Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

Goweresque · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
No. It isn't. Not among most climate scientists anyway. Climate scientists do climate science. They provide the information. It is for politicians and journalists and other social commentators to take that information and draw whatever conclusions they feel minded to draw from it. However, politicians are unique in this aspect in that it is the fundamental duty of the government to protect the population they represent. That includes taking action in lieu of the findings of climate scientists. It is true though that a minority of climate scientists have becoming a bit hacked off with the politicians not doing anything or not doing enough, so yes, a few climate scientists are becoming political.

The end of your comment somewhat contradicts the beginning. Are climate 'scientists' indulging in politics or not? And of the ones that do, can we ignore their 'scientific' output? And which ones are they? Presumably the output of any climate scientist who is indulging in politics should be discarded as tainted?

Climate science is not like other science. All we have in studying climate is data. There can be no practical experimentation, as in other branches of science, because creating a working model of the planet is obviously not possible. Ergo all climate research is number crunching, and as anyone who has studied statistics knows, you can prove anything with numbers, if you torture them enough. Its not real science, whereby you promulgate a theory, and then do practical experiments to either prove or disprove the theory.

Climate science works by selecting the data that fits your premise best and processing it in certain way you can get to a conclusion that you've already drawn. Very few scientists are trying to disprove man man climate change, which is what real scientists should do, they try to falsify a theory to test it. Instead anyone who does do that is vilified and called a 'denier'. Thats not science, thats politics.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
No. It isn't. Not among most climate scientists anyway. Climate scientists do climate science. They provide the information. It is for politicians and journalists and other social commentators to take that information and draw whatever conclusions they feel minded to draw from it. However, politicians are unique in this aspect in that it is the fundamental duty of the government to protect the population they represent. That includes taking action in lieu of the findings of climate scientists. It is true though that a minority of climate scientists have becoming a bit hacked off with the politicians not doing anything or not doing enough, so yes, a few climate scientists are becoming political.

Climate scientists are like the rest of us, they are not robotic but have egos to inflate and pride to nurse, as we all do.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Goweresque said:
The end of your comment somewhat contradicts the beginning. Are climate 'scientists' indulging in politics or not? And of the ones that do, can we ignore their 'scientific' output? And which ones are they? Presumably the output of any climate scientist who is indulging in politics should be discarded as tainted?

Climate science is not like other science. All we have in studying climate is data. There can be no practical experimentation, as in other branches of science, because creating a working model of the planet is obviously not possible. Ergo all climate research is number crunching, and as anyone who has studied statistics knows, you can prove anything with numbers, if you torture them enough. Its not real science, whereby you promulgate a theory, and then do practical experiments to either prove or disprove the theory.

Climate science works by selecting the data that fits your premise best and processing it in certain way you can get to a conclusion that you've already drawn. Very few scientists are trying to disprove man man climate change, which is what real scientists should do, they try to falsify a theory to test it. Instead anyone who does do that is vilified and called a 'denier'. Thats not science, thats politics.

Post of the year for me so far.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Goweresque said:
The end of your comment somewhat contradicts the beginning. Are climate 'scientists' indulging in politics or not? And of the ones that do, can we ignore their 'scientific' output? And which ones are they? Presumably the output of any climate scientist who is indulging in politics should be discarded as tainted?

Climate science is not like other science. All we have in studying climate is data. There can be no practical experimentation, as in other branches of science, because creating a working model of the planet is obviously not possible. Ergo all climate research is number crunching, and as anyone who has studied statistics knows, you can prove anything with numbers, if you torture them enough. Its not real science, whereby you promulgate a theory, and then do practical experiments to either prove or disprove the theory.

Climate science works by selecting the data that fits your premise best and processing it in certain way you can get to a conclusion that you've already drawn. Very few scientists are trying to disprove man man climate change, which is what real scientists should do, they try to falsify a theory to test it. Instead anyone who does do that is vilified and called a 'denier'. Thats not science, thats politics.

Some are, most aren't. James Hansen, an American climate scientist from NASA who warned of the potential threats from runaway climate change, definitely is. Michael Mann, also American, the scientist who produced the 'hockey stick' graph, had to become political after he was targeted by the 'climategate' nonsense in which he had to take one particular critic to court - a case he won by the way. There is a 'Scientists for XR' (XR - Extinction Rebellion) account on Twitter and I know of at least one climate scientist from Bristol University who is actively taking part in XR actions. Most other climate scientists, such as Katharine Hayhoe and Dr Jo House, only intervene in political discussions when false information and climate change denial is being banded about.

Your statement about climate models is mostly false. In the early days, climate models were indeed unreliable to an extent, but most of them have now been refined and optimised to such an extent that they are generally accurate in their modelling and predictions.

Your final paragraph is also false, because all scientists indulge in checking, and critiquing where appropriate, other scientists papers and findings. This is what keeps the whole dialogue moving forward in a reliable manner.

I somehow suspect the best people to tell us both how climate science works are climate scientists, not farmers and not journalists. That is why I pay attention to what they say, just as I would pay attention to what you say when you are talking about farming.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
Climate scientists are like the rest of us, they are not robotic but have egos to inflate and pride to nurse, as we all do.

