that in debates like these the devil really is in the scientific detail that's out of the reach of us. Given that professional scientists have come out on both sides of the debate, and that the controversy is (according to some sources) more or less evenly split. My opinion is unashamedly based on the "gamble of least risk" principle:

 

1. If we go along with skeptics the very best that can happen is that our lives will remain the same, we "win" nothing with this approach other than the satisfaction that we were right (if that be the case). Conversely, if we are wrong humanity stands a fair chance of dying horribly. In short, minimal benefits carrying a massive risk.

 

2. If we go along with advocates of environmental legislation, what is truly the worst that can happen? If we are right to do so, we avert disaster. If we are wrong we'll at least have invested in new technologies and research, managed to improve the efficiency of alternative fuel sources (which is a good thing for economic and geopolitical reasons in themselves), and spent a great deal of time making our management of resources and waste more efficient.

If you claim to be a scientist, then you will know that science is NOT about consensus. Consensus means little more than a majority opinion on a given matter. It works in politics where it is sought to pursue political actions, it works when choosing which pub to go to with your mates etc. - but in science, consensus is meaningless, often unscientific and often wrong. Seeking consensus as a form of proof is bad science. Your belief in what you have been presented with so far borders on the religeous - faith - and not based on any rigourous analysis.

I doubt whether you can take me on, such work represents 50% of my current income and 15 years of my work experience. But I always welcome a challenge. I am not an expert in Chemistry, but I can adequately deal with any data sets produced. I am not an expert in biology either, I do however know my arse from my elbow.

As I said in an earlier post, I will give this debate more attention when I have the time over xmas. It is year end at the moment and I am too busy at present for three hour long replies, which to do it justice is what is required.

The problem is Vinnie we would have to agree what the debate is about in clear terms - and keep away from this philosophical rubbish which adds jack shit value to whether the right data has been used or not. I would start with whether MBH98 is correct or not, why all of the data used to generate it has not been released, the politics of the IPCC (for it is a political organisation), why science is not consensus and why correlation is not causation. Stick to the knitting and we might get somewhere.

[Flash]

Can I just say to all 'you learned gentlemen', thank you!

 

It is very interesting to read all this debate. I definately am NOT a scientist but I do 'feel' what the human race is facing with the threat of Climate Change is its' future.

 

You can write as many words as you like but I'm for taking action now and educating people to cut back on their use of limited resources, learn to live more sustainably and 'stop wasting energy' - to the younger generation I say be 'very' adaptable as things are going to change in your lives, radically.

 

To Albert I say what was wrong with my cyclical comment? - it was said tongue in cheek.

 

I leave you to debate the more technical sides of CC but it's better to be 'safe than sorry' - you're right Vinnie.

[VinnieK]

If you claim to be a scientist, then you will know that science is NOT about consensus. Consensus means little more than a majority opinion on a given matter.

 

I don't claim to be a scientist, not even for an instant. I've known some very good scientists, and been fortunate enough to be taught by some, but I, just like anyone without a single published paper of original research to my name, am not a scientist. Even so, your objection to the idea of consensus playing a role in science is based on the mistaken belief that I'm talking about consensus of opinion, which I'm not - opinion has little place in science. Ultimately, what constitutes science is what has been deemed by the scientific community to be sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt, or at least sufficiently justified by scientific methods (even if there remains disagreement) to merit consideration. These judgements are informed by a number of philosophical principles concerning scientific thinking, but the ultimate judge of whether what a scientist has done is worthy of consideration as science is a consensus amongst their peers that they have sufficiently made their case. It would be all so very pleasant if it were simpler and more objective than this, but that's the way it is: A consensus that is nevertheless based upon strict rules. Within that concensus there may be disagreement, even a questioning of the value of, say a paper, but the bottom line is that science, for all its objectivity, still operates on a strong need for at least a basic agreement.

 

Seeking consensus as a form of proof is bad science. Your belief in what you have been presented with so far borders on the religeous - faith - and not based on any rigourous analysis.

