http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm

Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
explain what convinced you that it is the case?

Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.

Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
share your view on this issue?

I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very,
very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
(IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
be.

But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.

Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.

On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
> of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
> instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
> satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> share your view on this issue?
>
> I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very,
> very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
> measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
> pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> be.
>
> But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
> about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
> Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.


It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an
axe to grind.

If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
threat,  then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
seriously damaged.

Dave

On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> > Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> > For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> > warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> > explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> > Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> > actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> > swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> > is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> > is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
> > of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
> > instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> > cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> > the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
> > satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> > websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> > Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> > share your view on this issue?
>
> > I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> > I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very,
> > very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> > is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> > (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
> > measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
> > pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> > much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> > be.
>
> > But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> > Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> > Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> > sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
> > about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
> > Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> > is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> > newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> > enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> > because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> > funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> > saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.
>
> It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an
> axe to grind.
>
> If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> threat,  then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
> seriously damaged.
>
But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.

On Jun 21, 10:06 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> > > Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> > > For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> > > warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> > > explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> > > Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> > > actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> > > swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> > > is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> > > is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
> > > of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
> > > instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> > > cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> > > the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
> > > satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> > > websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> > > Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> > > share your view on this issue?
>
> > > I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> > > I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very> > > very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> > > is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> > > (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
> > > measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
> > > pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> > > much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> > > be.
>
> > > But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> > > Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> > > Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> > > sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
> > > about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
> > > Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> > > is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> > > newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> > > enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> > > because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> > > funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> > > saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.
>
> > It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an
> > axe to grind.
>
> > If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> > threat,  then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
> > seriously damaged.
>
> But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
> some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
> then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
> fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.

Yes, the media don't stress that severe global warming is only a
*prediction*. Even the mainstream scientists say there is a 10% chance
that global warming is not a problem. So, you could say, that the
scientists cannot be wrong, whatever happens! But if  there is no
warming the scientists, no doubt, will be given a beating by the media.

X-No-Archive: yes

"Paul Grieg"  wrote in message 
news:6cbb044a-8e59-4a9c-ada9-55eeedaa59be@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 21, 10:06 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:

> > If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> > threat,  then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
> > seriously damaged.
>
> But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
> some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
> then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
> fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.

***Yes, the media don't stress that severe global warming is only a
*prediction*. Even the mainstream scientists say there is a 10% chance
that global warming is not a problem. So, you could say, that the
scientists cannot be wrong, whatever happens! But if  there is no
warming the scientists, no doubt, will be given a beating by the media.***


I think there is sufficient imagery of this planet to show that climate 
change is taking place at an increasingly  rapid rate.
It is seen in many forms from size reduction, disappearance even, of 
glaciers, disappearance of stretches of waters/lakes/seas, reduction in area 
of polar ice caps and so on..
Is this "severe global"  warming....?  Who knows.  Depends on what 
yardsticks are used to measure *severe* or *extreme* or *normal* or whatever 
pejorative term used.
I don't think we can describe the ongoing changes to this planet as 
predictions however......and without sounding glib, the note that 
"mainstream scientists" say there is a 10% chance that global warming is not 
a problem [note, not a problem - not that it isn't taking place] means of 
course that there is a 90% chance it could be...!    ( I understand your 
reasons for showing how scientists are covering all aspects...)
One thing is quite clear,  the minerals and fossil fuels  in this planet are 
finite and if we continue to use them at a rate of depletion that we are, 
without the alternative means of life support in place, we are leaving 
future generations with no chance whatsoever to continue.  If a by product 
of this use is further climatic changes then very little need be said 
further... this is mankinds' shot at evolution and 500 years hence will show 
how the theory of 'natural selection' worked out for humankind overall... 
without appearing pessimistic, it doesn't bode well at this present time.


Mark

"Peter Brooks"  wrote in message 
news:8fd74498-be2b-44d0-aaa5-2bc8b7e2aec5@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> > Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> > For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> > warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> > explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> > Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> > actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> > swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> > is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> > is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
> > of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
> > instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> > cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> > the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
> > satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> > websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> > Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> > share your view on this issue?
>
> > I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> > I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very,
> > very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> > is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> > (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
> > measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
> > pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> > much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> > be.
>
> > But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> > Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> > Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> > sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
> > about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
> > Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> > is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> > newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> > enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> > because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> > funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> > saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.
>
> It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an
> axe to grind.
>
> If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> threat, then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
> seriously damaged.
>
But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.
____________________________________________________

It has become a quasi-religion!  What I find objectionable is that any 
scientist who questions any of the data or methods, on sound scientific 
grounds, is shouted down by the faithful.
Graham

On Jun 21, 2:23 pm, "graham"  wrote:
> "Peter Brooks"  wrote in message
>
> news:8fd74498-be2b-44d0-aaa5-2bc8b7e2aec5@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> > > Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> > > For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> > > warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> > > explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> > > Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> > > actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> > > swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> > > is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> > > is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
> > > of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
> > > instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> > > cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> > > the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
> > > satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> > > websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> > > Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> > > share your view on this issue?
>
> > > I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> > > I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very> > > very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> > > is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> > > (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
> > > measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
> > > pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> > > much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> > > be.
>
> > > But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> > > Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> > > Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> > > sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
> > > about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
> > > Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> > > is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> > > newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> > > enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> > > because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> > > funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> > > saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.
>
> > It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an
> > axe to grind.
>
> > If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> > threat, then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
> > seriously damaged.
>
> But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
> some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
> then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
> fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.
> ____________________________________________________
>
> It has become a quasi-religion!  What I find objectionable is that any
> scientist who questions any of the data or methods, on sound scientific
> grounds, is shouted down by the faithful.

No one can be shouted down in free western democracies! The internet
is available to all. Instead of winging, why not sift the evidence and
provide some links? OK that's more difficult than winging. But if you
want an easy life, why not go for a walk?

On 21 Jun, 10:06, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> > > Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> > > For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> > > warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> > > explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> > > Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> > > actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> > > swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> > > is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> > > is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements
> > > of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive
> > > instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> > > cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> > > the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by
> > > satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> > > websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> > > Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> > > share your view on this issue?
>
> > > I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> > > I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very> > > very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> > > is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> > > (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the
> > > measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public
> > > pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> > > much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> > > be.
>
> > > But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> > > Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> > > Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> > > sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking
> > > about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National
> > > Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> > > is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> > > newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> > > enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> > > because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> > > funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> > > saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs.
>
> > It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an
> > axe to grind.
>
> > If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> > threat,  then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be
> > seriously damaged.
>
> But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
> some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
> then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
> fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
about man-induced climate change:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

Dave

"Dave Smith"  wrote in message 
news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
>about man-induced climate change:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions

"The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been 
silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent 
chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that 
drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."

Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance 
as inconclusive?

On Jun 22, 11:55 am, "Philip"  wrote:
> "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
>
> news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> >about man-induced climate change:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo...
>
> "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> as inconclusive?
>
For scientists, yes, for most people all they need is the anecdotal
evidence from their Aunt Agatha to find something completely
conclusive, particularly if it is a useful thing to believe as well.
80% probability is, for them, as good as a certainty.

There is some logic to this, of course. I tend not to arrange a picnic
if the forecast suggests a 90% chance of rain. Not unless I have an
indoor picnic option in reserve anyway.

Philip wrote:
> "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
> news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> >about man-induced climate change:
> >
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
>
> "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> as inconclusive?

That of course is a line in the sand. The line is there to prevent
Type 1 error. But suppose we ask not just about whetehr the hypothesis
is true also about the consequences of the hypothesis being right or
wrong - a kind of Pascal's Wager. If global warming is not the result
of human activity and we do nothing then the consequences will be
whatever they would have been anyway. But if global warming is the
consequence of human activity and we do nothing then the consequences
(as the heating speeds up) will be severe, including mass starvation
and severe climatic / weather related disasters. So perhaps the line
in the sand needs to be drawn less stringently given that our future
strongly relates to the truth of the hypothesis and that the
consequences of inaction are severe.

