On 11/02/2014 06:11, Dawlish wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2014 10:14:24 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Now getting back to the gist of this exchange: You claimed there are hundreds of
thousands of climate scientist who say AGW is irrefutable. So far you've named
none. Now try and find me some more which shouldn't be hard and I
mean climate
scientist not some b tech study in the increasingly early spawning season of SE London frogs.

Irrefutable? I bet you can't find where I said that, but climate deniers lie all
the time and that's another for the pile. Read what I say in my posts and it will
help you to learn (or it won't; no-one really cares).

Find them for yourself, larry. Then realise how small is the minority that you
feel are scientists we should believe, even though the enormous majority of their
peers feel they are simply wrong. You may like to read about how not a single
scientific institution *on earth* has dissented from the same view (but you
probably won't read, as your mind is closed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

I asked for your source in t'other thread, but you didn't own up,
although you did mention Wiki. Generally speaking Wiki is seldom
thought of as a reliable source, and is perceived to be on the AGW
side of the debate. That doesn't mean the data IS false, but it may
be a bit skewed.

Let's look at what Wiki actually says:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was
the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated
its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent
climate with its current non-committal position. Some other
organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold
non-committal positions."

There are several caveats in there aren't there? If an organisation did
hold an opposing view they could be classed as not being of 'national
or international standing' and the claim remains valid. Of course, no
such organisation would wish to go against the trend, which would
inevitably result in loss of status, loss of funding, etc. It's like
asking men 'when did you stop beating your wife?', you won't get
answers that are necessarily correct.

For example, as recently as last October there was a comment on that
page about the Ohio State section of the AIPG saying there was no
evidence of AWG (in 2009), but the Wiki censors removed it because it
was a US State not a national body. The AIPG took a decision in 2010 to
cease publishing articles and opinions about climate change because 'the
question of anthropogenicity of climate change is contentious'.
That quote was also removed in October. The 'censor' is anonymous,
going by the handle '9Questions'.

Wiki's behaviour on contentious topics is well documented should
anyone be interested. It's one reason there are so many blogs around
that may be labelled 'denier' (in a climate change context, there are
contentious topics of all sorts in the Wikisphere).

You are in a tiny minority, yet you think you are right. Why?

Like you and me, I suspect Larry is just 'having fun'.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On 11/02/2014 11:02, matt_sykes wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:04:49 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

There will never be proof. That's because this is science. Something the rest of your rant shows you simply don't understand.



ROFL, so what you're saying Dullish is that science is based on faith.
Science is all about evidence and proof.

On 11/02/2014 10:52, matt_sykes wrote:
On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.



No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.


Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?


Idiot.

Good point.

I despair at how much money would be wasted at those sort of numbers.
How much does it cost to employ a 'climate scientist'? Well it depends
on your definition of course, and there are chiefs and indians in
varying numbers. Prof. Slingo is reportedly paid over £135k as the
MetO Chief Scientist.

Lets not go too far over the top, suppose there are 100,000 scientists
working in the field (worldwide), let's assume they are well qualified
so they are probably getting of the order of £30k per annum, so ball
park £300m p.a. That figure could be tripled by adding in costs of
ancillary staff, buildings, equipment, travel to exotic locations, etc.

So in total the planet might be spending about a billion (short scale) £
per year on climate science. In some ways that's not much - the UK
spends about £100Bn on the NHS, £40Bn on defence - but at least we get
some benefit from the NHS (and defence, though there are a lot of people
who might argue with that). The Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills (which includes the MetO) spends about £16.5Bn per year, though
only a small part would go to climate studies.

If you spend £1Bn per year on medical research you will probably get
several useful breakthroughs which could be really beneficial.

Spending a similar amount on climate science will probably tell us that
the climate is changing (which we already know), that it might be
life-threatening (which we already know), that we need to be prepared
(which we already know), that we ought to take action to slow it down or
mitigate the effects (which we already know). Does it really make much
difference if 100 climate scientists tell us it's getting warmer or that
100,000 do so. Note that by 'us' I don't really mean us the great
unwashed, but rather the people who take the decisions for us. The
politicians can't go against public opinion too much though, 'cos then
we won't elect them, so maybe we do need 100,000 people beavering
away on their laptops.


