• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Unusual weather in UK (1 Viewer)

Minto said:
No, its just paused for 16 years
Click to expand...

Rather than simply following the "denialist" party line why not try to educate yourself by watching some of the videos by one very well versed in the scientific method (contra Lord Lawson)? I recommend (as I think I have before) you watch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow Go on, it's only a couple of clicks away.

And please, let's keep this civil (on all sides). So rather than throwing round offensive accusations, can you please tell me why exactly we should believe Lord Lawson (who has no expertise in any relevant discipline and deliberately, even knowingly, misleads on this topic) rather than a highly qualified and trained expert. Otherwise you might just prove MJB's observations to be wholly accurate,
 
MJB said:
Your response to John's straightforward question is puzzling, to say the least, and on its own, a non-sequitur whichever way it is read. It seems that all you've done in your post is to make John's point for him (in Bold above) in no uncertain terms, yet you justify yourself by flinging, out of the blue, an accusation of hypocrisy without actually explaining how what he asked was in your mind hypocritical. Surely that wasn't your intent?

If you have a case for John's question being hypocrisy, let's hear it. Unless you do so, your statement simply is an unsupported assertion, which is why I'd like to hear your detailed reasoning.
MJB
By the way, local weather isn't climate.
Here's a basic summary: "Weather is chaotic, making prediction difficult. However, climate takes a long term view, averaging weather out over time. This removes the chaotic element, enabling climate models to successfully predict future climate change." (from planetsave dot com).
Click to expand...

Many thanks, you've saved me the bother and, besides, I couldn't have said it so well!
 
John Cantelo said:
Many thanks, you've saved me the bother and, besides, I couldn't have said it so well!
Click to expand...

John,
On this issue on BF, and on other message boards/forums, I've tried for some considerable time to encourage people with opposing views on climate change to respond in civil and coherent fashion to argue their cases, supporting it with evidence (not just media headlines or spin), because I wanted to find out what the suppressed or hidden data were behind their steadfastly-defined positions.

One common theme of the relatively few such responses was that a single point from complex debates, reports or peer-reviewed papers lies at the base of their concerns (it's not the same single point in all cases), but none addressed the overall science itself. Often their approach relies on adhering to a general, popular, or commonplace meaning of a word or term, and not on its specialised meaning within the debate, report, or paper.
A prime example would be the word 'theory', where everyday usage reflects the meaning of an unproven argument, but in scientific circles, the word is generally defined this way:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis." (From chemistry.about website).

I also received a fair amount of hostile abuse, sometimes including a healthy selection of words of Anglo-Saxon origin!

Generally, scientific work, and research in particular, requires that participants keep such intricate concepts at the forefront of their analyses; such concepts are multifarious in any cutting-edge work. By implication, many cannot therefore be rendered simply and acceptably in everyday language without losing a degree, often a considerable degree, of understanding by the lay person, which is why those who are both scientist and communicator are so important - Professor Brian Cox, for example.

On Bird Forum itself, many of the discussions and many of the taxonomic changes arise from hugely complex and subtle processes that (to lay people and to specialists in non-biological disciplines alike) appear written in gobbledygook: in other words, molecular biology!

The distance of a lay person's personal experience from the worlds of such as microbiology, climate research and quantum physics represents an immense gulf, and it is scarcely surprising that many prefer to base their responses on their own experience, rather on 'mysterious proclamations from above'. For example, quantum entanglement, or 'action at a distance', of electrons or photons clearly occurs, because only today the first improvement of optical microscope performance beyond the theoretical limit imposed by Rayleigh scattering has been achieved by Japanese researchers employing this 'spooky' effect.

As a real and observed phenomenon, quantum entanglement suffers the problem of not being in accord with all previous definitions of 'reality' - it demonstrates that entangled pairs react instantly when only one particle is disturbed, no matter if the other particle is 1cm or 10 000km away. I use this example to illustrate the understandable difficulty the lay public have with such esoteric and counter-intuitive scientific issues: I conclude that many who reject climate change do so for genuine reasons that are confined to their own experience. It's also why I try very hard to maintain a civil and encouraging approach to anyone discussing such subjects. Nevertheless, evidence-based arguments not limited to a tiny section of the discussion form the basis of my acceptance of the scientific approach.
MJB
PS For anyone who might assume that quantum effects have nothing to do with biology, the sixth Quantum Effects in Biological Systems Workshops takes place in Singapore this summer.
 
MJB said:
John,

PS For anyone who might assume that quantum effects have nothing to do with biology, the sixth Quantum Effects in Biological Systems Workshops takes place in Singapore this summer.
Click to expand...

Its all right: we all know that quantum is the fault of that damn butterfly in New York. That's biological. 3:)

John
 
Farnboro John said:
Its all right: we all know that quantum is the fault of that damn butterfly in New York. That's biological. 3:) John
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe the NJ governor Chris Christie at 334 lbs as a butterfly, more as a sink-hole detector..., but you're correct, that's biological!B :)
MJB
OK, not New York, but the George Washington bridge (complete with traffic chaos as a political tool) connects NY to NJ...
 
MJB said:
John,
On this issue on BF, and on other message boards/forums, I've tried for some considerable time to encourage people with opposing views on climate change to respond in civil and coherent fashion to argue their cases, supporting it with evidence (not just media headlines or spin), because I wanted to find out what the suppressed or hidden data were behind their steadfastly-defined positions.

