biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Here's something pretty intelligently written: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8268022.stm
- Thread starter biffvernon
- Start date
Surely you mean "something that supports my point of view"?
This is my problem with the whole debate. The most illuminating part is the comment bit afterwards. Its a bit like a medieval discourse re heads of pins and angels.
When reading these comments you expect someone to say things like "but did not our Lord also say...etc". Blessed indeed are the cheese makers....
The science really does get lost and its all a bit pointless
This is my problem with the whole debate. The most illuminating part is the comment bit afterwards. Its a bit like a medieval discourse re heads of pins and angels.
When reading these comments you expect someone to say things like "but did not our Lord also say...etc". Blessed indeed are the cheese makers....
The science really does get lost and its all a bit pointless
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
No, I meant precisely what I said. It's a habit of mine.Horace said:
I didn't bother reading the comments that followed. Life is too short.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Thing is, Biff, it's the comments that follow such articles that give a flavour of the general public opinion of the whole issue and this, in turn, gives a sense of the scale of the problem in persuading people to change their ways.biffvernon said:
It doesn't matter that people may be wrong (let's not revisit that aspect of the discussion), it's what they believe that tends to determine their behaviour. Surely anyone with an interest in changing people's behaviour should be interested in their current beliefs and behaviour?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I was just pointing out that the article was pretty intelligently written. Some of the comments may also be intelligently written. Let me know if you spot one 
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
And talking of pretty intelligently written things, here's the latest bedtime reading from the United Nations Environment Programme, published today, summing up where we're at:
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/
http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/
You will never change the world Biff because you just don't get it. You are too focussed on your own opinion and the sheer "rightness" of it.
To the rest of the world you appear like an over enthusiatic puppy - picking up as many shiny balls as you can muster and throwing them in front of us. You are having a great time - all puppies do. We indulge you and think its really great and worthy and admire you for your tenacity. But at the end of the day we think you are just a well meaning puppy. On your side of the fence there are too many well meaning puppies.
The puppy thing is always fatal to credibility....no matter whether you are right or wrong.
To the rest of the world you appear like an over enthusiatic puppy - picking up as many shiny balls as you can muster and throwing them in front of us. You are having a great time - all puppies do. We indulge you and think its really great and worthy and admire you for your tenacity. But at the end of the day we think you are just a well meaning puppy. On your side of the fence there are too many well meaning puppies.
The puppy thing is always fatal to credibility....no matter whether you are right or wrong.
I've been thinking what it is that unsettles me about the advocates for man made climate change and their pronouncements.
I think that it is their certainty in the rightness of their position which borders on arrogance. I am afraid we hear too many scientists wheeled out by the media making predictions that turn out to be completely false. One recent example was BSE. One professor (I think it was Professor Pennington when he was at Leeds) predicted with some certainty that there would be an epidemic of BSE in humans. In the end there are still only a handful of cases each year and any increase in the numbers was mainly down to doctors now diagnosing an illness what was once missed though ignorance. We didn't really understand the science but claimed we did and on the back of that we spent millions of pounds, slaughtered thousands of animals, pushed some farmers to suicide.
On a more banal level the Met office has a powerful predictive computer that models the weather. They have just bought a new even more powerful one. I have a friend who works for the Environment agency. He used to be in flood control and therefore had a direct link to the Met office and used their forecasts all the time. We constantly argue over many things (public sector pensions, Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill and the sheer tedium of Formula 1). However, one of our most heated debates concerns the predictive ability of the Met Office. He thinks its pretty good. I think its crap. This Summer I decided to note how often the weather was correct on their 5 day forecasts. So as soon as the weather was predicted for Saturday, I noted it down. They were wrong most of the time. He hasn’t empirically tested it but still believes in it. He has faith in the Met office. To my mind that is all he has – faith. And he’s a hard headed scientist. But he isn’t. He’s like the rest of us. He has strong beliefs and passions and is motivated by what he believes is right.
The Met office cheerfully admit that it's difficult to predict the weather but they still do and use cutting edge scientific modelling to do so. I know that the modelling for climate change is different but what the public see is the same goons who bother to try and predict Saturday afternoon in Ambleside 5 days off also predicting certain flood fire and famine 50 or an hundred years off.
Next they tell the public that they need to change their lives completely and spend huge amounts of money because they are certain that this time the science is right. I like more humility from my scientists and then I might just be persuaded. As one sheer genius of a scientist once remarked:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”
I think that it is their certainty in the rightness of their position which borders on arrogance. I am afraid we hear too many scientists wheeled out by the media making predictions that turn out to be completely false. One recent example was BSE. One professor (I think it was Professor Pennington when he was at Leeds) predicted with some certainty that there would be an epidemic of BSE in humans. In the end there are still only a handful of cases each year and any increase in the numbers was mainly down to doctors now diagnosing an illness what was once missed though ignorance. We didn't really understand the science but claimed we did and on the back of that we spent millions of pounds, slaughtered thousands of animals, pushed some farmers to suicide.
On a more banal level the Met office has a powerful predictive computer that models the weather. They have just bought a new even more powerful one. I have a friend who works for the Environment agency. He used to be in flood control and therefore had a direct link to the Met office and used their forecasts all the time. We constantly argue over many things (public sector pensions, Margaret Thatcher, Arthur Scargill and the sheer tedium of Formula 1). However, one of our most heated debates concerns the predictive ability of the Met Office. He thinks its pretty good. I think its crap. This Summer I decided to note how often the weather was correct on their 5 day forecasts. So as soon as the weather was predicted for Saturday, I noted it down. They were wrong most of the time. He hasn’t empirically tested it but still believes in it. He has faith in the Met office. To my mind that is all he has – faith. And he’s a hard headed scientist. But he isn’t. He’s like the rest of us. He has strong beliefs and passions and is motivated by what he believes is right.
The Met office cheerfully admit that it's difficult to predict the weather but they still do and use cutting edge scientific modelling to do so. I know that the modelling for climate change is different but what the public see is the same goons who bother to try and predict Saturday afternoon in Ambleside 5 days off also predicting certain flood fire and famine 50 or an hundred years off.
Next they tell the public that they need to change their lives completely and spend huge amounts of money because they are certain that this time the science is right. I like more humility from my scientists and then I might just be persuaded. As one sheer genius of a scientist once remarked:
“I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea shore and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me”
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Pennington was right. Feeding ground up cattle and sheep heads to cows was stupid. The science that showed that it would be wise not to do this was right. 170 people have died so far of BSE and we do not know how many more will as there may be an incubation period of decades. The government has insisted on different standards of animal husbandry, based on the science. We should be grateful for this intervention as eating beef is safer now than it was a decade ago.
There is a world of difference between weather forecasting and climate modelling. Weather forecasts over a few days are very accurate in terms of air pressure, wind direction, temperature and humidity. In some weather conditions it is difficult to forecast whether it will rain or shine in a particular place at a particular time. That's fundamental to complex dynamic systems.
Climate modelling is a quite different. I'm pretty certain that it won't rain today or tomorrow. I haven't a clue whether it will rain next Friday. I am quite certain January will be colder than September. By some measure one can be a lot more sure about the distant future than the near future.
Horace, while I'm happy to discuss things with people who have different opinions, if you resort to personal abuse again I will just regard you as a troll. If you really don't like to read what I write then please avoid my posts and any thread started by me.
There is a world of difference between weather forecasting and climate modelling. Weather forecasts over a few days are very accurate in terms of air pressure, wind direction, temperature and humidity. In some weather conditions it is difficult to forecast whether it will rain or shine in a particular place at a particular time. That's fundamental to complex dynamic systems.
Climate modelling is a quite different. I'm pretty certain that it won't rain today or tomorrow. I haven't a clue whether it will rain next Friday. I am quite certain January will be colder than September. By some measure one can be a lot more sure about the distant future than the near future.
Horace, while I'm happy to discuss things with people who have different opinions, if you resort to personal abuse again I will just regard you as a troll. If you really don't like to read what I write then please avoid my posts and any thread started by me.
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
I think Horace makes a good point Biff. Whether rightly or wrongly, the general public will equate climate modelling with weather forecasting success - and despite the relative success there, the impression is mostly that they are wrong. Persuading people to fundamentally change their behaviour on that basis will always be an uphill struggle.
