The Goose Chase

If it's not Warming it's Climate Change, if it's not Climate Change it's Methane

A Triune Deity of Beliefs bound together in the Mystery of apocalyptic disaster and planetary retribution

This is a usual conversation with genuinely concerned people

However if you don't agree you immediately get labeled as a "Denialist".

This of course is Religion not Science.

Christopher Smith

Bill / Steven,

I lecture research methods and grounded theory to my students so they can make independent conclusions from real data, not publicity and spin or even more appallingly "consensus science".

Here is an example that may surprise you, since we are on the conspiracy topic for a second or two, whist we are talking about heads in the sand and not seeing whats in front of you.

https://sites.google.com/site/nzchinatravels/climate-change

• Bill Watson
• @ Christopher, perhaps you should apply those research methods to your meanderings in the political sphere. Re your apparent climate change denial, the article from that ?questionable website is a classic example of flawed research methodology to suit the political agenda of those who would profit from continued wholesale exploitation of resources.
• Christopher Smith
• The Nasa satellite data collection site is flawed ? OK, I'll run with that. Maybe we should just revise the temperatures up to agree with the failed models and then that won't be failed models. Easy fix.
• Bill Watson
• You can collect all the data you want, its how you analyse it and the conclusions drawn from that analysis. As for revising temperatures up, that's not the point: its commonly referred to as climate change, not "global warming": temperatures have dropped dramatically in some parts of the world, and we can expect more extremes of both. And the "easy fix" is bureaucracy 101, "authorities" are not above fudging the numbers to quell fears while threatening safety, e.g.
• http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-approves-raising-permissible-levels-of-nuclear-radiation-in-drinking-water-civilian-cancer-deaths-expected-to-skyrocket/5331224
• Christopher Smith
• Bill
• http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-JChristy-20131211.pdf
• What you are offering is a "non falsifiable hypothesis". It is the last gasp straw for the C02 correlation, not causation argument. If you have a look at Christy's objective comments even though this link is form a republican site I don't believe he is, its just a convenient way to find the documents.
• and
• http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/05/cultural-cognition-and-scientific-consensus/
• looking at Mary Douglas's work about cultural cognition pretty much sums up for me why people take a position rather than relying on the raw data. Its a great teaching opportunity to allow students to challenge the programming they have received over the years from the media, governments, pressure groups etc and starts them off on their own voyage of analysis and scrutiny to develop their own informed decisions, rather than blithely accepting consensii that are mostly fictitious.
• 1 day ago
• Like(0)Delete
• Bill Watson
• Christopher, who needs CO2 when you have methane? It doesn't matter how many cow farts = 1 sq.km of melting permafrost, it's a recipe for disaster and science does not know how to stop it. It no longer matters why it melted, either; it's gone. Methane's bubbling out of vast areas of the arctic with the warming temperatures, 32x more potent and dangerous than CO2.
• 1 day ago
• Like(0)Reply privatelyReport spam
• Christopher Smith
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
• The Global methane levels are actually reducing now, as per the graphs from the wiki, please note the global change graph, in the middle of this warming hiatus and this supposed warming supposedly releasing methane, and scientists freely admit that no one actually knows why.
• It's the not knowing why that is behind the fresh eyes view of most climate scientists that its pointless to make any policy decisions in this area because we simply don't know why this is. It does not appear to be Anthropologically related is the real point. And its not a danger to anyone at these levels.
• Fully 1/2 of NZ's supposed emissions are from animal farts ( methane) and its at this point I have my classes in stitches of laughter explaining how a bunch of politicians are trying to legislate Methane away by fart mitigation, fart capping and fart trading, with no scientific understanding to base any actions over. I usually make the linkage of old fart and Al Gore at this point.
• 1 day ago
• Like(0)Delete
• Bill Watson
• "“An expert respects ‘facts’ and considers them something to be adjusted to, perhaps to be manipulated, but not to be transcended…. In the decades ahead, the West will have to lift its sights to encompass a more embracing concept of reality…. There are two kinds of realists: those who manipulate facts and those who create them. The West requires nothing so much as men able to create their own reality.”
• -Henry Kissinger
• 1 day ago
• Unlike(1)Reply privatelyReport spam
• Christopher Smith
• Michael Crichton
• Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
• There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
• 23 hours ago