One common theme of the relatively few such responses was that a single point from complex debates, reports or peer-reviewed papers lies at the base of their concerns (it's not the same single point in all cases), but none addressed the overall science itself. Often their approach relies on adhering to a general, popular, or commonplace meaning of a word or term, and not on its specialised meaning within the debate, report, or paper.
A prime example would be the word 'theory', where everyday usage reflects the meaning of an unproven argument, but in scientific circles, the word is generally defined this way:
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis." (From chemistry.about website).

I also received a fair amount of hostile abuse, sometimes including a healthy selection of words of Anglo-Saxon origin!

Generally, scientific work, and research in particular, requires that participants keep such intricate concepts at the forefront of their analyses; such concepts are multifarious in any cutting-edge work. By implication, many cannot therefore be rendered simply and acceptably in everyday language without losing a degree, often a considerable degree, of understanding by the lay person, which is why those who are both scientist and communicator are so important - Professor Brian Cox, for example.

On Bird Forum itself, many of the discussions and many of the taxonomic changes arise from hugely complex and subtle processes that (to lay people and to specialists in non-biological disciplines alike) appear written in gobbledygook: in other words, molecular biology!

The distance of a lay person's personal experience from the worlds of such as microbiology, climate research and quantum physics represents an immense gulf, and it is scarcely surprising that many prefer to base their responses on their own experience, rather on 'mysterious proclamations from above'. For example, quantum entanglement, or 'action at a distance', of electrons or photons clearly occurs, because only today the first improvement of optical microscope performance beyond the theoretical limit imposed by Rayleigh scattering has been achieved by Japanese researchers employing this 'spooky' effect.

As a real and observed phenomenon, quantum entanglement suffers the problem of not being in accord with all previous definitions of 'reality' - it demonstrates that entangled pairs react instantly when only one particle is disturbed, no matter if the other particle is 1cm or 10 000km away. I use this example to illustrate the understandable difficulty the lay public have with such esoteric and counter-intuitive scientific issues: I conclude that many who reject climate change do so for genuine reasons that are confined to their own experience. It's also why I try very hard to maintain a civil and encouraging approach to anyone discussing such subjects. Nevertheless, evidence-based arguments not limited to a tiny section of the discussion form the basis of my acceptance of the scientific approach.
MJB
PS For anyone who might assume that quantum effects have nothing to do with biology, the sixth Quantum Effects in Biological Systems Workshops takes place in Singapore this summer.
Click to expand...

Eloquently put, thanks.
 
locustella said:
Very important in water retention are forests. Deforestation can contribute to severity of floods. Britain seems to be a little deforested. I have liked all those inventions from childhood, first vehicles (except that one which killed Emma in Time machine), locomotives, and ships, captain Cook, pirates etc, but that has its price perhaps.
Click to expand...
That was in New York, but one person and some of elements made in London.
 
Exceptional and first-time-in-history happenings in nature are being reported by the media, but often as 'oo look at this, how weird!'

Take the penguins turning up off the Brazilian beaches a couple years ago. Those birds (who had undergone reverse migration) were hideously stressed, lost and confused, but all the BBC could show to generate any interest was the Brazilian beachgoers hopping in for photos with them! The same summer people died in US heatwaves, the Arctic waders flew through the UK in June/July in massive record numbers, likely without having bred at all on the breeding grounds, and UK songbirds bred early and poorly to record extents.

It makes me so upset to see such opportunities to prove climate change is happening go to waste.
 
TwoDipsfromAmsterdam said:
I'm not a great fan of Monbiot but this makes interesting reading. It's a piece on why the developed world doesn't care about climate change:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-we-couldnt-care-less-about-the-natural-world

David
Click to expand...

It is far too long and far too elliptical. Its perfectly obvious that nobody who watches TOWIE or thinks what happens in Coronation Street is important has the capacity to remember there are such things as climate change or conservation issues for longer than it takes to open a can of lager or order a pizza. Nor can they care about anything more detached from them than the next level of candy crush.

John
 
LowellMills said:
It makes me so upset to see such opportunities to prove climate change is happening go to waste.
Click to expand...

I think the climate change argument is too vague for the average man on the street. Given the natural variations, human effect is never going to be convincing enough to the population as a whole. Better in my view to concentrate on the individual issues like preserving habitats, stopping overfishing/poaching, reducing waste, recycling, green energy etc. Addressing these issues on an indiividual level might gain more support because the science is easier to relate to. The climate change movement can be counter-productive. Biofuels is a classic example.
 
Largest from 100 years floods in former Yugoslavia.
But you can always find largest something among many other happenings. It means nothing, this is only simple statistics. Everything should be compared to the background. Or to number of largest floods in other years.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

locustella
Bat-friendly wind turbine approved by RSPB at Sandy in Bedfordshire
Replies
4
Views
1K
locustella
locustella
locustella
Next climate talks or lyings ?
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
Chosun Juan
Chosun Juan
locustella
November frogspawn
Replies
2
Views
1K
Jon Turner
Jon Turner
locustella
Barn owl decline caused by cold and wet weather
Replies
14
Views
2K
locustella
locustella
locustella
El Niño on the way this summer (70% chance)
Replies
0
Views
1K
locustella
locustella

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top