When that is added to the public's desire for absolute certainty from their scientific experts, to which they are met (very correctly) with a range of probabilities and options, their confidence is further reduced.
Incidentally - SEAC were right on BSE, and their range of numbers pretty spot on; thankfully we are right at the bottom of the range. As somone who lived on Kwiksave burgers at university in the early 90's I have a significant interest in this!
When that is added to the public's desire for absolute certainty from their scientific experts, to which they are met (very correctly) with a range of probabilities and options, their confidence is further reduced.
Incidentally - SEAC were right on BSE, and their range of numbers pretty spot on; thankfully we are right at the bottom of the range. As somone who lived on Kwiksave burgers at university in the early 90's I have a significant interest in this!
Re the puppy thing - I apologise (have you ever drunk a few pints of Roosters and then fired up the computer?) but my point was that constantly throwing pronouncements at me about climate change the simply support one side of the argument doesn't help convince me. I don't think I am alone. Rightly or wrongly, that is what is happening at a national level. I know it is a result of a culture of spin that pervades everything that those who propose the argument feel they need to keep releasing information to support their view (as do the other side it seems). Trouble is, I feel I am being manipulated and so do a lot of people. The natural reaction in this country to someone who keeps telling us to do something is to get all non conformist and bloody minded. In Europe where they have had centuries of being told what to do by their betters, they just kind of accept it.
You are a scientist. That is why you attacked my post by pointing out the difference between climate change modelling and weather forecasting. I agree with you (and I think that was perhaps implcit in my post). What you didn't get (but family Wiggs did) was the underlying point. It's the perception of the public that counts. Regardless of winning the scientific argument they need to be brought on side and not patronised. Ironcially, it may have been the patronising tone of my puppy comment that probably offended you.
The rude thing may be cultural. I am from Yorkshire. Its no excuse but Geoff Boycott seems to get away with it.
You are a scientist. That is why you attacked my post by pointing out the difference between climate change modelling and weather forecasting. I agree with you (and I think that was perhaps implcit in my post). What you didn't get (but family Wiggs did) was the underlying point. It's the perception of the public that counts. Regardless of winning the scientific argument they need to be brought on side and not patronised. Ironcially, it may have been the patronising tone of my puppy comment that probably offended you.
The rude thing may be cultural. I am from Yorkshire. Its no excuse but Geoff Boycott seems to get away with it.
Penners
Member
- Messages
- 17,294
- Location
- Suffolk, England
Excuse me, Horace, but I'm a modest part of "the rest of the world" and I don't remember giving my permission to be included in your sweeping statement.Horace said:
It's my experience that, in a debate, those who are least confident of their own position frequently find it necessary to summon up hordes of mythical supporters. You appear to have taken this principle to its ultimate conclusion. It's you and the rest of humanity on one side and Biff on the other!
Who'll win? My money's on Biff. :wink:
Should have put a "may" in there. And also should have spelt enthusiastic correctly.
However, I know you are half joking and being nice to Biff in your final comment but Ithink it illustrates my problem (note, my problem I am not invoking the support of the rest of humanity - but I don't think I am untypical). Your support is based, to some extent, on emotion - good old Biff against the world. I know its now controversial but you could have almost added "good boy".
To continue the controversial animal imagery, perhaps I am flogging a dead horse here but I think its a point worth making.
However, I know you are half joking and being nice to Biff in your final comment but Ithink it illustrates my problem (note, my problem I am not invoking the support of the rest of humanity - but I don't think I am untypical). Your support is based, to some extent, on emotion - good old Biff against the world. I know its now controversial but you could have almost added "good boy".
To continue the controversial animal imagery, perhaps I am flogging a dead horse here but I think its a point worth making.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
As I've said before, I'm on the Hoarce side of the fence, don't understand much of the science, don't have time to get to grips with it, understand there are two sides to every arguement and Biff does just rubbish most of the opposing arguements, rather than expain to us why it is incorrect. Saying Mr X is wrong and giving no reason why just irritates me and makes me feel neither side is right.
