egafd.com

Firstly, let me lay this to bed right here and now. What a politician does, or doesn't do, has nothing to do with my argument. If you think you're being taxed unfairly then take it up with the politicians. Don't turn your nose up at some of the hard work greater minds than our own have done just because your politicians are taking advantage of the situation. So we can agree that what our politicians do with the data says nothing about the data itself, either way? Right? Good, lets move on.

Now lets clear up that pesky word 'theory'. How your layman uses the term and how science uses it are different. When a layman uses the term he/she is really thinking 'hypothesis'. The trouble with our media is that they constantly use the term 'theory' when 'hypothesis' should be used too. I mean, don't get me wrong, 'theory' is also right, but because theory can mean both an idea based on no evidence, and also an idea based on evidence, it's confusing and unhelpful. Is it any wonder the general public is ignorant of science?...even scared of it?

A hypothesis is sort of an educated guess on what you observe. Copernicus's idea that the Earth and other planets moved around the sun rather than everything orbiting the Earth was a hypothesis. Even now people talk of it as his 'theory'. The dipshits. The least they could do was take Copernicus's word for it by reading the title: Nicolai Copernici de hypothesibus motuum coelestium a se constitutis commentariolus. This hypothesis didn't officially become a theory until F.w. Bessel measured the parallax of a nearby star in 1838 which proved the Earth was in a different place relative to that star in June that year compared to January that year, and that geometry proved the Earth was indeed the other side of the sun from the earlier measurement. THEN it became theory (or as your layman would say: fact). Today, the idea that the planets orbit a star is still strictly theory...as is evolution by natural selection, despite mountains upon mountains of evidence. The idea that the Earth is a spherical in shape rather than flat is still a theory. The idea that disease is caused by bacteria and viruses is still strictly a theory. Please get it out of your head that just because something is called a theory, it means everyone's sort of 50/50 on the probability of it being accepted as 'fact'.

Man-made global warming moved away from the hypothesis stage a long time ago due to lots of evidence. Of course those people in science could be wrong and that the evidence mislead them in some way. But we can only act on the best available evidence at the time. Maybe in a hundred years time people will laugh at how we used chemotherapy to treat cancers....a bit like how we look upon blood-letting now. "Inducing high levels of radiation to make a sick person better?!", they'll ask, astonished at our ignorance. And yet, if your kid/wife/sister is diagnosed with leukaemia tomorrow you'll encourage them to take advice based on the best, most up to date evidence at that time.....or at least I hope you would.

Pick any sceptic you can think of, from the sciences, the accepted theory is that burning carbon-based fuels releases for carbon into our atmosphere, which traps more heat, warming our planet. This will lead to habitats being destroyed and thus putting pressure on essential resources an ever-increasing population of humans rely on. One of these sceptics might turn out to be the next genius and prove 90% of science wrong....like Copernicus did in his time, but until then we can only make decisions based on the most accepted evidence available.

Pascal's Wager has been blown out of the water many times. The idea that even if you think there is no god you may as well believe in him anyway because when you die believing in god you have nothing to lose. If he's real you go to heaven and if there's nothing you've lost nothing. While if you die an atheist and he's waiting for you...............well..........to HELL you go! Anyway, it's bollocks because Pascal didn't take into account how many fucking gods there have been over the years, leaving us at square one. What if I die believing in the God of the Bible and Thor with his hammer is sat waiting for me? Or Zeus? The list goes on.

Anyway, my point is that when it comes to the Earth's climate Pascal's Wager might just hold a little more weight. If we live our lives as though man-made global warming is true, what have we lost if it turns out to be bollocks? Time and a little money? I'm not a betting man but I'm pretty sure time and money is less of a wager than most of the species on Earth.

For fuck sake Sam, stop dealing in facts, reason and logic.

My narrow-minded brain wants to believe that we can shit all over the earth in any damn way we please ("Praise Be To Clarkson"). Your attempts to introduce evidence and the like is seriously clouding my ability to try dismiss all this stuff at the whim of an ill thought out post/rant.

alicia_fan_uk

"But we can only act on the best available evidence at the time."

