Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John Gormley on Frontline

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    book smarts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 218 ✭✭book smarts


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If you'll provide alternative hypotheses from the peer-reviewed scientific literature likewise. After all, and I hate to mention it, but I'm working with the accepted scientific view here, whatever patches of the Internet may think.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.


  • Options
    #33
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    book smarts wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

    This isn't a scientific forum, all you need to back up your statements are links to a source, scientific citations are not necessary.

    Plus, saying back up your statement with citations and adding nothing else to a thread is not acceptable! Say why they need to provide citations, why you think they are wrong etc.


  • Options
    #34
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If you'll provide alternative hypotheses from the peer-reviewed scientific literature likewise. After all, and I hate to mention it, but I'm working with the accepted scientific view here, whatever patches of the Internet may think.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    The 'accepted' scientific view is being increasingly challenged, and rightly so. I assume that when we have a severe cold spell this winter, which I predict will happen, you will put this down to 'climate change also?

    Anyway, back on topic, I do find Gormley condescending and arrogant, but to his credit, he does put himself up on the parapet to answer questions unlike many inside the coalition.


  • Options
    #35
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    lads yer so 90's with yer global warming, it's called climate change now don't you know:)

    I have to say, as somebody not affected by floods thank god, that I thought gormely came across very smug, and often had a smug grin on his face and while you don't need to be a people person a smug look is never good when peoples lives are destroyed

    Since the dawn of time the earths climate has continually changed, who would believe that the Thames in London was frozen solid for weeks on end in the 1700 and 1800's, can you imagine if that happened this winter, the green movement would have a field day.

    And if man was destroyed completly in the morning it would still continue to change for the next billion years, climate isn't a fixed thing that we have somehow thrown of balance in the last 50 years

    having said that we need to respect nature and cherish it, renewable energy is just a good idea, no need to creates fuss about carbon ommissions, just start using more renewable energy, same with recycling do it if it makes sense but don't go shipping it to china and claim we're being environmentally friendly by doing it

    too much green policy is fear driven, that suits the politicans to keep the masses in fear, respect nature but don't go ott on climate change


  • Options
    #36
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    book smarts wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

    Nobel expert: Global warming causing Irish floods, climate change
    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Nobel-expert-Global-warming-causing-Irish-floods-climate-change-76693582.html

    Ireland's massive flooding has almost certainly been the result of climate change, says Nobel Prize-winner and Ireland's leading climatologist, Prof. John Sweeney.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    MysticalRain wrote: »
    Nobel expert: Global warming causing Irish floods, climate change
    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Nobel-expert-Global-warming-causing-Irish-floods-climate-change-76693582.html

    Ireland's massive flooding has almost certainly been the result of climate change, says Nobel Prize-winner and Ireland's leading climatologist, Prof. John Sweeney.

    science can prove anything it wants to for either side, it's allguess work, admitedly very smart guess work, but they can be very wrong sometimes

    I saw a brilliant programme on rte recently about chernobel and how scientist said it would be a dead zone for hundreds of years, turns out that there is a thriving Eco system there and despite the animals and plants having huge radiation level they are surviving very well. mutants which scientist thought would be the norm are very rare and they have all been killed off by natural selection

    so nature can and does rapidly adapt so let's not think that all scientists are right about climate change

    by the way that cherynobel programme was fascinating, if your into that kinda thing then well worth a look


  • Options
    #38
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    book smarts wrote: »
    I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

    Well, I can give you a direct one for the claim that there'll be increased 'extreme precipitation events':
    The climate in Ireland is expected to change considerably as a result of the above global changes. Projected impacts include hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters, and with possible increases in the frequency of extreme precipitation events.

    Source: OPW - Predicted Effects of Climate Change
    The 'accepted' scientific view is being increasingly challenged, and rightly so. I assume that when we have a severe cold spell this winter, which I predict will happen, you will put this down to 'climate change also?

    No, it'll be irrelevant - and I'm expecting it myself, I have to say. Please don't claim that 'global warming' should mean every season warmer than the last, everywhere on the planet.
    science can prove anything it wants to for either side, it's allguess work, admitedly very smart guess work, but they can be very wrong sometimes

    Um, no, really it isn't. It's pretty much the opposite of "guess work", and it's very sad that that's what you think the entire technological foundation of modern civilisation is based on.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #39
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    science can prove anything it wants to for either side, it's allguess work, admitedly very smart guess work, but they can be very wrong sometimes

    I saw a brilliant programme on rte recently about chernobel and how scientist said it would be a dead zone for hundreds of years, turns out that there is a thriving Eco system there and despite the animals and plants having huge radiation level they are surviving very well. mutants which scientist thought would be the norm are very rare and they have all been killed off by natural selection

    so nature can and does rapidly adapt so let's not think that all scientists are right about climate change

    by the way that cherynobel programme was fascinating, if your into that kinda thing then well worth a look




    I've already seen that Chernobyl documentary. I think you're confusing science with politics. Science is much more exacting than that. If that were the case, scientists wouldn't have split the atom in the first place. Basically Chernobyl was the first and only test case for what happens when a wide geographical area is subjected to nuclear fallout. There was no existing precedent and scientists hadn't come across anything like it before in the history of science. Hence the disagreement. Climate science, by contrast, has a lot more test cases and it is becoming apparent that the scientific prediction models are actually correct given what's happening in the world around us. If there is any margin for error, it is that scientists have been too conservative about their climate predictions.