Saying that though, I am taking my own personal actions just in case, so I grow my own food, shop locally, be economical with my energy consumption, cycle where I can, take some holidays in this country, but at the same time I do like a nice car for when I do have to travel distances and skiing in Scotland really isn't as good as elsewhere so I do fly once a year.
Life after all is for living even if it is a compromise.
Saying that though, I am taking my own personal actions just in case, so I grow my own food, shop locally, be economical with my energy consumption, cycle where I can, take some holidays in this country, but at the same time I do like a nice car for when I do have to travel distances and skiing in Scotland really isn't as good as elsewhere so I do fly once a year.
Life after all is for living even if it is a compromise.
I'm not sure I would regard our neighbours across the channel as a placid, authority-obeying people.
I do agree with your sentiment though, that if someone insists that I should accept something on the basis that they are 110% right, no doubt, no counter-points conceded, anyone disagreeing is the anti-christ...it does tend to have rather the opposite effect.
I don't know if that's me being bloody-minded or simply using the experience I've garnered in business that 'empty vessels make most noise' or that zealotry can blind you to the flaws in an argument. Someone who concedes points to both sides is usually more balanced, more thoughtful and more likely to be listened to.
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Horace said:
Quite agree - you'd never find a French lorry driver blockading the Channel ports protesting about British lamb imports, or French public sector workers striking and marching through Paris over the working week or pensions. It just wouldn't happen - they have centuries of experience of the Gallic shrug!
On the other hand, hot-headed, obstinate and revolutionary Britons reject every EU dictat that comes our way and take to the streets at the drop of a (Bowler) hat.
:roll:
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Apology accepted, Horace. Not all people from Yorkshire are totally evil. I married one and she seems to have turned out all right.
Of course it's not me against the world and I am greatly encouraged by noticing that, not only the scientific community, but a growing number of the world's presidents and prime ministers are realising and now openly stating that global warming is the greatest threat posed to humanity's survival.
Yes, there is an issue with public perception. Before taking up full time window making, I taught science and maths for a couple of decades. Perhaps to little avail. What is your suggestion, Horace, for getting the majority of the population to understand that if we continue burning fossil fuels, and if we do not reverse the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to something around 350ppmv (note the thread title) then many of our period properties will be destroyed by flooding towards the end of this century, 70 million people in Bangladesh will be without land, several Pacific Island states will cease to exist, drought and desert will spread from North Africa across southern Europe and eventually human life will be restricted to limited areas of northern Siberia and Canada before petering out altogether in an extinction event rather more rapid than that at the end of the Permian period?
Graham, Peter, you are still in the 'there are two sides' paradigm. As in there are two sides to the Earth is round/flat. (Well there would be two sides if it were flat.) Graham, I have spent ages explaining the science and even more time pointing folk to sources for the science. Move on, please.
Of course it's not me against the world and I am greatly encouraged by noticing that, not only the scientific community, but a growing number of the world's presidents and prime ministers are realising and now openly stating that global warming is the greatest threat posed to humanity's survival.
Yes, there is an issue with public perception. Before taking up full time window making, I taught science and maths for a couple of decades. Perhaps to little avail. What is your suggestion, Horace, for getting the majority of the population to understand that if we continue burning fossil fuels, and if we do not reverse the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to something around 350ppmv (note the thread title) then many of our period properties will be destroyed by flooding towards the end of this century, 70 million people in Bangladesh will be without land, several Pacific Island states will cease to exist, drought and desert will spread from North Africa across southern Europe and eventually human life will be restricted to limited areas of northern Siberia and Canada before petering out altogether in an extinction event rather more rapid than that at the end of the Permian period?
Graham, Peter, you are still in the 'there are two sides' paradigm. As in there are two sides to the Earth is round/flat. (Well there would be two sides if it were flat.) Graham, I have spent ages explaining the science and even more time pointing folk to sources for the science. Move on, please.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
But does it not show that what you are saying is not getting through to me or Peter? It's no good pointing the ordinary man in the street to a scientific paper that explains it if he can't understand it.
There can be two sides to the earth is flat arguement, and one would be right and one would be wrong, you saying that there are not two sides to your arguement just makes me think that you can't explain your side, so is it right or is it wrong. Help me understand why the other side is wrong, don't just tell me they are.
