Ryanair - Something to make you laugh in these time of Global Recession

[Hereiam]

I think any person who believes that humans have any influence on the world weather would need to take a flight into space and look back at the earth an realise that we are only specks of dirt in the scheme of things.
Alot of people need to catch themselves on.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I think any person who believes that humans have any influence on the world weather would need to take a flight into space and look back at the earth an realise that we are only specks of dirt in the scheme of things.
Alot of people need to catch themselves on.

Congratulations, possibly the most ridiculous 'contribution' to the thread! 

Yes, the Earth is a speck in the wider cosmos. Your difficulty, though, is that you inhabit that speck, so if you feck that speck up, you're fecked too.

And there's no serious scientific commentator left who will deny the anthropogenic (man-made) nature of the climate shift at this current accelerated rate.

[thewobbler]

Please explain to me how exactly 'they' have managed to calculate PPM for 1760.

Then start me again with 'irrefutable' scientific facts.

Thanks in advance.

Oh dear, you really don't have a grip on this 'science thing', do you?

You've never heard of ice-cores then, such as the Vostok? Ice-cores hold an abundance of atmospheric data from many millenia ago right up to the present.

It takes a particular type of (wilful?) ignorance to question scientific data without even a smidgen of knowledge, fair dues for the brass neck.

Edit: Ice-cores are not the only historical record open to science:  others include ocean and lake sediments, geomorphic surface features, tree rings, coral, stalactites and stalagmites, etc.

I'm going to walk away now.

I always find it amusing when 'men of science' laugh at the fairy tales that 'men of faith' cling to, but these same people will not hear of any questioning of their scientific data, which almost always requires a leap of faith in its algorithm.

If you want to cling to some scientific 'evidence' derived from a handful of people's self-proclaimed expertise in ice cores, then go on ahead. But please do not insult me by demanding that I should follow suit.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

If you want to cling to some scientific 'evidence' derived from a handful of people's self-proclaimed expertise in ice cores, then go on ahead. But please do not insult me by demanding that I should follow suit.

More incredible ignorance. Really, you have zero knowledge about science (evidently) and all you can do is to decry (totally without foundation) those who have?

Pathetic, enjoy your dystopia.

[thewobbler]

No.

What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.

I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.

Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

No.

What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.

Who says they're immune? And what specific relevance do general human failings have to climate science in particular? They're universal afflictions, so no need to single that sphere out for especial treatment.

I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.

You have confused (on this thread) weather with climate, and you didn't even know what an ice-core was, yet you're happy in your blissful ignorance!

Climate science is more aware than most disciplines about the myriad complexities involved, and like all good science, is open to correction when proof emerges to contradict the theory. Where ice-cores are concerned, that's proof, and it takes a strange type of denial to be blind to that. Inferences can be deduced , with greater or lesser certainties, based on the evidence to hand, and at this point anthropogenic climate change is virtually beyond question, at least beyond serious question.

Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.

I beg to differ, alas. I've given you the science, that you have dismissed without a thought, and I'm the zealot! Let's discuss, though that would involve a rational analysis of the avaible scientific data, which I fear you'd have no inclination to do.

[Tony Baloney]

I think any person who believes that humans have any influence on the world weather would need to take a flight into space and look back at the earth an realise that we are only specks of dirt in the scheme of things.
Alot of people need to catch themselves on.

Congratulations, possibly the most ridiculous 'contribution' to the thread! 

Yes, the Earth is a speck in the wider cosmos. Your difficulty, though, is that you inhabit that speck, so if you feck that speck up, you're fecked too.

And there's no serious scientific commentator left who will deny the anthropogenic (man-made) nature of the climate shift at this current accelerated rate.

Are these the same as actual scientists or just people that comment on science (on GAA discussion boards for example)? If we could only separate all the scientists from their respective interest groups, "research sponsors" and the likes, then we might get somewhere.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Are these the same as actual scientists or just people that comment on science (on GAA discussion boards for example)? If we could only separate all the scientists from their respective interest groups, "research sponsors" and the likes, then we might get somewhere.

It would help immensely if those who were funded by corporate interests, for example, declared their affiliations. But even then, they diminish in number as the body of scientific evidence overwhelms. And no, casual contributors to a discussion board don't count, though that doesn't mean that significant (and serious) scientific sources can't be quoted by those same contributors.

[deiseach]

No.

What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.

I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.

Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.

I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat. How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.

[Shamrock Shore]

that water has memory

That's a new one on me!

[deiseach]

that water has memory

That's a new one on me!

Here's the theory.

Here's the reality.

[seafoid]

O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.

Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.

I'm sure JT McNamara has climate change on his mind.

I will retract that personal comment - no need on my part. Seafoid, as you will see below I called you an arsehole. 

JT McNamara was very unlucky but his is an isolated incident. Fair play to O Leary for the spons but of course he has to make a PR deal about it.
Climate change is going to change everything. Food production needs stable environmental conditions. Ryanair won't be able to feed anyone long term if the basis of agriculture is fucked. 
Already Australia and the US are getting weather that is way off the scale. Things are only going to get worse. 

[thewobbler]

No.

What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.

I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.

Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.

I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat. How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.

Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.

But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.

Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.

I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.

[seafoid]

No.

What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.

I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.

Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.

I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat. How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.

Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.

But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.

Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.

I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.

How do you interpret  the lowest level of summer sea ice in the Arctic since records began? Or temperatures of 40 degrees plus in Indiana last summer for over a month? Is it all just random? 
What would you need to believe that climate change is happening? 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.

I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.

Jeez, stop digging will you!

Scientists do not 'want to prove things' as an end in itself; they want to uncover the truth about phenomena, through proving things! And where climate change is concerned they're not looking for 'anything to cling to', that is just so wrong -- seriously, there's now so much evidence to render that assertion as simply ridiculous.

And to state that  'Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.' defies belief -- the evidence totally precludes this possibility that the climate is not already changing, radically. What do you want them to do about that, pretend that such evidence doesn't exist?