John Gormley on Frontline

paulredmon6

John Gormley has been exposed for his babbling incompetence once again on Frontline. His indecision and smirking, patronising tone is absolutely infuriating. In one breath Mr. Gormley tried to curry favour and take credit by saying that two years ago "I predicted these flood threats". In the same breath he's defending the government's lack of action by claiming the floods were unprecedented.

The best was his reply to why there aren't more army personnel filling sandbags.........He claims that in a lot of cases sandbags may not work. So basically, he is saying that the sandbags might not always work, so why bother even trying. A true representative of this blatantly incompetent government. Well done Gormley

mike65

Lame post, to be honest.

dvpower

mike65 wrote: »

Lame post, to be honest.

Newbie poster incompetence.

nesf

Post edited back to original. Do not edit your posts to remove all content after there has been any reply to your post. Own your words. Don't just delete stuff because you didn't get the react you expected.

nesf

paulredmon6 wrote: »

John Gormley has been exposed for his babbling incompetence once again on Frontline. His indecision and smirking, patronising tone is absolutely infuriating. In one breath Mr. Gormley tried to curry favour and take credit by saying that two years ago "I predicted these flood threats". In the same breath he's defending the government's lack of action by claiming the floods were unprecedented.

He didn't, he said he predicted more floods, not this one. There's an enormous difference between these two things. Sandbags don't work if you're dealing with massive influxes of flood water. If there's 3-4 feet of water in an area you're not going to be able to hold it back with sand bags if water rises at anything more than a snail's pace, and this assumes the water isn't flowing anywhere in particular. The water needs to go somewhere, if it's flowing in a particular direction stopping it going that way is going to be near to impossible with the kind of measures you can put together in a few hours.

Blame Government, primarily FF, for not investing money in flood defences years ago there's feck all that they can do to stop a river flooding if these defences aren't in place. Look at Mallow in Cork, the flood defences were finished recently and the place escaped any major problems unlike other towns around the country. You combat river flooding by ensuring the river floods where people don't live. You can't actually stop it from flooding; at best we can try to guide it into areas where it'll do the least amount of damage (and with flood defences comes the problem of taking urban flooding and making it a rural problem, though honestly after seeing what happened in Cork I'm sympathetic to the idea of flooding agricultural land over urban areas).

AlekSmart

Are`nt the Dutch SO lucky we never invaded.......?

diverdriver

RE the Dutch: There was a saying 'If the Dutch lived in Ireland, it would be one the richest and most productive in the world. If the Irish lived in Holland, it would be under water.'

Well it's true it seems.

As for the original, well Gormley is a babbling idiot, an amateur politician out of his depth, no pun intended. Naturally he blames the floods on 'Global warming' because that's his agenda. But the actual floods were caused by heavy rainfall from a particularly slow moving front. Simple as that. The real cause though, as was expressed by many was the incoherant multi agency approach to flood prevention. Many of locals when asked pointed out they had been pushing for more work at better drainage, simple things like cleaning out ditches etc. None of it's rocket science. I know an area that last year that had a bit of flooding. The local council spent to summer digging out the ditches and drains in the area. Guess what? Minimal or no flooding.

Gormless is constantly being found out now that he's faced with real world politics instead of airy fairy urban based environmentalism.

Dannyboy83

The bit I don't understand is, if its not related to global warming, why are we experiencing this weather?

They had massive floods in Saudi Arabia too that killed 77 people last Monday.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/29/saudi-flooding.html

On BBC World service this morning, they said that they had discovered loads more ice than expected had melted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm

I don't get it.
How are weather and climate not linked?

Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The bit I don't understand is, if its not related to global warming, why are we experiencing this weather?

They had massive floods in Saudi Arabia too that killed 77 people last Monday.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/29/saudi-flooding.html

On BBC World service this morning, they said that they had discovered loads more ice than expected had melted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm

I don't get it.
How are weather and climate not linked?

They are - climate change in Ireland will mean an increased frequency of heavy rainfall events. However, our government's historical failure to do much about flooding, and our councillors' enthusiasm for rezoning flood-prone areas, are unrelated to climate change - and some people are quite rightly annoyed at any attempt to make climate change carry the burden of blame for the latter points.