Telling me to move on does not bring me onboard, it makes me want to get off.
If the majority of peole were not like me, we would be moving forward, governments would be taking serious steps to do what "you" say needs doing, so as I see it, "I" am the one you need to convince not shrug off.
There can be two sides to the earth is flat arguement, and one would be right and one would be wrong, you saying that there are not two sides to your arguement just makes me think that you can't explain your side, so is it right or is it wrong. Help me understand why the other side is wrong, don't just tell me they are.
Telling me to move on does not bring me onboard, it makes me want to get off.
If the majority of peole were not like me, we would be moving forward, governments would be taking serious steps to do what "you" say needs doing, so as I see it, "I" am the one you need to convince not shrug off.
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Biff,
Your patience with "the rest of the world" is commendable. I think for most of us (leaving Penners the opportunity to opt in or out of that group) the whole artificial global warming thing boils down to four questions:
a) Is it real? The scienctific consensus does seem to be getting conclusive now, but not overwhelmingly so given the potential greater forces also at play.
b) If it is real, are the impact forecasts accurate? I guess we conflate changing impact forecasts with doubt about whether it is real. But they are not linked - we may agree the change is happening, but not what it will mean in the future.
c) If the impact forecasts are accurate, what can we do about it?
d) Will what we can do, have an impact upon b) and ultimately a)?
The crux is in that last point. If we are to be persuaded to fundamentally change our behaviour and accept a lesser compromise in life as Graham puts it, we have to be confident that it will have an impact upon the problem. Otherwise, we may as well carry on as we are and enjoy the time we have, and hope a) and b) are wrong after all or that science comes up trumps with a solution.
I think much of the scepticism from many of us (Penners possibly excluded, I don't know!), is that our small changes in carbon output will be far outweighed by the rest of the developing world developing and using more carbon and dooming us all anyway.
At which point you come back in and exhort us to show leadership to the rest of the world, and we are back to where we were in a previous thread a few weeks ago.
I really don't know the answer.
Your patience with "the rest of the world" is commendable. I think for most of us (leaving Penners the opportunity to opt in or out of that group) the whole artificial global warming thing boils down to four questions:
a) Is it real? The scienctific consensus does seem to be getting conclusive now, but not overwhelmingly so given the potential greater forces also at play.
b) If it is real, are the impact forecasts accurate? I guess we conflate changing impact forecasts with doubt about whether it is real. But they are not linked - we may agree the change is happening, but not what it will mean in the future.
c) If the impact forecasts are accurate, what can we do about it?
d) Will what we can do, have an impact upon b) and ultimately a)?
The crux is in that last point. If we are to be persuaded to fundamentally change our behaviour and accept a lesser compromise in life as Graham puts it, we have to be confident that it will have an impact upon the problem. Otherwise, we may as well carry on as we are and enjoy the time we have, and hope a) and b) are wrong after all or that science comes up trumps with a solution.
I think much of the scepticism from many of us (Penners possibly excluded, I don't know!), is that our small changes in carbon output will be far outweighed by the rest of the developing world developing and using more carbon and dooming us all anyway.
At which point you come back in and exhort us to show leadership to the rest of the world, and we are back to where we were in a previous thread a few weeks ago.
I really don't know the answer.
Cloudscape
Member
- Messages
- 473
- Location
- Mid-Wales
While I trust weather reports about as far as I could throw them, I'm not sure that weather forecasting makes a good sole comparison with predictions for the effects of climate change. I wonder if a more viable comparison would be with the failure to predict major events such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunami?
I don't agree or disagree with Biff. He's talking and I'm listening - that's a start for me. I already do a lot to reduce my wear 'n' tear on the planet, just in case. :| But, like others, I feel I need 'bringing along', rather than 'telling'. It's my natural reaction to want to understand first, and then believe.
I don't agree or disagree with Biff. He's talking and I'm listening - that's a start for me. I already do a lot to reduce my wear 'n' tear on the planet, just in case. :| But, like others, I feel I need 'bringing along', rather than 'telling'. It's my natural reaction to want to understand first, and then believe.