Lance

On Jun 22, 10:00 am, Dave Smith  wrote:
> On 21 Jun, 10:06, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 9:28 pm, Dave Smith  wrote:
>
> > > On 20 Jun, 12:28, Paul Grieg  wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.philosophynow.org/issue35/35blackburn.htm
>
> > > > Now let’s turn to something different. In a recent talk to Philosophy
> > > > For All, you said that you believed there was no such thing as ‘global
> > > > warming’. Well, that is a controversial remark. Could you briefly
> > > > explain what convinced you that it is the case?
>
> > > > Yes, that was deliberately a provocative remark. I was using it
> > > > actually to illustrate my view that people’s beliefs are very often
> > > > swayed by their emotions. But in fact I think the scientific evidence
> > > > is that the phenomenon is either very slight or doesn’t exist. There
> > > > is no good measurement of global warming. There are bad measurements> > > > of it using land-based, widely-scattered, sporadic, rather primitive> > > > instruments called ‘Stevenson Boxes’, often sited near airports and in
> > > > cities which do indeed show warming, but the globe is much bigger and
> > > > the best measurements of the atmosphere’s temperature are given by> > > > satellites and by meteorological balloons. And if you go to the
> > > > websites for those, they show more or less flat graphs.
>
> > > > Why do you think the vast majority of scientists does not actually
> > > > share your view on this issue?
>
> > > > I don’t think it is true of the vast majority of scientists actually.
> > > > I think what happened is that the environmentalist issues became very,
> > > > very dominant and a number of bodies were set up. The most influential
> > > > is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control
> > > > (IPCC). They produced a mountain of excellent science, including the> > > > measurements I’ve been relying upon, but then there are the public> > > > pronouncements. And the public pronouncements have always been much
> > > > much more alarmist than the measurements actually suggest they should
> > > > be.
>
> > > > But there is a general belief that there is ‘global warming’.
>
> > > > Yes, I shared that belief until six months ago. I then went to New
> > > > Zealand, where a man called Denis Dutton directed me to some of the
> > > > sceptical literature on this and to the websites I’ve been talking> > > > about, which have been produced by bodies like NASA and the National> > > > Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States. It
> > > > is remarkable the disparity between the public perception and the
> > > > newspaper media perception, and the science. But you see I think
> > > > enough scientists actually have a motive for continuing that mismatch
> > > > because that’s the way they stay in the limelight and get their
> > > > funding and their computer time. I’m not saying that’s fraud, I’m just
> > > > saying it is a mechanism which makes human beings form their beliefs> > > It is also claimed that nay-sayers are linked to organisations with an> > > axe to grind.
>
> > > If it emerges that man-induced climate change is not a serious
> > > threat,  then I think the general public's faith in scientists will be> > > seriously damaged.
>
> > But does science really benefit from a quasi-religious following? If
> > some of the 'faithful' are disillusioned by the media's marketing,
> > then, if only a small percentage come to understand that science is,
> > fundamentally, sceptical, then, surely, that's a good thing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> about man-induced climate change:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo...
>

Check out a feisty discussion of this & other matters in the first
fifteen minutes of the Andrew Marr show. Plus watch Alan Duncan (and
Marr) squirm at some revealtions from the green room by Peter Oborne,
a feisty reporter back from Zimbabwe "We aren't supposed to say what's
said in the green room," moaned Marr (squirm, Marr, squirm!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Oborne

"He is regularly lampooned in the satirical magazine Private Eye as
Peter O'Bore." Nice try to get away from that image!