Actually not true. They work according to procedure and finding out what is really going on.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
Post of the year for me so far.

That as maybe, but it is still wrong in its conclusions.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
That as maybe, but it is still wrong in its conclusions.

Oh I dunno, I've a pretty good idea how to suck eggs by now.

Goweresque · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
Michael Mann, also American, the scientist who produced the 'hockey stick' graph, had to become political after he was targeted by the 'climategate' nonsense in which he had to take one particular critic to court - a case he won by the way.

Care to post a link to this assertion?

As far as I am aware Michael Mann has been (and indeed still is partly) involved in bringing 3 cases of libel, against Tim Ball, which was thrown out by the court because he refused to provide his data to the court, and had delayed the case for 8 years (link: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...hael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case/ ) and 2 that are still ongoing against Mark Steyn and the National Review (which is a news website), the cases relating to the same article, but being run separately because the defendants wanted to pursue different defences.

I do not know of one where he has won a case of libel.

Gong Farmer · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
Actually not true. They work according to procedure and finding out what is really going on.

Unfortunately not true. They are working to find out whatever will get them the research funding in the first place. Any scientist who appears to disproves 'global warming' would not only have his/her funding withdrawn, they would likely lose their job and as recent cases have shown, be terrorised by climate activists. It's just not worth it.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Goweresque said:
Care to post a link to this assertion?

As far as I am aware Michael Mann has been (and indeed still is partly) involved in bringing 3 cases of libel, against Tim Ball, which was thrown out by the court because he refused to provide his data to the court, and had delayed the case for 8 years (link: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...hael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case/ ) and 2 that are still ongoing against Mark Steyn and the National Review (which is a news website), the cases relating to the same article, but being run separately because the defendants wanted to pursue different defences.

I do not know of one where he has won a case of libel.

Okay slightly wrong then, the case is indeed continuing. It's a while since I last looked at this case: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/25/...ntist-michael-mann-national-review/index.html

Interesting though that you provide a link to a known climate change denial site.

You should know that on Twitter I don't engage with climate change deniers - I block them - and right now you're beginning to pee me off.

Goweresque · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
You should know that on Twitter I don't engage with climate change deniers - I block them - and right now you're beginning to pee me off.

How scientific of you.

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Goweresque said:
How scientific of you.

Not at all. Just a case of not wanting to talk to those with fixed positions who are not willing to listen to those outside their own echo chamber.

Goweresque · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
Not at all. Just a case of not wanting to talk to those with fixed positions who are not willing to listen to those outside their own echo chamber.

Motes and beams dear boy, motes and beams!

Robin1966 · Jan 25, 2020

Okay Fromebridge is now on my ignore list. I will do likewise with all climate change deniers from now on.

Gong Farmer · Jan 25, 2020

I'm not a climate change denier, I agree the climate is changing, just don't believe it's more than a smidgen the responsibility of mankind.

I've said before, it's incredibly arrogant and pretentious of us to think we can influence it, either in causing it or even more so in reversing it.

Scribus · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
Okay Fromebridge is now on my ignore list. I will do likewise with all climate change deniers from now on.

Otherwise known as running away.

steveR · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
Climate scientists are like the rest of us, they are not robotic but have egos to inflate and pride to nurse, as we all do.

And budgets to bid for.....

WorkerDrone · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
Does anyone know if there is any farming representation on this Citizen's Assembly? If not, there should be.... https://www.theguardian.com/environ...gh-citizens-climate-assembly?CMP=share_btn_tw

I note you have the grace to acknowledge that you are not involved directly in the farming industry.
This therefore, I assume, gives you the right to say you “are not going to tolerate farmers who dig their heels in“ and by digging their heels in, don’t let you get your own way.
Do you attend CC conferences abroad......if so how do you get there ? Do have a fully electric car.....the limits on travel with a full charge must be frustrating. I take it as a given you don’t eat animal products of any description and wear plastic shoes.
The attacks on the whole of the farming industry this week have been quite incredibly badly handled.
Your comment that we should leave it up to politicians and “the media” is quaint to the point of laughable. The power of the ”media” and by that I mean the press, both gutter and broadsheet has been polarised to such a degree that the written word of an individual paper of which ever political persuasion is worthless. They lead people astray and pander to the lowest common denominator.
I stand on the edge of an industry I have followed all my life. From which ever stand point, the farming industry must change.......but the Dickensian proposals are perhaps (if you were particularly cynical) the first salvo in a thread of proposals that are bound up in a truly European thorny issue......who is going to be allowed to fish in what a soon to become once again U.K. territorial waters. Climate change, warming waters....depleting fish stocks......a further 20% reduction in U.K. livestock numbers .......interesting ?

Raider112 · Jan 25, 2020

Scribus said:
Otherwise known as running away.

To be fair, a journalist who obviously knows a bit about the subject and isn't just trying to hammer farmers as a lot do, deserves a bit more respect than he's given by one or two on here.

steveR · Jan 25, 2020

Robin1966 said:
Not at all. Just a case of not wanting to talk to those with fixed positions who are not willing to listen to those outside their own echo chamber.

Pot, Kettle?

Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page