Is the high street doomed ?

[kenneal - lagger]

That is not necessarily a scientific approach. Here is something for you to review

So all this crap about electricity and electrons is a load of "group think" and it's really just dragon's breath that causes electric light to light up, is it? It's only scientific group think that says otherwise. Then there are all those other scientific "facts" that we rely on to make everyday life doable for most of us which we can pick and chose whether or not to believe.

The fact that we have been putting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year for the last two hundred years that took nature millions of years to sequester and has bumped up the level of CO2 from 280ppm to over 400ppm has no consequence. The fact that the increased CO2 can be proved to be of fossil fuel origin because of the isotope ratios is also group think. The fact that it has been known and not disputed for a couple of hundred years that CO2, even in the minute quantities in which it is present in the atmosphere, makes the difference between the earth being the frozen ball that it would be in current circumstances if it were not there and the place where life as we know it has flourished is also really group think.

The fact that virtually all the "independent" scientists involved in the research into climate change believe in Global Warming and its Anthropogenic source is also group think while the alternative "science", funded in the main by fossil fuel companies which have a lot of money to lose should they be able to disprove GW and AGW, especially, is not group think and something that all independent minded people should believe.

There's being independent minded and just plain gullible or stupid. I will give you the benefit of the doubt at the moment and say that I think you are gullible, very gullible.

[woodburner]

Sounds like the predictable response of someone who has been to church and has taken the preachings to heart. The “independent� scientists, how are they funded? The fossil fuel companies stand to lose either way, so funding opposing views can only be short term.

Now, perhaps you would like to make a rational comment on this, preferaly without the attempts at abuse, which are hardly expected of someone who thinks they are right.

[clv101]

I believe that if most of the world's climate change researchers agree on a set of theories, and they do, those theories are probably broadly correct.

Whilst I largely agree with your position Ken, and am indeed a climate scientist myself, surely you can see the weakness in your statement.

Such appeals to widespread agreement doesn't really have a place in science. Science is littered with countless examples of the majority agreed position being overturned, having turned out not to be broadly correct.

The fact that most researches agree means next to nothing. What's important is that the evidence available today supports a set of theories. Evidence, not people.

[Little John]

This is merely true, in principle CLV.

Meanwhile, in the real world, in practice, it is simply not practicably possible for every single citizen to avail themselves of every single piece of primary research both in terms of accessing it and understanding it.

Thus, it is, in practice, necessary to rely on an observation of most experts in a given field, who do have access to primary research and who understand it fully, in terms of their level of agreement in interpreting the results of that research. Thus, if most experts in a scientific field agree that x=y, then it is entirely reasonable for a lay-person to assume that x probably does = y.

It is not reasonable, in most case, for a lay person to assume otherwise unless there is other evidence of political or financial conflicts of interest. And, of course this may be shown on occasion. But, in the absence of that, in the scientific arena, there is no practical alternative for the majority of people but to rely on expert consensus

[kenneal - lagger]

Thanks, LJ, for removing from me the responsibility for thinking about what to say in reply. I did, however, think about your reply before responding and found it to cover my thoughts very well.

My belief in global warming science is not entirely reliant on what the scientists are saying en bloc but has been bolstered by my reading around the subject of both the science and the counter arguments of scientists to what the deniers are saying.

[kenneal - lagger]

Sounds like the predictable response of someone who has been to church and has taken the preachings to heart. The “independent� scientists, how are they funded? The fossil fuel companies stand to lose either way, so funding opposing views can only be short term.

Now, perhaps you would like to make a rational comment on this, preferaly without the attempts at abuse, which are hardly expected of someone who thinks they are right.

Those graphs of CO2 and temperature are no good if they are not correlated with the Milankovitch cycles of earth's orbit and tilt which affect the world's temperature as well so your correspondent is only giving you the part of the picture which suits his case.

If you really want to know how you are being conned please look for your answers on the Skeptical Science website. It run by scientists who think it is right that people be sceptical about science so should suit you down to the ground. Quoting from the introduction to the site:-

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding.

[woodburner]

Why the reference to “being conned�? How was that term helpful?


From Skeptical Science

Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming.

I don’t “embrace� any refuting argument either, I question those too. I get the same type of confrontational response, not surprisingly.

[kenneal - lagger]

I notice that you're not interested in addressing the arguments on the science only the argument on the argument which smacks of trolling to me.

[woodburner]

Another insult I see.

[kenneal - lagger]

I notice that you're not interested in addressing the arguments on the science only the argument on the argument which smacks of trolling to me.

[woodburner]

Not really any point is there? when you posted:

So, should I take any notice of your completely unqualified opinion, unless you have a qualification in a climate or other related scientific field which you haven't as yet disclosed? No. Should I shoot down in flames any of your unqualified opinions on climate change? I believe I should.

That looks like a closed-mind approach to me (but then I’m not a qualified psychiatrist).

[kenneal - lagger]

I'm not looking for your opinions. I'm looking for you to provide any evidence from qualified climate researchers which supports your line of thinking. I do not rely on my opinion when I say something on climate science as I can provide references to all claims that I make or show the logic behind them if I make any extrapolations from the science.

[frank_begbie]

And you call yourselves civilized? That is nothing less then anarchy and if not reversed will destroy your economy.

Permitting teachers to carry guns to shoot errant students is not anarchy as it’s permitted. I think your comment is a bit rich. The US approach is to shoot everybody, but that is not the only thing that will destroy your economy. Feeding people the wrong stuff so much more is spent on sick care looks like a sure fire way of eventually destroying the economy too.

I was recently diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2.

When you start doing your research into the disease you find out that we have been force fed a diet that can only increase the number of sufferers.

Meanwhile drug corportations are making a 'killing' from managing the disease.

Psychopaths are in charge of everything and as long as this continues we are doomed.

[PS_RalphW]

One side effect of my treatment for prostate cancer is to increase my risk of developing diabetes as I become less able to process sugar in the normal quantities. I have some of the early warning signs, needing to drink water several times a night as my body tries to excrete the sugar it cannot process, weight gain, etc.

I also have fatigue, which limits my ability to exercise, which also results in weight gain.

I also have (adopted) children who have very high cortisol levels in their blood, as a result of early trauma changing their brain chemistry. They are completely addicted to sugar, and are hard to get to exercise, and through their behaviour they induce stress (and thence high cortisol levels) in their parents, which makes sugar a major temptation in my diet as well...

[emordnilap]

I was recently diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2.

My sympathies Frank.

Meanwhile drug corportations are making a 'killing' from managing the disease.

But of course. This is the world we vote for.

Cancer: research into cures - and these so-called cures - is humungous business. Research into causes is the poor relation.