A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Climate science



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #4  
Old May 22nd 17, 11:27 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
lewhiggins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default Climate science

On 20/05/2017 21:20, Bill Wright wrote:

That explains it then. He's a bloke who can write but he knows **** all
about global warming.


And you do, apparently. Please supply evidence of your peer-reviewed
research.

--
Lew
  #5  
Old May 23rd 17, 03:38 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,977
Default Climate science

On 22/05/2017 23:27, lewhiggins wrote:
On 20/05/2017 21:20, Bill Wright wrote:

That explains it then. He's a bloke who can write but he knows **** all
about global warming.


And you do, apparently. Please supply evidence of your peer-reviewed
research.

I'm assessing him not by my own knowledge but by the knowledge of the
scientists who are not in the pay of the green blob.

Bill
  #6  
Old May 23rd 17, 12:57 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Climate science

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 03:37:49 UTC+1, wrote:
On 22/05/2017 23:27, lewhiggins wrote:
On 20/05/2017 21:20, Bill Wright wrote:

That explains it then. He's a bloke who can write but he knows **** all
about global warming.


And you do, apparently. Please supply evidence of your peer-reviewed
research.

I'm assessing him not by my own knowledge but by the knowledge of the
scientists who are not in the pay of the green blob.


Clearly someone who doesn't have a clue about how science is done. Scientists are "in the pay" of seeking after truth by observation and experiment, not in the "green blob".





Bill


  #7  
Old May 23rd 17, 02:40 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,218
Default Climate science

On 23/05/2017 12:57, wrote:

Clearly someone who doesn't have a clue about how science is done. Scientists are "in the pay" of seeking after truth by observation and experiment, not in the "green blob".


That is how science *should* be done.
However, when research money is scarce, but offered to anybody who will
come up with the "right" answer, there will be enough scientists
prepared to take thirty pieces of silver rather than be out of a job to
form a core of scientific opinion that others will then swallow. That
gives Governments taxation opportunities because most people when faced
with "scientific evidence" will pay additional taxes to "save the planet".

Remember that a consultant is someone who will borrow your watch so that
he can tell you the time. It isn't difficult to eliminate during the
grant sift process the ones who will do proper science instead of
listening to their paymasters.

Also bear in mind that originally global warming was stated to be *all*
man-made, and now the consensus is that it is more of a natural
phenomenon and mankind has to find ways to modify its behaviour in the
hope of alleviating the impact. That shift of emphasis does indicate to
me that the first reports and models were based on an approach of "this
is the answer, now prove it is true" rather than proper science.

The weather is a complicated thing. Even with supercomputers it is
difficult to get the right forecast more than a week ahead. To create
models that are expected to get the right answer decades ahead requires
far more factors to be taken into account that current research is
prepared to pay for. Yet orbit variations, sunspot counts, density of
interstellar space dust (to name but a few) have all been shown to
influence climate, and such external factors are omitted from current
models. Also all the models have a common core calculation which
everybody assumes is correct but nobody has actually proved that it is,
so if one forecast model is wrong, they all will be to some extent.

I do believe in climate change. It has always happened and always will.
However the predictions of how it will change in the future is little
more than a semi-educated guess at the moment.

Jim
  #9  
Old May 24th 17, 01:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Climate science

On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 15:54:53 UTC+1, wrote:
On 23/05/2017 12:57, wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 03:37:49 UTC+1, wrote:
On 22/05/2017 23:27, lewhiggins wrote:
On 20/05/2017 21:20, Bill Wright wrote:

That explains it then. He's a bloke who can write but he knows **** all
about global warming.

And you do, apparently. Please supply evidence of your peer-reviewed
research.

I'm assessing him not by my own knowledge but by the knowledge of the
scientists who are not in the pay of the green blob.


Clearly someone who doesn't have a clue about how science is done.


Scientists are "in the pay" of seeking after truth by observation and
experiment, not in the "green blob".



Unfortunately science has degraded and disgraced itself over this matter.

There are endless examples of evidence fiddling, data suppression, data
manipulation, and so forth.

Scientists are humans not gods. They have human frailties, fixed
beliefs, and mortgages.

Here's a minor example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...-argument.html

There are thousands like that.

Bill


Of course scientists are human and make mistakes or are outright fakers or plagiarists. The difference with climate science is the worldwide consensus of scientists and prestigious science bodies. It's a mighty big international conspiracy - could it be David Icke's reptilians , the Illuminati, the Freemasons or the Royal Antedeluvian Order of the Buffalo?

  #10  
Old May 24th 17, 04:15 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,977
Default Climate science

On 24/05/2017 13:07, wrote:

Here's a minor example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...-argument.html

There are thousands like that.

Bill


Of course scientists are human and make mistakes


These aren't mistakes. It's fraud.

or are outright fakers or plagiarists. The difference with climate
science is the worldwide consensus of
scientists and prestigious science bodies. It's a mighty big
international conspiracy - could it be
David Icke's reptilians , the Illuminati, the Freemasons or the Royal
Antedeluvian Order of the Buffalo?

There isn't a real consensus. Strip away the grant scammers, the
me-tooers, the careerists, the leftists, the greeny obsessives, and
there's not much left.

Consider the UEA Climategate scandal, Al Gore's nonsensical propaganda,
The IPCC's nonsensical pronouncements, etc.

Bill

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.