Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Scoteh, Mar 5, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
If anyone needs me, I'll be in my dinghy!
Won't do you much good. Last time it cut loose, it killed 96% of all life, leaving only low forms of life such as single cell bacteria and Eastenders actors.
"According to Gregory Ryskin, a sudden release of methane from the ocean may lead to either global cooling or global warming. The explosions and burning of methane would produce lots of smoke and dust, which would lead to global cooling. The methane and carbon dioxide would "create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming". Professor Ryskin writes that it is "difficult to predict" whether global cooling or warming would result."
So, even after the Big Burp, there will still be scope for ARRSErs to bicker about whether the temperature goes up or down!
The key paragraph in the article:
A typical (and all too common) ploy from the scientific community. Make outageous and often exaggerated claims in order to gain funding.
Because it's far more likely that the oil and gas industry will be entirely impartial and working in the best interests of all humanity. We should put our faith in those valiant captains of industry who tell us that there's no need to change anything because it'll all be all right, it'll aaaaaaalllllllll be alright. That has to be true, because it sounds so comforting.
It's not at all likely that in a group of scientists fighting like cats in a sack for prestige, publicity, notoriety, awards or just plain personal spite and ego that one of them will blow the whistle on the ruse if there was actually a whistle to blow, after all. Oh, no - 'course it isn't.
So they're not seeking funding then?
I heard a wonderful way to look at things - rather than talk about global warming - it should be referred to as "global weirding". If things just get a little warmer, well that sounds quite nice actually. But this is the problem. We are getting into the territory of unexpected consequences that we can not predict and that could make things a lot worse.
Either of the scenarios you suggest - either a massive explosion and burning OR an increase in global temperatures and the greenhouse effect - sound particularly fun to me.
No more or less so than anyone else. Why choose to believe one lot who're after money but rubbish another lot because they're after money?
So they are seeking funding?
Everybody is seeking money. But here's a simple choice they have to make
1) Believe in climate change and try to prove it, and get funding from the limited resources available from governments, and compete for it against all of the other people trying to get resources to prove it does exist from the government
2) Call climate change a hoax, and get funds from oil and gas companies whose very existence depends on getting scientists to ruin the concept of climate change.
Of those 2 - if it was only about getting funding and nothing else - which would you think would be the easiest bet?
.. and in order to be top of the pile when it comes to funding, scientists (like everyone else) sometimes overstate their case.
Gee - I am sure the goalposts were somewhere around here last time I saw them.....
Your argument becomes "those scientists who believe in climate change are overegging their forecasts, those scientists that argue against climate change are underburning their forecasts".
But if the scientists are arguing that all life will end in one hundred years because of AGW are overegging, maybe its two hundred years instead. For those against, they are arguing that AGW doesn't exist. So actually, maybe it does.
One is a question of degrees - the other is a question of all or nothing.
So one lot are possibly embellishing the truth - and the other lot are downright lying. Do you see?
And if they are overegging and humankind will only be wiped out in two hundred years rather than one hundred years, what difference would that make? Because for me, the key point of that sentence is "humankind will be wiped out".
Yours is truly a bone arugment
Not really. I think you are right when you say both sides are at it, because the probably are, but I get twitchy whenever any article or paper mentions funding or costs. It's the scientific equivalent of the the garage mechanic sucking between his teeth. "It's got to be done, but gonna cost yer mate."
So is seeking funding a reason to discount any organisation's arguments or not? Is it just an reason to discount the arguments we don't like?
We are all doomed..............
Nope. But overstating a case is and as I have said, any paper that mentions funding gets me twitchy. A theory or hypotheses should stand on it's own merit and not seek further funding as an integral part.
Separate names with a comma.