I remember Blair, Bush, and Straw, using that very same argument, that went well didn't it?

Your retort is totally wasted on me. I fully backed the war(s). I still do.

When they have subsequently said that, they are being very economical with the truth, as we now know that despite having access to the 'best evidence' they ignored and/or rubbished it, preferring their own doctored version. Had they acted on the best evidence we might not have been involved in the worst foreign policy decision since WW2.

Sam Slater wrote:


>
> Man-made global warming moved away from the hypothesis stage a
> long time ago due to lots of evidence. Of course those people
> in science could be wrong and that the evidence mislead them in
> some way. But we can only act on the best available evidence at
> the time.

The trouble is that we are able to read the CRU e-mails. We know that they have manipulated the so-called evidence to support their theory, hence the "trick" involving tree rings. A lot of their "evidence" is literally based on the rings of one tree. We also know that the scientists conspired to conceal or even destroy evidence which did not fit their theory. In all this, they have put their theory first and the facts second. I consider them to be charlatans, not scientists, condemned out of their own mouths.

Dear me. Do you really believe some of the smartest people in the country think they can dupe us all by manipulating data and withholding evidence? I mean really? Like some child hiding the chewing gum under their tongue when the teacher asks if they're chewing in class?

In science any theory and data you provide has to go up for independent peer review. That means scientists around the globe are out to prove your data wrong, and you're out to prove them wrong. The best way of making a name for yourself in science is to prove an accepted theory wrong. Ok? One of the reasons Einstein was so revered was because general relativity showed Newtonian physics to be ultimately inaccurate on the largest of scales. All the data and evidence that's passed out of East Anglia's CRU has been tested and tested and tested and tested over and over and over again in other research centres across the globe. If anything was amiss some up-and-coming scientist wanting to make a name for themselves would have highlighted the flaws immediately. This was just the media and sceptics making the most of a few embarrassing emails.


My guess is that you just don't want to believe. You said yourself you consider them charlatans, without even considering the contents of those emails. My guess is you saw some headline like 'Climategate' read a few paragraphs and this just confirmed some predisposition on the matter anyway. I don't think there's much anyone can say that will change your mind - it's already made up. I bet you're one of these guys who think we never went to the moon and thought MMR vaccines really did cause autism.

You're what many would call a 'flat-earther'.

Well done. You dont half save some of us a lot of time, Sam. Keep it up and I can get on with all those little jobs around the house her indoors is always going on about.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Dear me. Do you really believe some of the smartest people in
> the country think they can dupe us all by manipulating data and
> withholding evidence? I mean really? Like some child hiding the
> chewing gum under their tongue when the teacher asks if they're
> chewing in class?
>
> In science any theory and data you provide has to go up for
> independent peer review. That means scientists around the globe
> are out to prove your data wrong, and you're out to prove them
> wrong. The best way of making a name for yourself in science is
> to prove an accepted theory wrong. Ok? One of the reasons
> Einstein was so revered was because general relativity showed
> Newtonian physics to be ultimately inaccurate on the largest of
> scales. All the data and evidence that's passed out of East
> Anglia's CRU has been tested and tested and tested and tested
> over and over and over again in other research centres across
> the globe. If anything was amiss some up-and-coming scientist
> wanting to make a name for themselves would have highlighted
> the flaws immediately. This was just the media and sceptics
> making the most of a few embarrassing emails.
>
>
> My guess is that you just don't want to believe. You said
> yourself you consider them charlatans, without even considering
> the contents of those emails. My guess is you saw some headline
> like 'Climategate' read a few paragraphs and this just
> confirmed some predisposition on the matter anyway. I don't
> think there's much anyone can say that will change your mind -
> it's already made up. I bet you're one of these guys who think
> we never went to the moon and thought MMR vaccines really did
> cause autism.
>
> You're what many would call a 'flat-earther'.
>
>

I'm afraid the CRU e-mails show that they really did conspire to manipulate and hide data. They also conspired to make sure any research which challenged them would not be peer reviewed, and so not be published. So yes, I see them as charlatans. They are not scientists, they are political activists. I have been very civil to you, but if you want to use terms like "flat earther" I consider you have lost the argument.