Other people simply hate John Gormley, and/or believe that climate change isn't real.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dannyboy83

Gotcha now, thanks.

I suppose I haven't been paying any attention to what they've been saying, I'm starting to not bother even listen anymore.

But if that is the case, I guess you can compare the way the government are saying this catastrophe is a result of global warming rather than infantile planning; to the way in which the government say our economic implosion was entirely created by global forces, and nothing to do with a home grown economic catastrophe.

Victor

Gormley has increased flood protection funding which FF had previously but.

Clearing out drains and ditches is useful, but you have to be careful that you don't end up flooding areas downstream.

irish_bob

i thought john gormley done ok last night considering the amount of ( understandable ) anger from the audience he had to contend with

nesf

irish_bob wrote: »

i thought john gormley done ok last night considering the amount of ( understandable ) anger from the audience he had to contend with

He's about the only person the Government could send who wouldn't be lynched tbh.

meathstevie

paulredmon6 wrote: »

John Gormley has been exposed for his babbling incompetence once again on Frontline. His indecision and smirking, patronising tone is absolutely infuriating. In one breath Mr. Gormley tried to curry favour and take credit by saying that two years ago "I predicted these flood threats". In the same breath he's defending the government's lack of action by claiming the floods were unprecedented.

The best was his reply to why there aren't more army personnel filling sandbags.........He claims that in a lot of cases sandbags may not work. So basically, he is saying that the sandbags might not always work, so why bother even trying. A true representative of this blatantly incompetent government. Well done Gormley

If his statement about sandbags is true than he is indeed incompetent. The Dutch and Belgians have managed numerous times to plug gaps in dykes along rivers like the Schelde, the Meuse and the Rhine. And as far as I know those little streams can be fairly powerful and plugging gaps in dykes is just a touch more difficult to do than using a mass of sandbags to protect dwellings and commercial buildings from water ingression. What the government, local and national, didn't do was putting sufficient manpower and resources to work preventing damage. The weather forecasts were there days before the heavy rain after weeks of steady rain. Same with the water having been released from dams and weirs. the people in charge know what these things can handle. Same in that case, the forecasts were there. Precautions could have been taken downstream.

nesf

meathstevie wrote: »

If his statement about sandbags is true than he is indeed incompetent. The Dutch and Belgians have managed numerous times to plug gaps in dykes along rivers like the Schelde, the Meuse and the Rhine. And as far as I know those little streams can be fairly powerful and plugging gaps in dykes is just a touch more difficult to do than using a mass of sandbags to protect dwellings and commercial buildings from water ingression. What the government, local and national, didn't do was putting sufficient manpower and resources to work preventing damage. The weather forecasts were there days before the heavy rain after weeks of steady rain. Same with the water having been released from dams and weirs. the people in charge know what these things can handle. Same in that case, the forecasts were there. Precautions could have been taken downstream.

Eh, since Belgium and Holland have so many dykes one would imagine that they've a lot of highly trained people with ready-to-go equipment and supplies to fix any potential dyke breach. Comparing them to Ireland where the last flooding even close to the same scale in Cork was 23 years ago (and the volumes of water involved were much smaller that time) is a bit silly.

Scofflaw

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Gotcha now, thanks.

I suppose I haven't been paying any attention to what they've been saying, I'm starting to not bother even listen anymore.

But if that is the case, I guess you can compare the way the government are saying this catastrophe is a result of global warming rather than infantile planning; to the way in which the government say our economic implosion was entirely created by global forces, and nothing to do with a home grown economic catastrophe.

Pretty similar. It's not really accepted behaviour for a Minister to say "this is the result of the total incompetence of Fianna Fáil" when they're in government with Fianna Fáil - no matter how true it is.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kiniska

nesf wrote: »

Eh, since Belgium and Holland have so many dykes one would imagine that they've a lot of highly trained people with ready-to-go equipment and supplies to fix any potential dyke breach. Comparing them to Ireland where the last flooding even close to the same scale in Cork was 23 years ago (and the volumes of water involved were much smaller that time) is a bit silly.

