Lost Login Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 Having studied for a combined honours in Chemistry & Bio Chemistry at Queen Marys in London I reckon I can have a fair stab at understanding science That is why sites such as Junk Sciences's or Gillian McKeith's pee me off as they use psuedo science to advance an agenda as fact. For me a scientist is a person of enquiring mind who investigates a matter, reviews the evidence and having done so uses it to reach a conclusion. Junk Science turn it on its head in that having set upon a view they they look for evidence to support it and ignoring anything that is contradictory. A bit like the West Midlands police in the past. These sites may contain some genuine science and amongst the links there may be ones to reputable organisations. In fact there are bound to be to give the site a bit of gravitas but they are only ones that support a case and may not be up to date. But they have been included to support a set agenda not to provide a fair reflection of opinion across the board so I invariably prefer to go to what I believe is a fairly neutral but reputable site such as New Scientist to read around a subject. In respect of the Climate debate etc this applies equally to a wesite set up by tree huggers or paid lobbyists for the oil companies. Both have their own agenda and will only provide links supporting them even if out of date, discredited etc On the same basis these sites are put together it would easily be possible to put together a very professional site with lots of links stating that there is a link between MMR and Autism. The person who advanced this case, Dr Andrew Wakefield, was a scientist whose "research" was paid for by the firms who supplied the single vacines. Nobody has ever been able to replicate the research and it has long been discredited. The Lancet who originally published the report has retracted it but it would still be possible to put forward a convincing looking web site. Similar claims are currently being put around in respect ofthe importance of Omega Oils in respect of child development and a potential cure for those that are dyslexic. The internet is a wonderful tool but there is an awfu lot of rubbish on it masquerading as fact You need to spend more time on that page and drill down and dig deeper, as there are many reliable and reputable data sources to be found such as: The Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Armagh Observatory, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center etc. which are not part of the site. Not necessarily a dig at you, but this is one of the main problems with this debate i.e. people do not spend their time reading properly, usually because they don't have the knowledge necessary to undertand the science or can't be arsed. You will always find one page summary sites spouting 'boom or doom' - and anyone making their mind up based on that is a half-wit sheep. _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I listened to Mandate (on 'listen-again' on MR). Well done Stu. Climate of Fear: This makes interesting reading, considering that the temperature has actually dropped since it was written. Cheryl Cousins going on about Noah and how she's not a scientist and basically saying 'I don't know what the heck I'm talking about - but it's true!' _ I listened to Mandate this morning, and although I have sympathy for AT and, indeed, Stu's views, I think the jury is still out on the whole issue. I take Lostlogin's points about empirical evidence and proper scientific research, but I have a nagging concern that since the industrial revolution tons of crud have been pumped into the atmosphere and it is only very recently (and I mean within the last 10 to 15 years) that any marked improvement has been made in the quality of the air. Yet it seems that the emissions over centuries are not the problem but what we are doing now. I understand there is a difference between pollution and the greenhouse gases (which do not affect the air clarity) but overall hasn't the air quality improved recently? Unfortunately, the debate on Mandate this morning did little to clarify my thinking as Cheryl Cousins used the same techniques as any religious proponent; 'No, you are wrong because the Bible, Talmud or Koran says so.', without actually explaining why. There is alot to be said for the argument that governments do like to use fear as a tool of coercion and this is just another example. For that reason alone, I am sceptical, although fully supportive of the need to clean up our act as good, responsible practice. Not just sceptical on whether climate change is real, but of the world's governments being truly dedicated to tackling the issue in everyone's best interests without fear or favour (to quote Peter Karran) of any the multinational commercial interests that really are the guys running the show. Perhaps the BBC Climate Change experiment will give us some answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 but I have a nagging concern that since the industrial revolution tons of crud have been pumped into the atmosphere and it is only very recently (and I mean within the last 10 to 15 years) that any marked improvement has been made in the quality of the air. Yet it seems that the emissions over centuries