Brendan Hughes

Nice article, thought I'd share it as I know some of you think the same way (and some others vehemently disagree!). It's about the lack of science in modern science.

The age of endarkenment | Science | Guardian Unlimited

Chris L

Interesting article and no where is it clearly seen than in the half truths and pseduo science used in global warming theories!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Well said, that man!

Alcazar

gam1415

Agree up to a point, but science never claims to be the 'truth'; it only claims to be the best explanation at a given moment for all the available data. That is why theories are constantly revised and updated. Different theories for an observation doesn't necessarily mean some of it is pseudo-science either. Someone proposes a hypothesis based on their collection of data, someone else rejects it or modifies it based on their own data, other scientists add their opinions and observations until there is a consensus theory. This is how science usually advances, but it can go wrong in two ways. First, politicians or activists can be selective about the bits of data they accept or publicise to suit their own pre-conceived ideas and agendas. Secondly, you can have 9,999 scientists in absolute agreement on a hypothesis and 1 waving his arms about and shouting the opposite view. Whose opinions do you think leave the pages of the relevant scientific journals to appear on the front page of the Daily Mail under the headline 'Scientists get it all wrong', leading to all sorts of conspiracy theories?

Rant from a frustrated scientist over - *gets coat*.

warrenm2

You're clearly not a scientist because you believe in consenus as a way of validating scientific theories. Copernicus didn't have a consensus.....

CrisPDuk

I'm not normally a fan of the Guardian either, possibly because it has too often championed many of the causes lambasted in that article

gam1415

Usually experimentation is the way to validate scientific theories. The theories become consensual, i.e. generally accepted, when other scientists can replicate the original results or obtain new data which concur with and extend the initial findings. In the case of global warming, experimentation is not easily done, so scientists from different disciplines contribute observational data to form an overall picture. As some of the current data and theories are conflicting, there is no clear consensus yet to what extent, if any, human activity is contributing to the warming. It is an analagous situation to the debate around the prion (infectious protein) theory of disease that was hotly debated 15-20 years ago, but is now accepted within mainstream biology.

You are wrong about Copernicus, he was building on an earlier body of knowledge and hypotheses from outside Europe and his views were, therefore, contributing to a consensus on heliocentricity. His problem wasn't with other scientists, a lot of whom shared his opinions, but with the church as his views were counter to religious, non-scientific dogma. For the church then, you can read politicians/activists now.

Leslie

I think that is a very interesting outlook on how things are changing these days. There does seem to a too easy acceptance of so many things now and also the dropping of moral standards so go along with the easy way out of a problem or to just ignore the more difficult half of a situation and to let the rest of the argument go to the wall. It seems that one' conscience is of no further importance.

The term "endarkenment" isvery apt to describe what has happened to this country in recent years. A country's people tend to follow the example given by the leaders!

Les

GaryCat

This stuff was covered in a couple of Richard Dawkins programmes called "The enemies of reason". They looked at homeopathy, new-age pseudo-science, psychics etc and conculed that it was all a load of crap but idiots still believe in it and the NHS spends £millions on quack homeopathic remedies.

Brendan Hughes

Or you could read this 8 page article about just how the deniers are funded by the oil industry.

Global Warming Deniers Well Funded | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com

warrenm2

Whereas the pro lobby are funded by Governments - your point is?

Brendan Hughes

What a wonderful statement. If the US govt didn't sign up to Kyoto as it considered it would cripple the US economy, why would it then fund research trying to prove itself wrong?

Love all the conspiracy theorists on this

warrenm2

You're having an "off" day are you?! Stand in the corner and think about what was said

Sonic'

So, the kids a few months ago did a massive eco week thing to help combat global warming etc etc

Now everyone had to walk to school, make things out of recycled bits n bobs all that kind of stuff

Now I know they arent scientists and are only kids and primary school, but how would they measure the results of their experiment, the answer is they simply cant

gam1415

This is what I said, it is difficult for anyone, not just kids, to do experiments on global warning, but it is no bad thing to teach kids or anyone else to be environmentally friendly. There are not many people who would deny that global warming is happening; the debate is whether this is just a part of a cyclical climatic change or whether man is having an effect on it.

Tart Man

Indeed, this is the pinnacle of the problem, as it is going to cost the public dearly (in taxation).


Half-arsed science combined with mass-media distribution is responsible for alot of things, especially if it is cloaked with half arsed statistics made in the goal of making money.

