CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[Stanley]

We must be eccentrics Tiz, listening to reports from those untrustworthy academics and scientists, and what's worse, believing them! When you look at the catchment area of these river systems they are a very effective way of assessing changes over the continent. Think of the impact on insurance assessments and property values. I'll bet a lot of xceptics will change their minds about climate change when it hits their pockets.

[hartley353]

As long as nature provides our water we will have floods. Property will be damaged and lives will be lost, there will always be great floods and a certainty that there will be larger ones. No one will ever know when and where,so folks just get on with their lifes. Nature through evolution found ways of cleaning up after these disasters, and thus there would be winners because of this. Carrion birds and animals and smaller entities can clean up perfectly. It is only man with his offended senses that sees a disaster.

[Stanley]

So it wasn't an exceptional event worthy of note? Tell that to the people affected by it....

[hartley353]

When we have events that become labeled disasters, there will be always be victims, and there will always be financial losses,but there is no point crying over spilt milk. The world will keep turning,and the majority of its occupants will carry on as if nothing has happened. sensationalising it will be a complete waste of time unless you are making money out of it. Events such as flooding are common place and have always been so, you just pick yourselve up and carry on.

[Stanley]

Those pesky scientists have been at it again. See this LINK for the latest dire warnings from these demented and biased researchers.
(Irony alert!) Now where did I put that bucket of sand......

[hartley353]

Those pesky scientists have been at it again. See this LINK for the latest dire warnings from these demented and biased researchers.
(Irony alert!) Now where did I put that bucket of sand......

A lot of use of the word likely in this article, do they choose to use this word because it allows an about face in the future when time proves them wrong. if the number of mouths on this planet expands at its present rate yes they will face starvation due to food shortages. Where are the blinkered scientists when the planets resources are being used up at an alarming rate, what will the folk of the future have left to use. The term nutty has always been attributed to men of science, ask yourself why.

[Bruff]

''A lot of use of the word likely in this article, do they choose to use this word because it allows an about face in the future when time proves them wrong.''

I wouldn't have chosen the term 'about face' myself, preferring perhaps 'a reassessment of the conclusions'.

This is because any 'science' is simply a body of knowledge at a given time. And in many of the sciences that knowledge is couched quite properly in probabilities and significance etc as progress is only possible by testing the falisifiability of the data or the hypothesis. Which has been explained at length on here before, and on this topic, as it is the heart of the scientific method.

No scientist worth their crust deals in absolute certainties. Unless this fundamental point is grasped there really is very little merit in turning one's mind to matters of scientific research and the data it generates. The term 'likely' is not and should not be read as invalidating data, or questioning a central hypothesis. Either way, if one disputes a central hypothesis the scientific method provides for your developing a testable alternative.

In answer to the question 'why' at the end there, I've often wondered about this. It seems perfectly acceptable, in this country at least, to profess an ignorance of science and wave it all away with an amused roll of the eye. Journalists do it all the time, particularly on the tele - here's a bit on the Big Bang, blimey isn't this hard [snigger]. Profess an ignorance of literature or history and the cry will go up for a National debate on the shocking decline of educational standards. Not so if one professes an ignorance of mathematics or chemistry or physics (and I'm not talking the advanced stuff here).

I think that with respect to literature and history, the arts if you like, one can if averagely bright have an opinion on a poem, think about a time in history and think what one might learn from it. With the sciences, one's ignorance becomes apparent pretty quickly. With some people at least, that may make them uncomfortable and that may mean they recoil and so seek to diminish science and its developments and conclusions, perhaps mock its practitioners.

Richard Broughton

[hartley353]

So it appears scientists dont know what they are doing with any certainty, but are willing to contribute to all the horrors of the world with the premise lets see. That explains a lot. Yes they are nutty.

[Bruff]

Well not really, no. Like I said if you can't, or are unwilling to, understand how science progresses there's not much point questioning scientific knowledge and research and the data it generates. You end up putting well, I guess non-perjoratively, a lay-person's interpretation to words like 'likely' and 'certainty', and so draw quite the wrong conclusion.

Richard Broughton

[hartley353]

Is that just another scientific assumption that I am a lay person.

[Stanley]

Like historians, scientists shy away from certitude but when they use phrases like '99% sure' it takes a special form of arrogance and lack of respect to dismiss them as nutty. When the surgeon pokes his knife in my eye next Tuesday I shall take comfort in the fact that he has a solid body of research and development behind him.....

[hartley353]

If you believe in the scientists ask the question why after 80 years of cancer research, and a staggering amount of money, why are the figures for people succumbing to it still at the original numbers and the treatment having hardly changed. I wish you well with your op, but do not share your trust. Scientists can waste an awful lot of time achieving nothing.

[Bruff]

Well now, I'm no expert but can I hazard a guess at one part of that question? I think that, contrary to the suggestion numbers succumbing have 'hardly changed' since 1933, they have in fact increased. If pressed, I would suggest that one general explanation is that cancer is predominantly a disease of the old, and so the increase is a consequence of our increased life expectancy. That's just a suggestion; I'd probably need to look at getting some empirical evidence to support it. I can't rely on my belief here and expect to be taken seriously.

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced treatments have 'hardly changed' since 1933 either.

