Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Viral_Jim]

A better place to start might be with some of the largest meta studies done on the subject. Ie, studies which analyse the results of peer reviewed studies into the subject at hand.

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/climate-change-consensus-07042018/

While you will probably never find an area of science (or indeed anything else) where views are 100% aligned, the consensus is pretty overwhelming in this case.

I'm fairly sure I could find studies which haven't been peer reviewed in support of: the efficacy of homeopathy or a link between MMR and Autism, but that doesn't mean that there is scope for reasonable doubt on the subject. Id be surprised if (m)any peer reviewed studies exist that come to the same conclusion.

[Migalot]

"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"

A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. 

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.

I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?

Tabloid fodder?   

Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.

Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?

[Varche]

"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"

A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. 

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.

I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?

Tabloid fodder?   

Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.

Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?

Surely that would depend on which car forum?

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

When scientific papers are peer reviewed, to me its meaningless unless you look into the peers who are doing the reviewing, and where their research funding comes from. When you follow the money, you will often find that they are being paid by people with an agenda.
Conversely, those in the scientific community who wont simply go along with the accepted wisdom (something any scientist worth their name, should never do), cant get any funding for their research ,and even have their careers ruined.

Ask David Bellamy or Jonny Ball. Hardly eminent scientists, but when they publicly said they were sceptical about mmcc, they disappeared from TV screens and had a vile campaign against them, to stop them from being allowed to speak to children in schools.

The message was "these men aren't safe around children".  With the very obvious implications that come with that, forever in peoples minds, when their names are mentioned. People who do that to other people to stop their opinions from being heard, have something to hide, and I could never trust them.

[Viral_Jim]

"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"

A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. 

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.

I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?

Tabloid fodder?   

Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.

Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?

 

Calm down dear!

I'm not asking you to believe me, or anyone for that matter. I'm asking you to consider the weight of evidence (which is one of the things that meta studies are for after all) rather than Cherry-picking a study, that hasn't been subject to peer review, meaning its methods and conclusions have not been appropriately debated / criticised by those that actually know ie other scientists in the field. Without appropriate criticism, neither you nor I know whether the methods, sample sizes and (probably most importantly) statistical methods are the most appropriate ones to use, or whether they were picked expressly to drive a particular result. If nothing else, it might be worth considering why people seem to be having a hard time finding the underlying data that this study claims to have used, but doesn't accurately reference. 

To glibly drop that study out as "a little reading" for someone as though it adds weight to the debate is pretty naive.

[Viral_Jim]

When scientific papers are peer reviewed, to me its meaningless unless you look into the peers who are doing the reviewing, and where their research funding comes from. When you follow the money, you will often find that they are being paid by people with an agenda.

Do you believe that climate change is a special case in this regard? The reason I ask is that, is if you believe that science as a whole is driven by funding rather than by actual scientific endeavour, then why were the studies which demonstrated links between cancer and smoking, or Thalidomide and birth defects not appropriately suppressed, or countered by many more paid-for studies that showed no link?

Taking climate change specifically, if, as you suggest, portions of the scientific community are in the pay of pro climate change organisations, who would these organisations / people be that they can generate a 99% majority of studies coming out in their favour over all the organisations who would like to demonstrate that man-made climate change does not exist?

If I follow the money on man-made climate change, its all on the other side of the fence. Petro-chemical companies, mining companies, fossil fuel electricity generators, middle east kingdoms that rely on oil for their economies, big corporations such as Ford, GM, boeing, airbus, the big investment banks and pension funds that invest in these companies. I don't know who you would put up against these companies that would pay such large sums of money to fund the pro-man-made climate change research?

[Lizzie Zoom]

"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"

A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. 

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.

Yeah, yeah, it is always possible to find reports of this type, but the wider scientific world agrees that man HAS contributed to Climate Change, that is not denying the underlying fact that the earth's climate does change naturally.  If you take the wider picture, reading the scientifically and academically verified and recognised charts and graphs that are out there for the people willing to understand WE have all been responsible for damaging our planet, then you will understand more.

I will finish with the question:  so you think the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made and are, as we write, not seriously damaging our environment for decades to come?

[Lizzie Zoom]

"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"

A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. 

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.

I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?

Tabloid fodder?   

Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.

Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?

 

Calm down dear!

I'm not asking you to believe me, or anyone for that matter. I'm asking you to consider the weight of evidence (which is one of the things that meta studies are for after all) rather than Cherry-picking a study, that hasn't been subject to peer review, meaning its methods and conclusions have not been appropriately debated / criticised by those that actually know ie other scientists in the field. Without appropriate criticism, neither you nor I know whether the methods, sample sizes and (probably most importantly) statistical methods are the most appropriate ones to use, or whether they were picked expressly to drive a particular result. If nothing else, it might be worth considering why people seem to be having a hard time finding the underlying data that this study claims to have used, but doesn't accurately reference. 

To glibly drop that study out as "a little reading" for someone as though it adds weight to the debate is pretty naive.

That as well!!

[Raeturbo]

"...simply ignore the facts of Climate Change and how man must try and do everything he can to stop the melt down of our environment>"

A little reading for you Ms. Zoom. 

https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

Published July 2019
Co-authored by Jyrki Kauppinen, Professor Emeritus, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, Finland.

