MakemineVanilla Posted December 4, 2016 Share Posted December 4, 2016 If you watch lectures by Dr Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the MET, she makes it clear that scientists do not know what the consequences of climate change will be because they will not occur for another 40 years. The question is whether those who call themselves scientists should be allowed to tell us that they know, when they appear on television or elsewhere in the media? Does the precautionary principle give them a free pass or should the ethics of science require them to include the doubts and maybes in their pronouncements? Science surely becomes politics when they offer one version for a scientific audience and quite another to the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted December 4, 2016 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted December 4, 2016 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: If you watch lectures by Dr Julia Slingo, Chief Scientist at the MET, she makes it clear that scientists do not know what the consequences of climate change will be because they will not occur for another 40 years. The question is whether those who call themselves scientists should be allowed to tell us that they know, when they appear on television or elsewhere in the media? Does the precautionary principle give them a free pass or should the ethics of science require them to include the doubts and maybes in their pronouncements? Science surely becomes politics when they offer one version for a scientific audience and quite another to the rest of us. Firstly that's not quite true. They can and do and have modelled what the changes will be - one example is rising sea levels, or another is higher global temperatures. They have modelled that these things will bring about more extreme weather events - storms, floods, heatwaves, cold spells, extinction of species, water shortages, and the list goes on. They don't say and don't know the precise details and they are open in what they do know and how they have arrived at that conclusion and what they are doing to refine and improve the information and data and modelling and so on. What they don't claim to know is how humans will react or adapt to those changes. They also don't claim to "know" everything about what will happen. That's not the nature of science. The ethics and nature of science automatically includes areas of uncertainty and is open and available to peer review and appraisal and so on. It is not politics because the full data is available to everyone. However when interviewed or when discussing what he or she has done on TV or radio etc. a scientist(s) will obviously summarise rather than repeat verbatim the whole detail of the methodology and conclusions. There are not two different stories being presented, there is the one story and only the level of detail changes depending on the audience and available timeframe - a 5 minute (if that) TV interview, or a 60 minute presentation to a conference of fellow scientists are very different scenarios. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) This could go in the US politics thread since Breitbart seem to be pulling strings over the pond. Edited December 7, 2016 by Xann 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 The forward of Paltridge's book was by Christopher Monckton. A proper swivel eyed, climate change denying, UKIP loon. That's pedigree. This seems like a pedigree show - I'm sold. The weather girl was easier on the eye though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Andrew Bolt A man who doesn't know the difference between the stratosphere and the troposphere, and thinks that radioactivity is healthy for humans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 Oh my word. Nobel prize for the discovery of electron tunnelling in superconductors. His film 'Climate Hustle' was paid for by CFACT, in turn funded by Exxon Mobil and various other sources with vested interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 14, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted December 14, 2016 I get the feeling that of thus topic was about global warning being woman made there would be less traffic in it. I guess it is really. No bloody wimmin, less gases, more ice caps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 14, 2016 Share Posted December 14, 2016 I heard a piece on the radio where an Antartica expert said you could drill down into the ice and pull out a tube of ice that would give you a view into the past through air bubbles. He said that around the time of the Industrial revolution the Co2 levels in the water raised to the highest they'd ever seen before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 21 hours ago, sexbelowsound said: I heard a piece on the radio where an Antartica expert said you could drill down into the ice and pull out a tube of ice that would give you a view into the past through air bubbles. He said that around the time of the Industrial revolution the Co2 levels in the water raised to the highest they'd ever seen before. The increase in Co2 is not disputed, it increased by 72 parts per million from 1898 to 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 1 minute ago, MakemineVanilla said: The increase in Co2 is not disputed, it increased by 72 parts per million from 1898 to 1998. Yeah, that was the thing I couldn't quite remember. Anyway, what I found interesting was that it could be dated back to the Industrial Revolution. Don't ask me how though, not got a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 41 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said: Yeah, that was the thing I couldn't quite remember. Anyway, what I found interesting was that it could be dated back to the Industrial Revolution. Don't ask me how though, not got a clue. You just told us how a couple of posts back ! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Brumerican said: You just told us how a couple of posts back ! I meant more indepth smart arse I doubt there are little tags that say the date in the core of ice. Edited December 15, 2016 by sexbelowsound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 1 minute ago, sexbelowsound said: I meant more indepth smart arse It doesn't really need to be in depth . They take samples of trapped air in the ice . It's not that different to a fossil really . The further down the ice you go , the further into the past you go ! (To be fair I have a degree in youtube science videos) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 31 minutes ago, Brumerican said: It doesn't really need to be in depth . They take samples of trapped air in the ice . It's not that different to a fossil really . The further down the ice you go , the further into the past you go ! (To be fair I have a degree in youtube science videos) I know but how do they know what time frame they're looking at? Say they go 100 feet into the ice. Can they tell that's 1920, 1850, 1716? Or are the estimations much rougher? Or, do they look at the amount of Co2 in the air bubbles and say "That must have been around the time of the Industrial Revolution"? That's what I don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 5 minutes ago, sexbelowsound said: I know but how do they know what time frame they're looking at? Say they go 100 feet into the ice. Can they tell that's 1920, 1850, 1716? Or are the estimations much rougher? Or, do they look at the amount of Co2 in the air bubbles and say "That must have been around the time of the Industrial Revolution"? That's what I don't understand. From what I gather it's similar to the rings on a tree . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, Brumerican said: From what I gather it's similar to the rings on a tree . Ah. Now I need to figure out how that's calculated.... Either way, its interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 They can date some bands from records of vulcanism in various historic texts. Krakatoa, Pompeii and the like. Here's some research into a mystery incident. Quote ICE CORE AND PALAEOCLIMATIC EVIDENCE FOR THE TIMING AND NATURE OF THE GREAT MID-13TH CENTURY VOLCANIC ERUPTION OneLibrary 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts