OT: Get out your parka...

OT: Get out your parka...

formatting link
...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson
Loading thread data ...

Jim, I didn't read the whole thing, but the UK Daily Mail is not a good source for science. According to the Mail's stories most things either give you cancer or cure it. There was one edition where (I think) coffee was said to both cause and cure in two separate articles.

It's a comic, and not worthy of even the most cynical data mining.

[Although a good friend of mine runs an English language school for foreigners and he uses the Daily Mail frequently. His thesis is that the English will be generally good, albeit simple, without the slang expressions of the more down-market tabloids.]

Cheers

--
Syd
Reply to
Syd Rumpo

formatting link

Do you claim that they faked those satellite pictures? Or that they faked the BBC article?

Why is it that those pictures can't be found in the New York Times? Or on the BBC? Both their science pages have climate pieces today, but it's only gloom and doom.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

If you believe in science, science can't be wrong I suppose. But even then, what about the scientists?

petrus bitbyter

Reply to
petrus bitbyter

The answer is that the pictures don't mean much. The re-formed Arctic ice is a lot thinner than it used to be, and it will melt fast next summer.

Unfortunately the gloom and doom has solid scientific support, and the Daily Mail is just peddling denialist air-head propaganda.

The fact that Jim Thompson and John Larkin have fallen for it is symptomatic - the denialist propaganda machine knows that it can't come up with stuff that can persuade anybody with a working critical faculty, so they go all out for the gullible idiots.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ee

he

The whole point about science is that any scientific conclusion has to be f alsifiable, which is to say it can always be wrong. Most of them have turne d out to be incomplete, which isn't quite the same thing.

Every last one of them knows that if they could prove anthropogenic global warming to be a false hypothesis, they'd earn instant fame and fortune and the high-prestige job of their choice.

Quite a few have tried. None have succeeded, so far.

What the Daily Mail did was publish a pair of photographs that don't mean w hat the Daily Mail claims that they mean. Arctic sea ice coverage fluctuate s from year to year. The long term trend is down, but there's enough noise that comparing any two successive years is going to give you close to an ev en chance of growth or shrinkage.

The average thickness of the ice cover is more meaningful, but harder to me asure, and rather harder to present in an eye-catching graphic.

Score one more success for the merchants of doubt.

formatting link

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

No, I claim that it's a comic, not to be taken seriously. Really, John, you can't use the Daily Mail in a serous discussion, it's tripe. To do so looks like clutching at straws. Tomorrow they could just as easily say the opposite. It sells newspapers.

Cheers

--
Syd
Reply to
Syd Rumpo

The NYT never does "the opposite." There must have been 20 articles in today's paper that included unnecessary (and likely bogus) references to AGW, and of course all of them bad. Ten or 20 years from now, they will pretend this never happened.

They blame the war in Syria on AGW!

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Simulation of highly nonlinear, poorly understood, chaotic systems isn't science.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

I think we should fund a study ;-{ Mikek

Reply to
amdx

We had a low of 54 the other night. Seems like October weather ;)

Cheers

Reply to
Martin Riddle

It's been pretty much steady rain here in the "Valley of the Sun", predicted to continue thru Tuesday evening. I pray for snow >:-} ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

te:

od

er

ked

on

only > >> gloom and doom.

day's

of

never

I think I'll put my money on scientific prediction, rather than John Larkin 's easily influenced imagination.

The whole Arab Spring is claimed to be a response to rising food prices. Th e - limited - climate change we've had so far seems to have been implicated in producing occasional droughts here and there (more frequent extreme wea ther), and contributed to to the rising cost of food.

The US habit of propping up despotic regimes who are willing to let the US extract fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow is probably a bigger contrib utor.

US newspapers don't have lot to say about this, or about the unfortunate co nsequences of installing Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in Iran where he royall y peeved the population and made the ayatollahs look like an attractive alt ernative.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

d
r

fee

the

en,

Obviously not. It's a tool that scientists use to help them make sense of w hat's going on.

If you had the attention span of a gnat you'd be aware that climate scienti sts run lots of different simulations to explore the consequences of using slightly different approximations in their models, in the same way you use LTSpice to explore the behaviour of over-simplified models of electronic co mponents.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

"John Larkin" schreef in bericht news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

So who decides what's science and what's not? The scientists?

petrus bitbyter

Reply to
petrus bitbyter

The Pretenders. ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Did Slowman ever acknowledge those e-mails among the "climate scientists" where they decided to withhold evidence contrary to global warming? Slowman probably thinks that since he believes in AGW, that any dishonesty that promotes the party line is justifiable, right? I don't think the warmingists ever fully recovered from that scandal. Slowman denied the entire email scandal, right?

Reply to
Greegor

Ultimately, yes. Historically, every science has been dead wrong until forced to yield to experimental evidence. Problem is, climatology isn't an experimantal science. So, at present, it isn't a science at all.

--
John Larkin                  Highland Technology Inc 
www.highlandtechnology.com   jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com    
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

What astounds me is that guys who are seemingly MUCH more intelligent than myself cannot understand that GW (& AGW) are a reality.

Sometimes I can accept that they do it because they have their retirement superannuation invested in dirty coal but sometimes it is without explanation.

Reply to
Scromlette

ood

her

t

't

rced

If there wasn't any evidence, there wasn't any science, so John Larkin is u nable to distinguish between philosophy - which does go in for unsubstantia ted speculation - and science, which is based on detailed observation of re ality.

Climatology isn't an experimental science, but an observational science, li ke geology and astronomy. All three can indulge in heroic observation, in w hich they test their hypotheses against evidence which wasn't available unt il they'd built the new telescope, excavated the new fossil or extracted th e new ice core, but John Larkin insists that only experimental science coun ts.

The problem is that John not only doesn't know what he's talking about, but doesn't appreciate quite how little he knows about the subject.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.