That's true, but it's not a question of not having the experts here, but why we didn't seek out these experts, surely the government could have brought some of these experts over here ASAP, after all Holland isn't too far away. There were a lot of different things the government could have done, some major and some minor, but they chose to do the bare minimum and in many cases not even that!

starbelgrade

Gormly didn't do half as well as Enda Kenny did on "The Restaurant" this evening.

The_Minister

starbelgrade wrote: »

Gormly didn't do half as well as Enda Kenny did on "The Restaurant" this evening.

Did you see him on the Week in Politics?:rolleyes:
He didn't even know whose resignation he had called for.

starbelgrade

The_Minister wrote: »

Did you see him on the Week in Politics?:rolleyes:
He didn't even know whose resignation he had called for.

It was obviously an issue that he felt really strongly about.

diverdriver

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

The bit I don't understand is, if its not related to global warming, why are we experiencing this weather?

They had massive floods in Saudi Arabia too that killed 77 people last Monday.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/29/saudi-flooding.html

On BBC World service this morning, they said that they had discovered loads more ice than expected had melted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387137.stm

I don't get it.
How are weather and climate not linked?

I hate John Gormley as a politician and I do believe in climate change but not in man mad climate change, just to modify Scofflaw's oblique reference to my post.

These floods have nothing to do with climate change, they're weather related. Just like a hot summer or a cold winter are not caused by humans. There was a specific and almost unique set of circumstances that caused exceptionally heavy rainfall which led to flooding which in part was man made due to poor planning and poor maintenance of drainage.

Whether or not you believe in man made climate change, the real effects have not hit us yet. So it's completely inappropriate to suggest these floods are a result of climate change.

You also need to develop a certain skepticism to scary stories told by environmentalist and politicians on the whole global warming issue.

Scofflaw

diverdriver wrote: »

I hate John Gormley as a politician and I do believe in climate change but not in man mad climate change, just to modify Scofflaw's oblique reference to my post.

These floods have nothing to do with climate change, they're weather related. Just like a hot summer or a cold winter are not caused by humans. There was a specific and almost unique set of circumstances that caused exceptionally heavy rainfall which led to flooding which in part was man made due to poor planning and poor maintenance of drainage.

There seems to be a lot of confusion over weather versus climate. It's certainly true that you can't say that these floods - or any other such event - are the result of climate change, because, as you point out, they're a weather event.

However, the weather we get is the result of our climate - if our climate changes, we can therefore expect a change in our weather. In this case, what is being suggested is that the time between heavy rainfall events like those that caused the floods has shortened - in other words, that our climate has changed, leading to an increased risk or incidence of flood-causing rainfall events. That is a supportable position, because we are seeing a lot more flood events, and the chances of it being purely random are very slight.

So, yes they're weather related, but they're not nothing to do with climate change. In the absence of climate change, we would, statistically, have had a longer period between such floods, which would have made government inaction slightly more excusable - however, the government predicated its inaction on historical flood risks, and got caught out.

diverdriver wrote: »

Whether or not you believe in man made climate change, the real effects have not hit us yet. So it's completely inappropriate to suggest these floods are a result of climate change.

Not really - the effects of global warming are already evident in multiple examples of climate change. Increased winter flood events is one of the main predictions for the effects of global warming in Ireland.

The idea that we wouldn't really see any effects from global warming until some time in the next few decades relied on the original IPCC predictions for 'business as usual' scenarios - we're well outside that box, I'm afraid.

diverdriver wrote: »

You also need to develop a certain skepticism to scary stories told by environmentalist and politicians on the whole global warming issue.

And to people who play them down rather than have to do anything or to suffer any dent in their profits.

cordially,
Scofflaw

diverdriver

Not really - the effects of global warming are already evident in multiple examples of climate change. Increased winter flood events is one of the main predictions for the effects of global warming in Ireland.

We can agree to disagree as this isn't the forum for green issues. Like I said I'm a skeptic with no agenda about man made climate change. No problem with real nature driven climate change. But again this rain was a freak event. In general in the west of Ireland, it falls and passes through petering out before it ever gets to Dublin. This particular front lingered and lingered. As such it's not related to the climate change scare but if you like it could be an example of future events.

But I remain an agnostic for man made climate change. Wasting millions on trying to remove carbon is the most quixotic thing the greens do. What we really need is preparation for increased rainfall howsoever caused. This is the real reason for the flooding.

meathstevie

nesf wrote: »

Eh, since Belgium and Holland have so many dykes one would imagine that they've a lot of highly trained people with ready-to-go equipment and supplies to fix any potential dyke breach. Comparing them to Ireland where the last flooding even close to the same scale in Cork was 23 years ago (and the volumes of water involved were much smaller that time) is a bit silly.

They do alright, the equipment are hessian and nylon bags in all shapes and sizes, sand, shovels, diggers, lorries, pallets, forklifts, lighting equipment, and timely called up firebrigade, civil defence and soldiers in sufficient numbers. The magical knowledge of floodforecasting comes from government engineers and the met office. Not a single resource Ireland doesn't have. When there's a serious flood alert don't be surprised that a couple of thousand soldiers including relatively high ranking officers are put on bag shovelling duties and the army puts dozens of lorries and jeeps on the road delivering sandbags to known flood areas. Stuff like local football club halls, schoolyards etc are turned into ad hoc emergency equipment distribution centers and if the army or the civil defence doesn't set up kitchens etc for some reason to keep the operation going round the clock you'll see locals pitching in to feed the firebrigade and the troops etc. In Belgium coordination of that sort of efforts is in the hands of a "command group" consisting of the provincial governor, mayors of the affected towns, provincial military command, senior fire officers and the federal police depending on the nature and scale of the issue. They report directly to the minister for home affairs.

Scofflaw

diverdriver wrote: »

We can agree to disagree as this isn't the forum for green issues. Like I said I'm a skeptic with no agenda about man made climate change. No problem with real nature driven climate change. But again this rain was a freak event. In general in the west of Ireland, it falls and passes through petering out before it ever gets to Dublin. This particular front lingered and lingered. As such it's not related to the climate change scare but if you like it could be an example of future events.

But I remain an agnostic for man made climate change. Wasting millions on trying to remove carbon is the most quixotic thing the greens do. What we really need is preparation for increased rainfall howsoever caused. This is the real reason for the flooding.

Well, there wouldn't be any point in preparing for increased rainfall in the absence of climate change - rainfall would continue to observe historical norms, and we wouldn't expect similar floods for another century or more. If we take the predicted outcome of anthropogenic climate change for Ireland, on the other hand, we can expect this sort of rainfall to become a good deal more frequent - so it's not something we can really be agnostic about, since climate change of unknown origin leaves us with no particular predictions.

cordially,
Scofflaw

book smarts

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really - the effects of global warming are already evident in multiple examples of climate change. Increased winter flood events is one of the main predictions for the effects of global warming in Ireland.

The idea that we wouldn't really see any effects from global warming until some time in the next few decades relied on the original IPCC predictions for 'business as usual' scenarios - we're well outside that box, I'm afraid.

Please back these statements up with references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Scofflaw

book smarts wrote: »

Please back these statements up with references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

If you'll provide alternative hypotheses from the peer-reviewed scientific literature likewise. After all, and I hate to mention it, but I'm working with the accepted scientific view here, whatever patches of the Internet may think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Darsad

Too Hot = Global warming
Too Cold = Global warming
Too Much rain = Global warming
No rain = Global warming

looks to me like the greens have all the bases covered !
If Gormless and his ilk really cared about the planet thay would
be on a plane or in their case a slow boat to China or India where there is real environemental issue and not ruining a small economy like ours.

edanto

Gormley didn't do a great job in fairness - he put across an odd tone, a bit smug or something. I would have expected him to be a lot more considerate and aware of people's pressing concerns. Maybe it was his first time in that situation, I'd give him a bit of latitude.

He's my local TD, has been for a while and we know a bit about flooding here in Ringsend. The council has made sure that the flood defences are up to the job since 7 years ago when the Dodder burst its banks.

Maybe Gormley looked a bit smug (I don't think it's a good look!) because for years him and the Greens have been saying that we need to prepare for adverse weather and this is one of the first times that we've seen it widely in Ireland. He's been against the crazy type of development that we've had in Ireland, the type of development that enriches people that are connected, and the type of development that his new regulations will hopefully protect us from in the future.

I voted from him last time, and I'd vote for him again.

Scofflaw

edanto wrote: »

Gormley didn't do a great job in fairness - he put across an odd tone, a bit smug or something. I would have expected him to be a lot more considerate and aware of people's pressing concerns. Maybe it was his first time in that situation, I'd give him a bit of latitude.

He's my local TD, has been for a while and we know a bit about flooding here in Ringsend. The council has made sure that the flood defences are up to the job since 7 years ago when the Dodder burst its banks.

Maybe Gormley looked a bit smug (I don't think it's a good look!) because for years him and the Greens have been saying that we need to prepare for adverse weather and this is one of the first times that we've seen it widely in Ireland. He's been against the crazy type of development that we've had in Ireland, the type of development that enriches people that are connected, and the type of development that his new regulations will hopefully protect us from in the future.

I voted from him last time, and I'd vote for him again.

Same and same here. He does come across as somewhat smug, or disinterested, even in person - but in a sense that's what I expect of a Green TD. I'm not looking for another baby-kisser or good-time Charlie, I'm looking for someone whose main interest and focus is the policy issues. People like that don't always come across as well as a "people person" does, but the Dáil is well stocked with "people people" for all the good that that does.

I blame television, myself. It leads the electorate to focus more on how someone "comes across" rather than their policy output.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

meathstevie wrote: »

They do alright, the equipment are hessian and nylon bags in all shapes and sizes, sand, shovels, diggers, lorries, pallets, forklifts, lighting equipment, and timely called up firebrigade, civil defence and soldiers in sufficient numbers. The magical knowledge of floodforecasting comes from government engineers and the met office. Not a single resource Ireland doesn't have. When there's a serious flood alert don't be surprised that a couple of thousand soldiers including relatively high ranking officers are put on bag shovelling duties and the army puts dozens of lorries and jeeps on the road delivering sandbags to known flood areas. Stuff like local football club halls, schoolyards etc are turned into ad hoc emergency equipment distribution centers and if the army or the civil defence doesn't set up kitchens etc for some reason to keep the operation going round the clock you'll see locals pitching in to feed the firebrigade and the troops etc. In Belgium coordination of that sort of efforts is in the hands of a "command group" consisting of the provincial governor, mayors of the affected towns, provincial military command, senior fire officers and the federal police depending on the nature and scale of the issue. They report directly to the minister for home affairs.

Just having the materials doesn't mean a bridge can me made if you get me.

book smarts

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you'll provide alternative hypotheses from the peer-reviewed scientific literature likewise. After all, and I hate to mention it, but I'm working with the accepted scientific view here, whatever patches of the Internet may think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

nesf

book smarts wrote: »

I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

This isn't a scientific forum, all you need to back up your statements are links to a source, scientific citations are not necessary.

Plus, saying back up your statement with citations and adding nothing else to a thread is not acceptable! Say why they need to provide citations, why you think they are wrong etc.

force eleven

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you'll provide alternative hypotheses from the peer-reviewed scientific literature likewise. After all, and I hate to mention it, but I'm working with the accepted scientific view here, whatever patches of the Internet may think.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The 'accepted' scientific view is being increasingly challenged, and rightly so. I assume that when we have a severe cold spell this winter, which I predict will happen, you will put this down to 'climate change also?

Anyway, back on topic, I do find Gormley condescending and arrogant, but to his credit, he does put himself up on the parapet to answer questions unlike many inside the coalition.

Tipp Man

lads yer so 90's with yer global warming, it's called climate change now don't you know:)

I have to say, as somebody not affected by floods thank god, that I thought gormely came across very smug, and often had a smug grin on his face and while you don't need to be a people person a smug look is never good when peoples lives are destroyed

Since the dawn of time the earths climate has continually changed, who would believe that the Thames in London was frozen solid for weeks on end in the 1700 and 1800's, can you imagine if that happened this winter, the green movement would have a field day.