  • Options
    #40
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    MysticalRain wrote: »
    I've already seen that Chernobyl documentary. I think you're confusing science with politics. Science is much more exacting than that. If that were the case, scientists wouldn't have split the atom in the first place. Basically Chernobyl was the first and only test case for what happens when a wide geographical area is subjected to nuclear fallout. There was no existing precedent and scientists hadn't come across anything like it before in the history of science. Hence the disagreement. Climate science, by contrast, has a lot more test cases and it is becoming apparent that the scientific prediction models are actually correct given what's happening in the world around us. If there is any margin for error, it is that scientists have been too conservative about their climate predictions.

    True no precedent for Chernobyl and they were only guessing, however what precedent is there for having 6.5 billion polluting people on the planet?? and that amount rising rapidly. They are still only using best estimates. And haven't world tempatures fallen every year since 98??

    We had miny ice ages only what 600 years ago, my point is that the climate is always changing, how do we know that we are having any effect on those changes??


  • Options
    #41
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    Um, no, really it isn't. It's pretty much the opposite of "guess work", and it's very sad that that's what you think the entire technological foundation of modern civilisation is based on.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    sorry perharps guess work is too harsh but I gave the Chernobyl example as proof that science can sometimes be very wrong, just like Chernobyl there is no precedent for having 6.5 billion people polluting this planet

    so without a precedent they can build all the fancy models they like but it is still only their best estimates when trying to predict what will happen to our climate over the next 50 100 or 1000 years. True they can give facts about the weather in the past but anything to do with predicting future climate change is only estimates

    it would also be very foolish to undeestimate natures own power for regeneration and growth


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    True no precedent for Chernobyl and they were only guessing, however what precedent is there for having 6.5 billion polluting people on the planet?? and that amount rising rapidly. They are still only using best estimates. And haven't world tempatures fallen every year since 98??

    The precedent for 6.5 billion people polluting the planet would be what was happening when 6 billion people were polluting the planet or when 5 or 4 billion were polluting it. What the scientists are doing is scaling up their prediction models based on past events. The easy way to tell whether or not they are getting things right is when you see the polar ice caps and glaciers melting exactly as they predicted.

    No, world temperatures have not fallen every year since 1998. That is one of the most transparently false arguments trotted out by climate change deniers. The only reason 1998 is singled out is because that was a particularly warm year, with subsequent years being less warm. But the basic trend is that the temperatures are continuing upward.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=3
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

    We had miny ice ages only what 600 years ago, my point is that the climate is always changing, how do we know that we are having any effect on those changes??

    That's more BS
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html


  • Options
    #43
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    MysticalRain wrote: »
    The precedent for 6.5 billion people polluting the planet would be what was happening when 6 billion people were polluting the planet or when 5 or 4 billion were polluting it. What the scientists are doing is scaling up their prediction models based on past events. The easy way to tell whether or not they are getting things right is when you see the polar ice caps and glaciers melting exactly as they predicted.england.html

    sorry you cannot extrapolate the population from 4 bn to 6.5 bn and use that for climate change effect because the worlds population has risen so rapidly. In 1800 there was less than 1 bn people on the planet, in 1000 ad there was only 400 million, so population has increased 6.5 fold in 200 years which when talking about the climate is a drop in the ocean of time


  • Options
    #44
    MysticalRain
    Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭MysticalRain


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    MysticalRain wrote: »
    The precedent for 6.5 billion people polluting the planet would be what was happening when 6 billion people were polluting the planet or when 5 or 4 billion were polluting it. What the scientists are doing is scaling up their prediction models based on past events. The easy way to tell whether or not they are getting things right is when you see the polar ice caps and glaciers melting exactly as they predicted.england.html

    sorry you cannot extrapolate the population from 4 bn to 6.5 bn and use that for climate change effect because the worlds population has risen so rapidly. In 1800 there was less than 1 bn people on the planet, in 1000 ad there was only 400 million, so population has increased 6.5 fold in 200 years which when talking about the climate is a drop in the ocean of time

    Why not? Extrapolation and scale models are used in plenty of other areas of science besides climatology.


Advertisement