OneGuyFromBarlick

''And as for Sue most of what she attributes to scientists has come from engineers''

Probably one of the most hilarious things to have been posted on this site. Seriously.

Are you seriously saying that the development of MRI scanners appeared out of thin air from the hands of the engineers, without any input from the scientists who researched and understood nuclear magnetic resonance (nmr) spectroscopy? That the same goes for CT scans which only exist because of the mathematical technique known as the Radon Transform? What on earth do you think is in these solar panels - magic? No it's semi-conductors and the like, and without the quantum theorists and more importantly the solid-state physicists, we'd never have had them. TVs, computers, all the same. Quite astonishing.

As for this:

'..............a more simplistic term maybe is Human Mechanics' [My emphasis]

Well quite!

'....what the weather was like over a 100 year span at a time before recorded history..'

You do understand the difference between weather and climate, don't you? We aren't talking about the weather. Either way, the current explanation reflects the geological and paleo-record and is consistent with it (as well as the laws of physics and chemistry and atmospherics). Any alternative explanation has to similarly be consistent with these known laws etc. Over to you.

'Another way of looking at it is protecting their jobs.'

Yes of course. How obvious.

Richard Broughton

Bruff do you truly know what a scientist is, not the mantle donned by many pretentious people who may work in the sciences and like the sound of it. Scientist is a word first offered by William Whewell around the 1830's. he intended this word to cover two types of people Theoriticians and Experimentalists, the first is the person who develops new models to explain existing data, and predict new results. The latter take the models and test them by measurement. Just the sort of people who drew up the model for climate change, and then followed it with false imformation and facts, and thus came up with a lot of nonsense. Around March of this year I first posted on this subject and by poor perception of what I wrote, and plain stupidity many have now decided that I have no respect for any one who wears a white coat or works in the sciences my cousin works in mathematics at liverpool university this is considered to be a science and I certainly respect him, as I do my doctor or dentist or the lady in our library who holds a doctorate.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying I don't know what a scientist is, as the good Mr Whewell's apparently immutable definition is exactly the point I was making above? Thus Fermi and the like do the theory and Mott and others do the experiments on semi-conductors, which leads to for example solar panels? Or are you saying I have never practiced as a scientist, and that I'm one of these 'pretentious people who work in the sciences and like the sound of it'? If so, do you have any evidence for this assertion as you know, you don't actually know that much about me?

Dr Richard Broughton PhD

This thread caused me to think about Dale Carnegie, and his book "How to win friends and influence people".
Can't imagine why.
I checked it out and it's worth a look. - Carnegie

Just to clear the air the dictionary says Climate is the long term prevalence of weather not much difference.

Bruff it appears that an earlier post has gone missing. As you rightly point out neither of us has met, if you found anything in my posting which you believe is personal then I apologise. I have always tried to act with the highest courtesy, I never use any one elses words or links to pimp up my postings,or name any one as to be to blame. The views are my own personal thoughts and findings, some members of this site find it strange that I can be so certain about things it is equally as strange to me that there seems to be a preponderance of ditherers. This site offers a forum which is also a launching pad to the world I am not posting to a limited audience or I wouldn't bother.

hartley353 wrote:Bruff it appears that an earlier post has gone missing.

Can you give some indication as to when this supposed earlier posting was made?

I don’t really care what terminology you use to describe people who advance our knowledge. As I see it “Climate change” is a developing science. Inevitably, as new facts emerge then the end conclusion will change. To quote Richard Feynman, “you are only right until the next fact proves you wrong”. The total evidence so far is pointing towards increased temperatures possibly aggravated by man's activities. What we do with this evidence is up to the politicians. "Aye, there’s the rub”.(apologies to Chinatyke).

"I never use any one elses words or links to pimp up my postings,or name any one as to be to blame."
A bit of selected memory going on here.... How about this from September 26th: "They say you can't teach old dogs new tricks, then Stanley becomes a mind reader in his dotage, what next end of the pier, or the stage."
One of the matters Brian Cox covered in his Science Britannica programme was the British initiative in adopting peer review as part of the Scientific Method. It strikes me that this might be what is happening here....
I'll stick to the UN Committee's version of science thank you.