are not the problem but what we are doing now. I understand there is a difference between pollution and the greenhouse gases (which do not affect the air clarity) but overall hasn't the air quality improved recently? The evidence I have seen leads me to believe in global warming exists although definite causes and ways of reversing make me scratch my head. The New Sciencist link I posted earlier I quite like as it does not baffle you with technical mumbo jumbo and is reasonably understandable. This suggests that CO2 output has grown and this appears logical as the need for power etc has grown world wide due to many reasons. Production of it has become cleaner it that less smog and smoke etc produced as a bi product and it may be that this also contributes to the effect as more CO2 traps the warmth in but S02 particles reflected back and therefore kept out some of the heat from the sun. From memory this was a measurable effect when planes stopped flying after September. There is also the destruction of rain frorests over the years which absorb C02. Far better minds than mine I am sure ponder over this but like many thing it is probably a mix of many complex issues and a question of balances. My guess is it will turn out that there is no one specific cause but the various checks and balances that are in place have been tweaked just a little to much and that an elemnet of each which on its own might not have been an issue when they are rolled into each other cause the bigger effect. This tweaking may oy may not be wholy down to mans influences. This is then what makes it hard to argue and agree what the causes are and how it can be rectified as ultimately there is no one specific matter but a host of little ones. That is only an assumption on my part at present and I look forward to seeing what future research brings forth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 but I have a nagging concern that since the industrial revolution tons of crud have been pumped into the atmosphere and it is only very recently (and I mean within the last 10 to 15 years) that any marked improvement has been made in the quality of the air. Yet it seems that the emissions over centuries are not the problem but what we are doing now. I understand there is a difference between pollution and the greenhouse gases (which do not affect the air clarity) but overall hasn't the air quality improved recently? The evidence I have seen leads me to believe in global warming exists although definite causes and ways of reversing make me scratch my head. I don't think anyone would disagree that things aren't changing...they always have and they always will. The problem, as you say, is agreeing the causes - but now that people seem to be staking their reputations on this by 'taking sides', this has done nothing but politicise and cloud the issue. This is never good for science. I have a list of some fairly good - mostly independent academic sites/papers that cover this, unfortunately they are on another computer and I will post them in a week or so - when I am next on it. Unfortunately I am having to do a lot of travel at the moment. I think it would be good to have a collection of such links so that people can read them and properly make up their own minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 I do believe global warming is happening. I do believe "MAN" has had an effect on this. However, many, many scientist, papers web sites etc. tell us to cut CO2 emissions to save the planet, where is the proof it will work? On the one hand, Gordon Brown et al talk of taxing cars off the road to save the planet, and yet most families burn more oil or gas in their central heating every week than they do in petrol in their cars, but this is barely taxed, and most of the heat is lost to inefficient boilers and through the roof (etc.)! As usual the motorist is the easy target. The government have grants and thing to help you make your home more efficient, but the hoop la you have to go to to get these grants means the take up percentage is very small. The thing is, if everyone in the UK stopped burning fuels (and breathing) today, it would make no difference. The uk only produces 2% of world CO2. Yes, global warming is happening and governments are making a mint out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Could an environmentalist please explain to me how the following price structures will help fight alleged 'global warming'. Surely, people are just going to get up earlier, do more miles (or use satnav) to seek currently 'quiet' rural routes to avoid charges - thus using more fuel overall (when charge>fuel cost), emit more pollutants (nature does not take into account the time you throw the crap into the air), and making now quiet roads suddenly become dangerous with obvious consequences. AT RUSH-HOUR Rural A-road: 5p a mile (100 miles = £5) Motorway journey: 13p a mile (100 miles = £13) Big city back streets: 11p a mile (100 miles = £11) Busy city A-roads: 27p a mile (100 miles = £27) Highest possible price likely to be set by government at £1.30 a mile (100 miles = £130) AT OFF-PEAK Rural A-road: Free Motorway journey: Free Big city back streets: 3p a mile (100 miles = £3) Busy city A-roads: 6p a mile (100 miles = £6) A quiet Sunday drive through country