I assume you know that the Turku paper hasn't been subject to peer review and is basically tabloid fodder?

Tabloid fodder?   

Jyrki K. Kauppinen was born in Finland in 1944. He was received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1967, his Master of Science degree in Physics in1968, and the Ph.D. degree in 1975 from the university of Oulu. He started his academic career at the University of Oulu working in many positions from assistant to professor. The National Research Council of Canada appointed him a research fellow in 1980. Dr. Kauppinen was elected as senior research fellow at the Academy of Finland in 1981. He has also worked at the Technical Research Center of Finland and the Metrology Research Institute of Helsinki University of Technology. In 1990 he was a visiting scientist at the National Research Council of Canada and at Kansas State University. At present he is a professor of Physics at the University of Turku (since 1986), a docent in Physics at the University of Oulu, and a docent in Optical Measurement Technology at Aalto University in Espoo.

Who to believe? A leading scientist with huge experience in these areas or a poster on a car forum.?

                    I’m with Dr Kauppinen

[Doctor Gollum]

Companies only exist for one purpose... Making money. Even non profit companies have to make money, as their profit is used to fund their philanthropic interests rather that the shareholders specifically.

Anyone can be paid to say anything, whether it's the bloke on the Cillit Bang adverts, Philip Schofield or Barack Obama... The only question being how much to say what and in what context...

[Lizzie Zoom]

Companies only exist for one purpose... Making money. Even non profit companies have to make money, as their profit is used to fund their philanthropic interests rather that the shareholders specifically.

Anyone can be paid to say anything, whether it's the bloke on the Cillit Bang adverts, Philip Schofield or Barack Obama... The only question being how much to say what and in what context...

Absolutely right DG!

Nothing I was allowed to do in business did not have the crucial profit element attached.  The question I was asked by the Directors, and I asked of my subordinates when we wanted to spend money was "Is it beneficial for the business and either creates extra profits or protects the existing profit stream?"  If the answer was "No", that was the end of the matter!

[Viral_Jim]

Companies only exist for one purpose... Making money. Even non profit companies have to make money, as their profit is used to fund their philanthropic interests rather that the shareholders specifically.

Anyone can be paid to say anything, whether it's the bloke on the Cillit Bang adverts, Philip Schofield or Barack Obama... The only question being how much to say what and in what context...

I agree, (with certain caveats, because 'making money' isn't always as black and white an aim as it sounds), which is why, when there is so much money on the fossil fuel side of the table, I can't see why there would be an overwhelming majority linking human action to climate change.

It makes no sense, if nothing else the numbers would be closer, 50/50 or 60/40 maybe?

[Migalot]

1. the wider scientific world agrees that man HAS contributed to Climate Change

2. I will finish with the question:  so you think the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made and are, as we write, not seriously damaging our environment for decades to come?

1. The climate debate has been taken over by leftie charlatans, who have seen it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth and change the Western economic structure.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Incidentally, I notice that the "scientist" who originated the infamous hockey stick graph has just lost a court case as he refused to hand over the data for analysis! I wonder why??
 

2. Perhaps you could let me know where I have stated that the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made? I can't remember writing that. I did, however, point out on another thread that such fires are a regular feature at this time of the year and are largely a result of slash and burn activities.

[Doctor Gollum]

A fire started by a broken bottle thrown from a car is arguably as 'man made' as one deliberately started in order to clear land.

The trouble with south America, demand is infinitely higher to produce export beef than timber. The break even point of harvesting the timber instead of burning it is clearly a lot higher than that of cattle both in terms of initial and production costs.

Clearing the rainforest in order to create grazing land is short sighted, but has to be better than simply covering the place in concrete... I would suggest that the grasses grown for feed could be engineered to be fast growing and more carbon dioxide absorbent thereby helping to offset the effect of deforestation...

[Lizzie Zoom]

1. the wider scientific world agrees that man HAS contributed to Climate Change

2. I will finish with the question:  so you think the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made and are, as we write, not seriously damaging our environment for decades to come?

1. The climate debate has been taken over by leftie charlatans, who have seen it as an opportunity to redistribute wealth and change the Western economic structure.

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Incidentally, I notice that the "scientist" who originated the infamous hockey stick graph has just lost a court case as he refused to hand over the data for analysis! I wonder why??
 

2. Perhaps you could let me know where I have stated that the fires in Brazil are not, in the main, man made? I can't remember writing that. I did, however, point out on another thread that such fires are a regular feature at this time of the year and are largely a result of slash and burn activities.

1.  I have heard that before, but never understood it.  The leftie, Socialist, types I have ever known (especially in my parents family!) were all about British industries, no matter how out of date and damaging to the environment, continuing to work apace as the most important thing was full employment at full wages, and "F" the environment.  How can it be beneficial to "leftie charlatans" (not really sure what that means either!!) to continue with the drive to make our factories, and the rest, more environmental friendly, let alone closing many "dirty" ones, which will continue to cost jobs (rather a right wing policy to increase profits) ?  Arthur Scargill certainly did not care a damn about that!!  Have I got that wrong?  

As for #2; I did not say you did.  I was just asking the question to see where you stood on that one?