And if man was destroyed completly in the morning it would still continue to change for the next billion years, climate isn't a fixed thing that we have somehow thrown of balance in the last 50 years

having said that we need to respect nature and cherish it, renewable energy is just a good idea, no need to creates fuss about carbon ommissions, just start using more renewable energy, same with recycling do it if it makes sense but don't go shipping it to china and claim we're being environmentally friendly by doing it

too much green policy is fear driven, that suits the politicans to keep the masses in fear, respect nature but don't go ott on climate change

MysticalRain

book smarts wrote: »

I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

Nobel expert: Global warming causing Irish floods, climate change
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Nobel-expert-Global-warming-causing-Irish-floods-climate-change-76693582.html

Ireland's massive flooding has almost certainly been the result of climate change, says Nobel Prize-winner and Ireland's leading climatologist, Prof. John Sweeney.

Tipp Man

MysticalRain wrote: »

Nobel expert: Global warming causing Irish floods, climate change
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Nobel-expert-Global-warming-causing-Irish-floods-climate-change-76693582.html

Ireland's massive flooding has almost certainly been the result of climate change, says Nobel Prize-winner and Ireland's leading climatologist, Prof. John Sweeney.

science can prove anything it wants to for either side, it's allguess work, admitedly very smart guess work, but they can be very wrong sometimes

I saw a brilliant programme on rte recently about chernobel and how scientist said it would be a dead zone for hundreds of years, turns out that there is a thriving Eco system there and despite the animals and plants having huge radiation level they are surviving very well. mutants which scientist thought would be the norm are very rare and they have all been killed off by natural selection

so nature can and does rapidly adapt so let's not think that all scientists are right about climate change

by the way that cherynobel programme was fascinating, if your into that kinda thing then well worth a look

Scofflaw

book smarts wrote: »

I'm still waiting for your references. Provide them please or retract your statements.

Well, I can give you a direct one for the claim that there'll be increased 'extreme precipitation events':

The climate in Ireland is expected to change considerably as a result of the above global changes. Projected impacts include hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters, and with possible increases in the frequency of extreme precipitation events.

Source: OPW - Predicted Effects of Climate Change

The 'accepted' scientific view is being increasingly challenged, and rightly so. I assume that when we have a severe cold spell this winter, which I predict will happen, you will put this down to 'climate change also?

No, it'll be irrelevant - and I'm expecting it myself, I have to say. Please don't claim that 'global warming' should mean every season warmer than the last, everywhere on the planet.

science can prove anything it wants to for either side, it's allguess work, admitedly very smart guess work, but they can be very wrong sometimes

Um, no, really it isn't. It's pretty much the opposite of "guess work", and it's very sad that that's what you think the entire technological foundation of modern civilisation is based on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MysticalRain

Tipp Man wrote: »

science can prove anything it wants to for either side, it's allguess work, admitedly very smart guess work, but they can be very wrong sometimes

I saw a brilliant programme on rte recently about chernobel and how scientist said it would be a dead zone for hundreds of years, turns out that there is a thriving Eco system there and despite the animals and plants having huge radiation level they are surviving very well. mutants which scientist thought would be the norm are very rare and they have all been killed off by natural selection

so nature can and does rapidly adapt so let's not think that all scientists are right about climate change

by the way that cherynobel programme was fascinating, if your into that kinda thing then well worth a look

I've already seen that Chernobyl documentary. I think you're confusing science with politics. Science is much more exacting than that. If that were the case, scientists wouldn't have split the atom in the first place. Basically Chernobyl was the first and only test case for what happens when a wide geographical area is subjected to nuclear fallout. There was no existing precedent and scientists hadn't come across anything like it before in the history of science. Hence the disagreement. Climate science, by contrast, has a lot more test cases and it is becoming apparent that the scientific prediction models are actually correct given what's happening in the world around us. If there is any margin for error, it is that scientists have been too conservative about their climate predictions.