--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On 11/02/2014 11:18, Joe Egginton wrote:
On 11/02/2014 11:02, matt_sykes wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:04:49 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

There will never be proof. That's because this is science. Something
the rest of your rant shows you simply don't understand.

ROFL, so what you're saying Dullish is that science is based on faith.
Science is all about evidence and proof.

What he is saying is that *proof* is only possible in mathematics. You
cannot prove a scientific hypothesis in the strict sense of the word.

In science you can easily disprove a hypothesis or theory by finding an
experiment where the experimental results disagree with the predictions
of the theory. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do that have
theory and experimental results matching you never prove it. There is
always the possibility that someone will find a clever experiment that
breaks the standard models of the day in a novel and unexpected way.

Usually such novel experiments that overthrow the scientific status quo
are ground breaking and paradigm shifting like Becquerel discovering
radioactivity, the Michelson-Moreley experiment (relativity), Hertz with
the photoelectric effect (quantum mechanics) and Penzias & Wilson
observing the microwave background (Big Bang).

You can demonstrate that the likelihood that a scientific theory is
correct increases with every independent and more sensitive test that
the theoretical model passes but it is never absolute proof.

There is no absolute proof in science only a progressively better and
better approximation to reality. We codify things that we believe are so
nearly true as to make no difference as the laws of physics but they are
always subject to later revision when better data comes along. Hard
experimental results always trump theory when they conflict.

By comparison dittohead right whingers are absolutely convinced and cock
sure that we can trash the planet with impunity for fun and profit.

You can't attribute any one weather event to AGW but on the other hand
when you have had a run of "hundred year" storms in quick succession you
have to wonder how many more it will take before the lying dittoheads
finally admit defeat. Nature is the final arbiter on this!

Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some
attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it
isn't happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:33:44 PM UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 11/02/2014 11:18, Joe Egginton wrote:

On 11/02/2014 11:02, matt_sykes wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 22:04:49 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:



There will never be proof. That's because this is science. Something

the rest of your rant shows you simply don't understand.



ROFL, so what you're saying Dullish is that science is based on faith.

Science is all about evidence and proof.



What he is saying is that *proof* is only possible in mathematics. You

cannot prove a scientific hypothesis in the strict sense of the word.



In science you can easily disprove a hypothesis or theory by finding an

experiment where the experimental results disagree with the predictions

of the theory. It doesn't matter how many experiments you do that have

theory and experimental results matching you never prove it. There is

always the possibility that someone will find a clever experiment that

breaks the standard models of the day in a novel and unexpected way.



Usually such novel experiments that overthrow the scientific status quo

are ground breaking and paradigm shifting like Becquerel discovering

radioactivity, the Michelson-Moreley experiment (relativity), Hertz with

the photoelectric effect (quantum mechanics) and Penzias & Wilson

observing the microwave background (Big Bang).



You can demonstrate that the likelihood that a scientific theory is

correct increases with every independent and more sensitive test that

the theoretical model passes but it is never absolute proof.



There is no absolute proof in science only a progressively better and

better approximation to reality. We codify things that we believe are so

nearly true as to make no difference as the laws of physics but they are

always subject to later revision when better data comes along. Hard

experimental results always trump theory when they conflict.



By comparison dittohead right whingers are absolutely convinced and cock

sure that we can trash the planet with impunity for fun and profit.



You can't attribute any one weather event to AGW but on the other hand

when you have had a run of "hundred year" storms in quick succession you

have to wonder how many more it will take before the lying dittoheads

finally admit defeat. Nature is the final arbiter on this!



Still with the Tory heartlands now flooding they will have to pay some

attention to mitigating climate change instead of pretending that it

isn't happening. "Vote blue get green" slogan is looking very dodgy now.



--

Regards,

Martin Brown

The number of times these people are told this and the number of times they simply fail to learn and trot out the same crap again at some other time.

There will never be absolute proof in science. Now learn that, deniers and don't ask for it again.

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:47:22 AM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 10:52, matt_sykes wrote:

On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:







Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.







No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.





Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?





Idiot.



Good point.



I despair at how much money would be wasted at those sort of numbers.