Richard Broughton

[hartley353]

This could be a good one for you to put your mind to Bruff, Many people are now asking why Cancer is not being beaten. Take just one snapshot National cancer institute over 3,900 employers working on the problem at an average salary of up to £60,000, many generations have passed a career in pursuit of a cure, and still the only treatment is cut,burn,or poison with what ever is the current treatment. World wide every country replicates this scene. the numbers of people involved 100s of thousands the cost Thousands of billions of what ever currency. A quick net search revealed over 78 charities in this country alone involved with cancer. To the onlooker this looks like a well oiled cash sucking regime that should be taken to task. One in three of us will develop Cancer requiring teatment, every one of us will develop cancerous cells that our immune system will deal with. This affects babes in the womb to the elderly and is not age biased. We would appear to be no nearer a cure than as I said 80 years ago but are streets ahead on gathering cash.

[Stanley]

Waste of time trying to talk sense to him Richard. I suspect the vastly increased number of people treated successfully would not agree with him either. As for my op.... when my dad had his done in 1960 he was in dock for 7 days, I shall be in for two hours with a 99% chance of fighter pilot vision. That'll do for me. I suppose Hartley, as a man of principle would refuse the pain relief, modern techniques and speed of treatment..... All products of those terrible scientists and their research.

[Bruff]

Well I suppose the lack of a 'cure' for cancer despite all the money chucked at it, and the perception that there have been no great advances in its management and treatment, could be explained by those researching the disease knowing which side their bread's buttered so to speak, and so keeping the 'cash sucking regime' rolling.

Alternatively, it could be an enormously challenging, complex and intractable condition.

I guess it's up to the individual to judge which is the more reasonable explanation.

I'll only note one more thing and that is to suggest there is indeed an 'age bias'. I fail to see how any reading of the statistics of incidence and mortality rates could lead anyone to any other conclusion. To whit, 18 year old boys rarely if ever get prostate cancer; with 80-year old men it's almost a given. You can reverse that for testicular cancer.

Richard Broughton

[Bruff]

Whoops. That last sentence in the post of mine above suggests that testicular cancer is a 'given' in young men. It isn't, but you get my drift.....

Richard Broughton

[Stanley]

Rest easy Richard, I don't think you will have damaged any young men! I'm old enough to remember per-war medicine because it was still being practised when I had my tonsils out and went through the common litany of childhood diseases. I first encountered antibiotics in the late 1960s when I was given an antibiotic soaked dressing for a wound on my shin down to the bone that wouldn't heal. It was a miracle! Forget the naysayers, they are dinosaurs who don't recognise how lucky they are and where the advances stemmed from. I'm grateful to all those good men and women who spent their lives searching for meaning and eventually progress. Look at infant mortality in the 19th century and present day....
The same applies to global warming and possible climate change. When a majority of intelligent researchers give me a message I listen to it and don't dismiss them off hand. My experience is that it's a good thing to plan for worst case. Problem is of course that we don't seem to have done that and it may be too late..... You can allocate the blame for that to the naysayers who had the power to influence policies but did nothing about it..
See this LINK for the report due out today from those pesky scientists.

[hartley353]

I await with trepidation the new climate change findings,surely the scientists must be running short on how to issue a new list of obfuscated figures, like a self fulfilling prophecy they ask to be believed rather than stand up and admit their mistakes. Still not a jot of evidence that will stand undisputed, all guesses and we think. The sale of donkeys heads to the scientific community must be at a high.

[David Whipp]

What makes you so certain, Hartley?

[hartley353]

What makes you so certain, Hartley?

A complete lack of any evidence that will stand scrutiny. That any one can say that what they see happening is not normal, without the knowledge of what has gone before over millions of years to compare with.

[Stanley]

That is a ridiculous point of view.

[Sue]

If science has been so unsuccessful, why do we have electricity, CT scans, MRI scans, low infant mortality, TVs, computers, high life expectancy, solar panels, successful brain surgery, heart lung and kidney transplants. The list is endless. I would have been dead several times over and so would my children and Bob if it wasn't for modern science. I had a perforated appendix and lost a large piece of intestine but survived, I had a breach delivery and a baby with a cord round her neck but we both survived, both my daughter and myself had major spinal surgery and survived, bob had a perforated appendix and survived. My dad survived for 12 years after a limb amputation, independently in a wheel chair( of modern electric design) he managed to walk for a short time, hindered only by his age on an excellent life like artificial limb. He survived in a warm centrally heated house, with an electrically operated stair lift to get him upstairs, with a bath lift that allowed him to give himself a bath, with a chemical toilet downstairs that allowed him to be totally hygienic .Least said. I am sure we can all come up with lists like this. We need science, scientists and research.

[Tizer]

Well said, Sue.

Hartley, the knowledge of what has gone before over millions of years is very familiar to climate scientists because it's documented by geologists. The British Geological Survey is a world renowned organisation and can provide you or anyone else with all you need to know about the Earth's history and give you plenty of detail about past climate change. But it will also tell you that the present climate change is happening much faster and that once all other factors are taken into account the only conclusion is that the rapid change is due to human activity. Humans have been altering the Earth since Neolithic times and our effect is accelerating as population increases, people become more wealthy and demanding, and technology advances.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/

[hartley353]

Tizer if I asked you what the weather was like over a 100 year span at a time before recorded history you and any other person would be stumped. And as for Sue most of what she attributes to scientists has come from engineers. Even the doctors and surgeons are not what I would qualify as scientists, a more simplistic term maybe is Human Mechanics. I mentioned a few weeks ago that there was a definite movement of scientists away from the global warming scenario, all I have seen in todays report is a regrouping to make sure they are all perpetuating the same lies. Another way of looking at it is protecting their jobs.