Tipp Man

MysticalRain wrote: »

I've already seen that Chernobyl documentary. I think you're confusing science with politics. Science is much more exacting than that. If that were the case, scientists wouldn't have split the atom in the first place. Basically Chernobyl was the first and only test case for what happens when a wide geographical area is subjected to nuclear fallout. There was no existing precedent and scientists hadn't come across anything like it before in the history of science. Hence the disagreement. Climate science, by contrast, has a lot more test cases and it is becoming apparent that the scientific prediction models are actually correct given what's happening in the world around us. If there is any margin for error, it is that scientists have been too conservative about their climate predictions.

True no precedent for Chernobyl and they were only guessing, however what precedent is there for having 6.5 billion polluting people on the planet?? and that amount rising rapidly. They are still only using best estimates. And haven't world tempatures fallen every year since 98??

We had miny ice ages only what 600 years ago, my point is that the climate is always changing, how do we know that we are having any effect on those changes??

Tipp Man

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, no, really it isn't. It's pretty much the opposite of "guess work", and it's very sad that that's what you think the entire technological foundation of modern civilisation is based on.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sorry perharps guess work is too harsh but I gave the Chernobyl example as proof that science can sometimes be very wrong, just like Chernobyl there is no precedent for having 6.5 billion people polluting this planet

so without a precedent they can build all the fancy models they like but it is still only their best estimates when trying to predict what will happen to our climate over the next 50 100 or 1000 years. True they can give facts about the weather in the past but anything to do with predicting future climate change is only estimates

it would also be very foolish to undeestimate natures own power for regeneration and growth

MysticalRain

Tipp Man wrote: »

True no precedent for Chernobyl and they were only guessing, however what precedent is there for having 6.5 billion polluting people on the planet?? and that amount rising rapidly. They are still only using best estimates. And haven't world tempatures fallen every year since 98??

The precedent for 6.5 billion people polluting the planet would be what was happening when 6 billion people were polluting the planet or when 5 or 4 billion were polluting it. What the scientists are doing is scaling up their prediction models based on past events. The easy way to tell whether or not they are getting things right is when you see the polar ice caps and glaciers melting exactly as they predicted.

No, world temperatures have not fallen every year since 1998. That is one of the most transparently false arguments trotted out by climate change deniers. The only reason 1998 is singled out is because that was a particularly warm year, with subsequent years being less warm. But the basic trend is that the temperatures are continuing upward.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=3
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

We had miny ice ages only what 600 years ago, my point is that the climate is always changing, how do we know that we are having any effect on those changes??

That's more BS
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html

Tipp Man

MysticalRain wrote: »

The precedent for 6.5 billion people polluting the planet would be what was happening when 6 billion people were polluting the planet or when 5 or 4 billion were polluting it. What the scientists are doing is scaling up their prediction models based on past events. The easy way to tell whether or not they are getting things right is when you see the polar ice caps and glaciers melting exactly as they predicted.england.html

sorry you cannot extrapolate the population from 4 bn to 6.5 bn and use that for climate change effect because the worlds population has risen so rapidly. In 1800 there was less than 1 bn people on the planet, in 1000 ad there was only 400 million, so population has increased 6.5 fold in 200 years which when talking about the climate is a drop in the ocean of time

MysticalRain

Tipp Man wrote: »

MysticalRain wrote: »

The precedent for 6.5 billion people polluting the planet would be what was happening when 6 billion people were polluting the planet or when 5 or 4 billion were polluting it. What the scientists are doing is scaling up their prediction models based on past events. The easy way to tell whether or not they are getting things right is when you see the polar ice caps and glaciers melting exactly as they predicted.england.html

sorry you cannot extrapolate the population from 4 bn to 6.5 bn and use that for climate change effect because the worlds population has risen so rapidly. In 1800 there was less than 1 bn people on the planet, in 1000 ad there was only 400 million, so population has increased 6.5 fold in 200 years which when talking about the climate is a drop in the ocean of time

Why not? Extrapolation and scale models are used in plenty of other areas of science besides climatology.