How much does it cost to employ a 'climate scientist'? Well it depends

on your definition of course, and there are chiefs and indians in

varying numbers. Prof. Slingo is reportedly paid over £135k as the

MetO Chief Scientist.

Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that salary. You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.

On 11/02/2014 14:09, Dawlish wrote:
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:47:22 AM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 10:52, matt_sykes wrote:

On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.

No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.

Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?

Idiot.

Good point.

I despair at how much money would be wasted at those sort of numbers.
How much does it cost to employ a 'climate scientist'? Well it depends
on your definition of course, and there are chiefs and indians in
varying numbers. Prof. Slingo is reportedly paid over £135k as the
MetO Chief Scientist.

Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that
salary.

Did I say otherwise

You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.

Really? You think you can tell that from what I write? Or maybe you are
just fishing.


--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:17:09 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 14:09, Dawlish wrote:

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:47:22 AM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:

On 11/02/2014 10:52, matt_sykes wrote:



On Monday, 10 February 2014 07:34:27 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:



On Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:31:12 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



Hundreds of thousands of climate scientist.



No; hundreds of thousands of climate scientists.



Hundreds of thousands? SO why did only 219 sign the Bali letter?



Idiot.



Good point.



I despair at how much money would be wasted at those sort of numbers.

How much does it cost to employ a 'climate scientist'? Well it depends

on your definition of course, and there are chiefs and indians in

varying numbers. Prof. Slingo is reportedly paid over £135k as the

MetO Chief Scientist.



Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that

salary.



Did I say otherwise

Would you write what you did if you didn't think that she warranted that salary? Your words are hardly complimentary and supportive, are they? *))

You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.


Really? You think you can tell that from what I write? Or maybe you are

just fishing.

Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire

I wrote; "You appear". Closer reading would perhaps help you. You could always deny what I said and explain your true position.

On 11/02/2014 18:09, Dawlish wrote:

Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that
salary.

Did I say otherwise

Would you write what you did if you didn't think that she warranted that
salary? Your words are hardly complimentary and supportive, are they? *))

My words were factual. If you want to take them out of context and apply
spin that's fine. It doesn't mean that you are correct.

Her salary as Chief Scientist seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate
to me, though I don't really know what duties she is required to perform
in that role, mostly advice and PR I imagine. I doubt she does any
research for the MetO.

You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.

Really? You think you can tell that from what I write? Or maybe you are
just fishing.

I wrote; "You appear". Closer reading would perhaps help you. You could
always deny what I said and explain your true position.

Why would you write that if you didn't think it? Why would I feel the
need to deny or explain anything? Is it a requirement to post here?

I think that regarding jealousy of science and scientists you may be
projecting your own feelings. For such a staunch advocate you really
should have gone for a career in science yourself.


--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage
Oxfordshire

On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:48:35 PM UTC, Brian Lawrence wrote:
On 11/02/2014 18:09, Dawlish wrote:



Her qualifications, experience, knowledge and reputation warrant that

salary.



Did I say otherwise



Would you write what you did if you didn't think that she warranted that

salary? Your words are hardly complimentary and supportive, are they? *))



My words were factual. If you want to take them out of context and apply

spin that's fine. It doesn't mean that you are correct.



Her salary as Chief Scientist seems perfectly reasonable and appropriate

to me, though I don't really know what duties she is required to perform

in that role, mostly advice and PR I imagine. I doubt she does any

research for the MetO.



You appear jealous - and very suspicious of science and scientists.



Really? You think you can tell that from what I write? Or maybe you are

just fishing.



I wrote; "You appear". Closer reading would perhaps help you. You could

always deny what I said and explain your true position.



Why would you write that if you didn't think it?

Interesting that you avoid stating your own position and instead prevaricate.

Why would I feel the need to deny or explain anything? Is it a requirement to post here?

Why wouldn't you? Maybe it's time you went back to lurking Brian, as I don't think a requirement to post is in the group's charter.

I think that regarding jealousy of science and scientists you may be

projecting your own feelings.

Hardly; projection is the preserve of climate deniers. I have had a wonderful career and now run my own, highly successful company, thank you. I hardly need you to say which career path I should have taken! *))



Brian W Lawrence

Wantage

Oxfordshire