Tit for Tat Sir, you used my name so I got a go, as you have displayed this post again you will note I used only the given name this could be anyone.

PanBiker wrote:

hartley353 wrote:Bruff it appears that an earlier post has gone missing.

Can you give some indication as to when this supposed earlier posting was made?

Yes, I believe it clashed with Tripps posting and the system only accepted one, the site appeared to have a wobble after this and I couldn't resubmit immediately. May I also take your use of supposed to mean you think I am a liar.

Excuse me, but my engineer husband considers himself a scientist.

I can vouch for the recent apparent "wobbles" but I've put it down to the recent mods on Google Chrome. It shuts access to OGFB down for some minutes before it loads up again. I may be wrong on the diagnosis but it has happened again this evening.

My departed pal never considered himself as an engineer just an ageing "nut strangler". He always did have a wicked sense of humour!

Whenever anyone asked me I described myself as a fitter.....

In fact we're all scientists whether we like it or not. The Collins definition of scientific method is "Method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it." We employ the scientific method when the car fails to start, when the baby cries, when the computer crashes etc. Even Hartley is a scientist!

Quite.....

Tizer wrote:In fact we're all scientists whether we like it or not. The Collins definition of scientific method is "Method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it." We employ the scientific method when the car fails to start, when the baby cries, when the computer crashes etc. Even Hartley is a scientist!

Dam'n my secret has been exposed, now everyone knows I am a scientific whistle blower.

You can't hide anything on this site Hartley, even your scientific background

I think Radio 4 are having a discussion programme on the matter coming up shortly.

I understand a current coalition minister made a few comments regarding the seriousness of the issue ( that it wasn't) to a conservative party conference fringe meeting.

R4 intends to cover though , if there is a change ( however caused ) in global climate , what can actually be done about it ( with a mix of lifestyle choices being part of the solution its going to be difficult to get all 6billion to all change , and the short-term desires for financially cheap stuff, and a toastly 18deg C to live in across the world wont help either.

My simple solution - all air-conditioning plants to be powered by renewable energy for a start off.

The deniers started out by denying that climate change was happening. Then they began to agree it was happening but denied that it was mostly caused by human activity. Now they are starting to agree that it's mostly caused by human activity but are denying there is anything we can do about it.

I look forward to them denying they ever denied anything!

Some mutterings about the BBC's insistence in wheeling out a sceptic when reporting on the science. As Sir Paul Nurse noted, it's a bit like wheeling out a homeopath when discussing brain surgery given the consensus. Or as I might note, ensuring a member of the Flat Earth Society is on that Stargazing with Prof Cox and Dara O'Brien. After all, the earth looks flat from where I'm standing and anyway we'd all roll off if it weren't......

There's plenty we can 'do about it'. The problem is that on the one hand it would involve serious Government intervention in the form of for example, regulation and tax incentives/disincentives. All problematic for the likes of Nigel Lawson. On the other, we would have to significantly change behaviour now to prepare for some event very distant under conditions of uncertainty, and we aren't wired for that as many studies by psychologists demonstrate.

Richard Broughton

Cameron and Osborne say they don't want us to be `at the front of the pack' in tackling climate change. But someone has to lead the way and make the first moves and they could be the ones who corner the market for selling the intellectual and practical solutions. Just imagine if people had said to Trevithick, Watt and the like "Go away, we don't want to be at the front of the pack, leave it to others to lead the Industrial Revolution". This climate control revolution might be led by the Chinese.

Two good and accurate posts. I agree with both of you.

As a result of a comment from a like minded friend, I have just completed rereading Climate Confusion by Dr Roy W Spencer. Surprisingly a lot of what he said three years ago still stands with the present evidence available Well worth a look. Currently over 31,000 scientists disagree with the I.P.C.C, and there has been a 20% swing in the general populace towards debunking the present evidence.