Seems marketing and politics have taken first place priority to the science.

From performance benefits of replacing factory dump valves with aftermarket ones, cone filters and Kn(c)ock links.

Joking aside, you see this problem stems across the board, do you really need all those supplements from Holland and Barrett? Does a condensing boiler really save you 33% in heating costs? Do 8 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskers? Is the Toyota Prius really that much better for the environment(from build date to scrap date)? Can fitting fancy magnets to your wrist really relive nausea, as with inhibit scale in your water if clamped on a pipe, or make your car run better if its clamped on a fuel line?

Combine this is with poor education, common sense and lack of independant thinking amongst the population, and what do we have?.......


....The UK

warrenm2

Actually that is totally wrong. How much has the global average temperature risen in the last 9 years? Look it up then come back to us

gam1415

The global average temperature is estimated to have risen by 0.75°C over the last 100 years. The majority of this rise has taken place since the 1970s with a consistent upward trend. The projections of increased rise within this century vary from approximately 1.5 to 6.5°C, depending on who you listen to. Yeah, OK, three quarters of a degree mostly in 30 years doesn't sound like much, but it is the sharpness and consistency of the slope that is worrying. A couple of degrees average increase would be massive in global terms, with potential drastic effects on ecosystems. The very recent opening of the North West Passage for the first time in recorded history and the breaking off of ice islands the size of a small country are not just coincidences. It could only take a relatively small change in climate conditions to affect the Gulf Stream and have serious consequences for the British Isles in particular. Similarly, any change to the Atlantic Conveyor would have a huge effect on the food chains in the North Atlantic.

TopBanana

One problem is that government has to fund most research in the UK through the Research Councils. When we have governments such as the current one, only the political hot topics get funding. If you want to research something, you need to find a climate change spin on it or you won't get your grant.

gam1415

Standard deviation for this measurement is quoted at 0.18°C. I don't know exactly how these figures have been arrived at, but would guess that they represent pooled data from the many, many recording stations that have operated world-wide since at least the late 1800s. Individual reading errors would be compensated for by the sheer number of readings. The number of readings would also improve the accuracy of the analysis of whether or not the observed change is statistically significant.

Abdabz

No child of mine would take part in such folly in the name of climate change... That is truly obsurd.

warrenm2

WOW thats impressive! - I'm surprised you didn't get hurricane frequency/intensity into that catalogue of errors and lies. And you didnt answer my question. The rise in global average temperature in the last nine years is ZERO, now thats what I call an inconvenient truth.

Going through your fallacies:-

"The majority of this rise has taken place since the 1970s with a consistent upward trend" Well as I have just mentioned the last 9 years no have NO WARMING, also the majority of the warming occured BEFORE the 70s cooling period with the hottest year on record now found to be 1934.

"but it is the sharpness and consistency of the slope that is worrying" Not really because as I have just said - there is NO slope at the moment, so its neither consistent nor sharp

"The very recent opening of the North West Passage for the first time in recorded history" You really shouldnt believe everything the BBC feeds you you know - try Classically Liberal: Bad reporting about the Northwest Passage issue.

I was also going to post a link on how studies show that the NAO/conveyor/gulf stream where in no danger at all, but I dont have it to hand at the moment - I trust you'll take my word for it!

gam1415

I am not a climate scientist, so I don't have any priveliged access to climatic data, nor do I have any axe to grind over global warming. The figures I have seen show that for the period 2002-2006 the average temperature is at a plateau, as you say. However, for the period 1999-2002 the average temperature went up by 0.15°C. You are being highly selective in choosing a 4 year period from over 140 years' records to support your view. The temperature trend since 1910 has been upwards with an increase in the slope since the 1970s, which were not preceded by any cooling event. There does seem to have been some cooling between 1944 and 1951. The global average temperatures do not show 1934 as being anything out of the ordinary.

Checked out the Vancouver website and stand corrected that an ice patrol ship did make it through the NW Passage in a single season in 1944.

I certainly take your word that you have copies of studies that claim to show no projected effects on the Gulf Stream and/or Conveyor, but wouldn't take your word that they are correct

Sonic'

What made me laugh is that probably around 85% of the kids all walk to school anyway, and on the way home one of the days, I told the eldest to ask her teacher what impact our saving stuff etc would have when China etc **** it all up

Sadly she didnt ask her teacher, but would have made an interested conversation

warrenm2

1934 Is Once Again Our Hottest Year - by Dennis Avery - The Heartland Institute