1800's Alien

Anything not specifically related to NBTV, but at least of some technical nature that might be of interest to NBTV members. Items for sale and links to retailers do not belong here.

Moderators: Steve Anderson, Dave Moll

Postby gary » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:02 am

There is no evidence of a "run away" effect on Venus - it is closer to the sun - it has a very dense atmosphere - it was always going to be hot there.

The amount of free CO2 in earth's atmosphere has been much greater in the past without causing a "runaway effect". Even the most alarmist of the alarmists concede that CO2 alone has only a moderate effect on global temperature - instead they aver that "models" show that the commensurate rise in water vapour, which IS a significant green house effect gas will result in significant warming - however, for some reason known only to themselves they fail to take into consideration that the water vapour, when in contact with dirt particles that are ever present in the atmosphere, will form clouds, which in turn will cool the earth's surface.

If anything - we may be in danger of another mini-ice-age.
Perfecting an NBTV system is like trying to slam a revolving door...
User avatar
gary
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:29 am
Location: Bundanoon, Australia

Postby M3DVQ » Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:42 am

gary wrote:Well NASA has given considerable support to the anthropological climate change scam - just like the Nobel institution, it is forever hence tainted and will be difficult to trust.


If governments, corporations, and the media want to abuse scientific data to perpetuate scams like carbon credits or "green" subsidies that's not the fault of NASA or any other organisation that has climate scientists.
M3DVQ
Just nod and pretend you understand me
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby gary » Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:44 am

It most definitely is if they are actively perpetuating the myth.
Perfecting an NBTV system is like trying to slam a revolving door...
User avatar
gary
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:29 am
Location: Bundanoon, Australia

Postby M3DVQ » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:23 pm

gary wrote:It most definitely is if they are actively perpetuating the myth.


Scientists collect data, publish papers and review other scientists papers to check for mistakes or deception. Some people pretend to be scientists and make things up, but they usually get found out and debunked.

Of course it could be that a global conspiracy orchestrated by shadowy interests who have infiltrated all major institutions are tainting the raw data suppressing the truth to further their own interests.
M3DVQ
Just nod and pretend you understand me
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby gary » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:58 pm

When a scientist's funding is determined by his conclusions on a scientific matter his findings must be questioned. You are not trying to tell me that scientists never "doctor" data to further their own cause are you? Many aspects of the alarmists argument have indeed been debunked - and yet we are still being told the science is "settled".

The fact is, when other scientists question the validity of a particular "theory" and they are then vilified and humiliated by being called "deniers" or "flat earthers" or the favourite - "conspiracy theorists". etc - well that is NOT science IMHO.

For instance, recently, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University here in Australia has had his tenure terminated by the university because of his scepticism (that had nothing to do with his work at the university BTW).

There are many instances of scientists not being able get published in scientific journals because they don't toe the so-called "consensus" line.

There is a group of ex-NASA scientists and engineers that report "The government is overreacting to a largely unreal threat of global warming and NASA isn't helping".

The worrying aspect of the situation is the suppression of dissenting voices by both the scientific and general community - and the lack of objective reporting in the mainstream media.

By it's very nature NO science is ever "settled" because it only takes one incorrect prediction to require it to be completely re thought.
Perfecting an NBTV system is like trying to slam a revolving door...
User avatar
gary
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:29 am
Location: Bundanoon, Australia

Postby M3DVQ » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:01 pm

gary wrote:When a scientist's funding is determined by his conclusions on a scientific matter his findings must be questioned. You are not trying to tell me that scientists never "doctor" data to further their own cause are you? Many aspects of the alarmists argument have indeed been debunked - and yet we are still being told the science is "settled".

As you say, science is never settled and if a better scientific model comes along it eventually replaces the old one

gary wrote:The fact is, when other scientists question the validity of a particular "theory" and they are then vilified and humiliated by being called "deniers" or "flat earthers" or the favourite - "conspiracy theorists". etc - well that is NOT science IMHO.

You can't just say you don't believe a theory to be correct and call it science. You have to actually find the problems with it. Real scientists welcome that because it helps refine our understanding.

gary wrote:There are many instances of scientists not being able get published in scientific journals because they don't toe the so-called "consensus" line.

Lots of scientists can't get papers published. Often because they have no scientific merit. Papers which take positions against the consensus do get published but none of the alternative theories to explain climate trends have stood up to scrutiny or gained any real support. Consensus on scientific theories is never 100% - and that's a good thing because if it was then science would never advance.

gary wrote:There is a group of ex-NASA scientists and engineers that report "The government is overreacting to a largely unreal threat of global warming and NASA isn't helping".

Global Warming isn't a "threat", it's a process that can be measured. Future predictions based on long term models could be called a threat and they are only predictions. The effects to humans are both under and overstated by different people but the fact that there are differing views on how warming may play out in the future don't automatically make all the other measurements and observations disappear.

gary wrote:The worrying aspect of the situation is the suppression of dissenting voices by both the scientific and general community - and the lack of objective reporting in the mainstream media.