You've mistaken what I've been saying. Consensus is not a form of proof, everyone knows that. However, consensus does play a role in the assessment of how good a proof is, or to put it another way, how much more credible one theory is over another. To again bring in Einstein: The theory of special and general relativity had already begun to receive considerable acceptance amongst the scientific community long before it was practical to verify its claims by direct observation and experiment. No one believed that this theory could be confirmed or denied by consensus, but Einstein's argument for his theory was deemed, by a tacit consensus that manifested through the subsequent teaching of his work and further research investigating it, to be rigorous enough to be taken seriously. Before you once again accuse me of dodging or confusing the issue, the relevance of this to the current debate is that we have a similar situation in which the experimental evidence is still disputed, and so how the consensus amongst the scientific community is shaping up is of paramount importance if we are even going to hope to make an informed opinion today. Of course consensus is not a proof, no one seriously thinks it is, but given that we're dealing with an important issue upon which action may need to be taken as soon as possibly, and since we have professional scientists arguing points that few understand on both sides of the debate, it is, along with a sober assessment of the risks of inactivity and action respectively, the best we have to go on to make a decent stab at deciding what to do. This is not a discussion of proof, but of practicality.

 

Secondly, I don't see quite how the "gambling" principle is quite like a religious belief. I've tacitly acknowledged that it could turn out that your view is correct, I just believe that on a quick weighing up of the pros and cons suggests that going along with the contrary view is probably the best option at the moment. That's hardly religious zealotry, unless you're defining agnosticism as a kind of zealotry or faith.

 

I doubt whether you can take me on, such work represents 50% of my current income and 15 years of my work experience. But I always welcome a challenge.

 

I'll take your data modelling and SPSS madskills and raise you a fistful of random matrix theory and manifold theory. We'll meet on Douglas beach, barechested, and roar into the wind as battle begins. Brush up on your diffeomorphism and continuity criterion, because the old engineer voodoo of ignoring necessary conditions in favour of firing equations at a problem until one of them looks like it should work long enough for you to skip the country in case of catastrophic faliure is strictly prohibited.

[Lawnmower]

The scariest fact in the film was to do with population, and when you know those statistics, everything can be understood.;

 

At Zero AD there were about 200 million world population. At the turn of the 20th century there were about 1 billion. When Gore was born, as a baby boomer, just after the war, there were just over 2 billion. Now there are 6.5 billion, as he enters his late fifties. He stated that if he lives to full age, there will be 9.5 billion by the time he dies. An increase in over 7 billion in one lifetime. The hocky stick graph of that is staggering.

 

That huge and very rapid increase cannot fail to have an impact on the planet, particularly with carbon emmisions. Having ploughed tghrough this thread, it appears thatg Albert has not actually seen the film. If he had, his views would be different. Googling bits on youtube is not the same as opting to see it. After all, with his views, why would he even walk through the door of the cinema?

[Chinahand]

Cor blimey ... long debates about the meaning of the word science. F-knows how many people will read any of this!

 

Science is about reproducibility and peer review. The consensus this produces is by no means general, but it is a consensus. The main difference between a scientific consensus and a popular one is that it has to be based on reproduceable evidence. To exaggerate and simplify, if Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, and Brian Greene come to a consensus on Black Holes then in all likelihood this consensus will hold within the cosmological field until more data comes available. How can these 3 people have such influence, because they are well versed in, and fully aware of, the evidence and theories within the field. The idea that these people will dogmatically ignore evidence that overturns their ideas is basically bull, but if alternative ideas do enter the field don't expect Hawkings et al to just roll over, they will develop counter arguments WHICH INCLUDE THE NEW EVIDENCE, but which may have different conclusions than those put forward by the Young Guns - and so science moves on. I'm sure VinnieK will remind me who came up with this idea, I've forgotten, but one theory of science claims new theories will only be adopted once the old guard dies off. I think that is a distortion - the old guard have access to and a clear undestanding of their field - they challenge the young blood and make sure they don't get away with sloppy thinking - that's a good thing, and a part of science.

 

As far as I can see the scientific consensus that CO2 levels will bring about global warming is basically indisputable. How this will manefest itself around the world is a big scientific topic: will this area warm, that area cool, Continental Antartic Ice thicken, Artic sea ice melt - there is less consensus and alot of work going on.

 

The sources Albert tends to quote do not get a muster in the ranks of the field - Albert says this shows the field is full of pseudo-scientists. I'm pretty certain the climatologists would reply the contrarians do not cut the mustard and do not provide papers for publication which take account the data and theories within the field. Their failure to do this is NOT because they have some radical new paradigm which will over throw climatology - basically they just don't know what they are talking about.

 

I fully admit I don't really know what they are talking about, but I can listen to the CONSENSUS scientific opinion, and Albert's posts aren't even close to it.

 

I'm fine with the word consensus ... I think it is obvious we are talking about scientific consensus and that requires work which is consistent with the data, evidence and theory in the field.

[Albert Tatlock]

I post the odd reply to Albert not in the expectation he will read or understand but mainly in the hope that others might read and understand that much of what Albert states is either factually incorrect or just propaganda etc dressed up as science by the energy lobby. Worse it is incorrect and deliberately misleading propaganda, otherwise you could call them lies, e.g re thickening ice caps where the report states that they are thinning but the energy lobby selects an extract and uses it as evidence that a report says they are thickening. Albert never replies to such matters as this nor does it seem to cause him for a second to doubt what he believes as you can be sure he will sooner or later add a link to another report repeating the same error even after I have copied the writer of the original report complaining how it is being deliberately misrepresented.

 

The only good news is that Albert may be coming to the end of his assertions as I note he has now started to quote that he is a scientist/engineer. This is exactly the tack he took in the conspiracy thread. I have to admit having studied chemistry and biochemistry at University myself and coming from a family whose relatives worked as research scientists at Unilever I have never known a scientist be so blinkered to the evidence and quite so happy to accept the word of discredited lobbyists. I do not think Albert ever clarified what sort of engineer/scientist he was or how this incorporated in his work. Partly because in Chinahands case it probably appeared that Chinahand was so much ahead of the game in that respect, i.e experience and qualification. I think the conclusion was that maybe just as photocopier maintenance guys now call them selves engineers or lavatory attendants are referred to as sanitary engineers Albert is similarly embellishing his CV by calling himself a scientist/ engineer.

 

I resent your insults. I haven't started on this debate yet. I have only 'thrown' a few things in so far that go along the lines of my thinking, and I have not claimed to be a supporter of any of the links I have posted. When I get time I shall be happy to debate this properly. Who knows - I may end up agreeing that man is the major cause, but the research I have read (both sides) and the posts here so far have not convinced me.

 

I shall be meeting with Amadeus sometime over the xmas period and I'm sure he'd be willing to witness my qualifications (an accredited degree and a Masters) if it is an issue in this debate. I'll even bring along my first mathematical modelling uni project from years ago if you like.

 

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the energy or any other lobby group. What I do hate is groupthink consensus as opposed to decent science. Global Warming is practically a religeon at the moment which has been hijacked by politicians like Al Gore looking for a world role. I am deeply suspicious of any involvement of politics in science, and I abhor dumbocracy. I don't want the arse taxed off me either, by people tackling the issue incorrectly, especially if, as I suspect, much of the warming turns out to be inevitable - and build a sea wall on Douglas promenade rather than installing a filter on Douglas powerstation.

 

The earth and solar system are far more complicated and cyclical than most people realise, or seem to be willing to admit at the moment.

[Albert Tatlock]

The scariest fact in the film was to do with population, and when you know those statistics, everything can be understood.;

 

At Zero AD there were about 200 million world population. At the turn of the 20th century there were about 1 billion. When Gore was born, as a baby boomer, just after the war, there were just over 2 billion. Now there are 6.5 billion, as he enters his late fifties. He stated that if he lives to full age, there will be 9.5 billion by the time he dies. An increase in over 7 billion in one lifetime. The hocky stick graph of that is staggering.

 

That huge and very rapid increase cannot fail to have an impact on the planet, particularly with carbon emmisions. Having ploughed tghrough this thread, it appears thatg Albert has not actually seen the film. If he had, his views would be different. Googling bits on youtube is not the same as opting to see it. After all, with his views, why would he even walk through the door of the cinema?

 

Here we go again - Correlation implying causation

 

Correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are prematurely claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. It is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause.

 

e.g. The number of banks in the world have increased too - so it follows they are responsible for the increase in the human race too.

 

 

Another assumption. Just because I post a link to the film on youtube doesn't mean I watched it there does it?