lanes: Free In the meantime, the poor become poorer, the rich get less congestion, and those on an average salary will probably moan about it and have to put up with the costs. More kids who live in rural villages will get killed on the way to school - by drivers unaware of the layout or traffic rules of the shortcut, on a dark winter morning trying to avoid an additional charge. Just think how this will affect your costs bringing the car over to see Aunt Bessie in Swindon. _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Just think how this will affect your costs bringing the car over to see Aunt Bessie in Swindon. We prefer not to talk about Aunt Bessie. It's her 'emissions,' you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandma Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 My and other's vehicles are Manx registered. Reference the transponders that cars will need to pay for these journeys in UK. Will the IOM goverment follow suit? Since we are out of UK durastriction we should not be obliged to fit these as Standard. The problem occurs when we go across to see family (Aunt bessie included). Do we have to get tempory ones fitted at Ferry terminal? If so will we need a credit card to use? I,ve not got a Credit card. This also applies to all the other foriegners to UK, French, Spanish etc. The Isle of Man on my Sat-Nav is non- excistent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 My and other's vehicles are Manx registered. Reference the transponders that cars will need to pay for these journeys in UK. Will the IOM goverment follow suit? Five little words for you: Automatic Number Plate Recognition = Invoice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandma Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Ref. ANPR= Invoice. Does this mean the Manx Dept of Transport will be giving out our personal information to 'them ' across? Don't tell me. They already do?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Don't tell me. They already do?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 Not necessarily a dig at you, but this is one of the main problems with this debate i.e. people do not spend their time reading properly, usually because they don't have the knowledge necessary to undertand the science or can't be arsed. You will always find one page summary sites spouting 'boom or doom' - and anyone making their mind up based on that is a half-wit sheep. I would suggest that the vast majority of people don't have the knowledge necessary to understand the science behind the arguments relating to climate change, simply because it's not the kind of knowledge you tend to pick up over time, or by reading popular science accounts. The devil is always in the detail, and what is a convincing argument one way or the other is underappreciated by some who read it because the crux of its argument is based on a sophisticated discussion of chemical interaction or weather systems. As a result, the public debate tends to turn into a tournament of duelling biologists, with differing opinions citing different scientists and invoking their reputations to back up their view, or an argument about statistics, which is even more problematic as even many scientists' understanding of how and when statistics can be legitimately used is flawed (a couple of studies have found a surprisingly high proportion of errors in the statistical analysis and erroneous conclusions drawn from it in published scientific papers). As far as I can tell, there is a broad concensus on climate change amongst the scientific community. It's not total, certainly, but that's the nature of the debate - arguments regarding climate change rely not only on science, but also on historical and statistical analysis, both of which are considerably less absolute than science. As such I believe it's reasonable to go along with the consensus for two reasons: 1. The proposed methods of dealing with climate change certainly can't do much physical harm. At the end of the day, the risks of going along with the views of the consensus are less than those of going against it. 2. We're not living in the middle ages anymore. Individual scientists going against the established body of work are not crusading mavericks challenging some irrational dogma through strength of principles. They might be right, but there's also a good chance that they're wrong, or persuing an avenue of controversial research through for reasons as mired in self interest as critics of the global warming hypothesis are likely to view the reasons of those who agree with the consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 27, 2006 Share Posted November 27, 2006 duelling biologists Like you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Well back on the original topic it looks like there may be some truth to the rumour Manx Radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Well back on the original topic it looks like there may be some truth to the rumour Manx Radio That appears to be yet another non story by the Manx media. So Ministers are at liberty to re-examine any area of policy they choose - where is the story in this? Other headline news of the day - the Isle of Man is to feature in a comic strip in The Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.