On Jun 22, 11:08 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:55 am, "Philip"  wrote:
>
> > "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
>
> >news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> > >about man-induced climate change:
>
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo...
>
> > "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> > silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> > chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> > drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> > Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> > as inconclusive?
>
> For scientists, yes, for most people all they need is the anecdotal
> evidence from their Aunt Agatha to find something completely
> conclusive, particularly if it is a useful thing to believe as well.
> 80% probability is, for them, as good as a certainty.
>
> There is some logic to this, of course. I tend not to arrange a picnic
> if the forecast suggests a 90% chance of rain. Not unless I have an
> indoor picnic option in reserve anyway.

Yes, if something incredibly bad has a 90% chance of happening
wouldn't you always try to avoid it? Would you play Russian roulette
with only one chamber empty?

On Jun 22, 12:31 pm, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:08 am, Peter Brooks  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 11:55 am, "Philip"  wrote:
>
> > > "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.> > > >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> > > >about man-induced climate change:
>
> > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo...
>
> > > "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> > > silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> > > chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> > > drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> > > Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> > > as inconclusive?
>
> > For scientists, yes, for most people all they need is the anecdotal
> > evidence from their Aunt Agatha to find something completely
> > conclusive, particularly if it is a useful thing to believe as well.
> > 80% probability is, for them, as good as a certainty.
>
> > There is some logic to this, of course. I tend not to arrange a picnic
> > if the forecast suggests a 90% chance of rain. Not unless I have an
> > indoor picnic option in reserve anyway.
>
> Yes, if something incredibly bad has a 90% chance of happening
> wouldn't you always try to avoid it? Would you play Russian roulette
> with only one chamber empty?
>
I'd be much more inclined to than with no empty chambers!

On Jun 22, 11:55 am, "Philip"  wrote:
> "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
>
> news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> >about man-induced climate change:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo...
>
> "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> as inconclusive?

Quote from Sir Ronald Fisher (1956):

"No scientific worker has a fixed level of significance at which from
year to year, and in all circumstances, he rejects hypotheses; he
rather gives his mind to each particular case in the light of his
evidence and his ideas."

On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, Lance  wrote:
> On Jun 22, 11:55 am, "Philip"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
>
> >news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> > >about man-induced climate change:
>
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo.> > "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> > silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> > chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> > drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> > Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> > as inconclusive?
>
> Quote from Sir Ronald Fisher (1956):
>
> "No scientific worker has a fixed level of significance at which from
> year to year, and in all circumstances, he rejects hypotheses; he
> rather gives his mind to each particular case in the light of his
> evidence and his ideas."
>
Well, yes, that makes sense, or would. but most studies go, as you
know, for an arbitrary figure for a confidence interval.

Fisher sounds more as if he is talking about a Bayesian view.

On Jun 22, 10:00 pm, Peter Brooks  wrote:
> On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, Lance  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 11:55 am, "Philip"  wrote:
>
> > > "Dave Smith"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:c889d641-2cfb-4691-9bca-055ef9969a17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com.> > > >It seems the British public are already fairly sceptical and cynical
> > > >about man-induced climate change:
>
> > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbo...
>
> > > "The results have shocked campaigners who hoped that doubts would have been
> > > silenced by a report last year by more than 2,500 scientists for the UN
> > > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which found a 90 per cent
> > > chance that humans were the main cause of climate change and warned that
> > > drastic action was needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions."
>
> > > Is it not usual to regard findings which show a less than 95 per cent chance
> > > as inconclusive?
>
> > Quote from Sir Ronald Fisher (1956):
>
> > "No scientific worker has a fixed level of significance at which from
> > year to year, and in all circumstances, he rejects hypotheses; he
> > rather gives his mind to each particular case in the light of his
> > evidence and his ideas."
>
> Well, yes, that makes sense, or would. but most studies go, as you
> know, for an arbitrary figure for a confidence interval.
>
> Fisher sounds more as if he is talking about a Bayesian view.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Oddly enough, the quote is from

Fisher, R A (1956). "Statistical methods and scientific inference."
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

Fisher was more of a Bayesian than is commonly recognised!

Lance