I don't know what it's like over there but the mainstream media seem to give equal or greater weight to anti climate change stories over here.

They also like to report on healthy scientific debate where the parties broadly agree as "Scientists Disagree Over Climate Change" etc. :roll: [/b]
M3DVQ
Just nod and pretend you understand me
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby gary » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:12 pm

M3DVQ wrote:As you say, science is never settled and if a better scientific model comes along it eventually replaces the old one


Indeed, but one doesn't go around shouting "the sky is falling" or the "science is settled" just because one has a preliminary "model". For sure come up with a model, make predictions with it, and test to see if stands the test of time, that is the scientific method, and if it holds up take action on it. That is NOT what has happened.

M3DVQ wrote:You can't just say you don't believe a theory to be correct and call it science. You have to actually find the problems with it. Real scientists welcome that because it helps refine our understanding.
.


I don't see anywhere that I have written I don't believe it so it can't be science. My objection is that I do not see that a true scientific method has been applied in this instance. I can't see any evidence that the proponents of anthropological warming have taken into account the objections of thousands of well regarded scientists.

I have been studying the published evidence, as far as possible, since I have retired (7 years) and have concluded that the case for anthropological global warming (or climate change if you prefer) has been ideologically, rather than scientifically, driven.

M3DVQ wrote:Lots of scientists can't get papers published.


That is a frivolous argument and you know it. I am talking about well respected scientists who have had no previous problem with having papers published and are suddenly, and mysteriously, hitting a brick wall.

M3DVQ wrote:Often because they have no scientific merit.


That is obviously NOT a criterion any more or we wouldn't have this anthropological climate change nonsense in the first place.

M3DVQ wrote:Papers which take positions against the consensus do get published but none of the alternative theories to explain climate trends have stood up to scrutiny or gained any real support.


Oh dear, that I am afraid, I take to be a VERY subjective comment.

M3DVQ wrote:Global Warming isn't a "threat"


Agreed.

M3DVQ wrote:it's a process that can be measured.


Agreed, that's why the ICCP chair has conceded that there has been no significant warming for the last 17 years.

M3DVQ wrote: Future predictions based on long term models could be called a threat and they are only predictions. The effects to humans are both under and overstated by different people but the fact that there are differing views on how warming may play out in the future don't automatically make all the other measurements and observations disappear.


Conceded, but all good scams are based on at least a skerrick of truth.

M3DVQ wrote:I don't know what it's like over there but the mainstream media seem to give equal or greater weight to anti climate change stories over here.


Well I admit I only read the BBC site - that is certainly biased towards the "alarmist" point of view.

I can certainly report that here, the mainstream media is almost entirely biased towards the "alarmist" point of view, although there are a few dissenters who then get appropriately vilified for their efforts.

Thankfully, we have had a change of government here which has committed to bringing at least some sanity into the debate, alas I fear they will not go anywhere far enough.
Perfecting an NBTV system is like trying to slam a revolving door...
User avatar
gary
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:29 am
Location: Bundanoon, Australia

Postby M3DVQ » Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:35 am

gary wrote:Agreed, that's why the ICCP chair has conceded that there has been no significant warming for the last 17 years.


Well, I don't claim to know what constitutes "significant warming" but the earth has continued to warm and there are models which explain why the warming was less than expected.
M3DVQ
Just nod and pretend you understand me
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby M3DVQ » Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:50 am

gary wrote:Oh dear, that I am afraid, I take to be a VERY subjective comment.


Well what is the alternative theory to anthropogenic warming? If something else is causing the observed warming then there must be some other undiscovered cooling effect cancelling out the human factors.
M3DVQ
Just nod and pretend you understand me
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:52 am
Location: Lincolnshire

Postby gary » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:06 am

M3DVQ wrote:Well, I don't claim to know what constitutes "significant warming"


Any warming that is within the margin of error.
Perfecting an NBTV system is like trying to slam a revolving door...
User avatar
gary
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:29 am
Location: Bundanoon, Australia

Postby gary » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:07 am

M3DVQ wrote:Well what is the alternative theory to anthropogenic warming? If something else is causing the observed warming then there must be some other undiscovered cooling effect cancelling out the human factors.


I suggest you read the available literature.
Perfecting an NBTV system is like trying to slam a revolving door...
User avatar
gary
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:29 am
Location: Bundanoon, Australia

Postby Harry Dalek » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:50 pm

I'd rather talk warp drives :wink: but looking at this video of greenland ice melts looks a little random to me to say one way or the other ..
I see some years are hotter than others and some are cooler ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLittKUEH1o
The electromagnetic spectrum has no theoretical limit at either end. If all the mass/energy in the Universe is considered a 'limit', then that would be the only real theoretical limit to the maximum frequency attainable.
User avatar
Harry Dalek
"Fester! Don't do that to 'Thing'"
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:58 pm
Location: Australia

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron