Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[voyds9]

You are mistaken that is just strong dark sunshine

[Jasandjules]

voyds9 said:

You are mistaken that is just unprecedented strong dark sunshine

EFA.....

If it continues it may also become record breaking

[turbobloke]

Only at the tipping point where everything in Oakey's garden tips over into invisibility due to the strong dark sunshine.

[Oakey]

In fairness there's a bit of sunshine now, in between the black clouds, not what I'd have called a 'bright start' however. It's certainly no heatwave that we were supposed to be having, or is that next week?

[turbobloke]

Oakey said:

In fairness there's a bit of sunshine now, in between the black clouds, not what I'd have called a 'bright start' however. It's certainly no heatwave that we were supposed to be having, or is that next week?

[faith] "That's no heatwave that'll be global wombling" [/faith]

[LongQ]

Oakey said:

In fairness there's a bit of sunshine now, in between the black clouds, not what I'd have called a 'bright start' however. It's certainly no heatwave that we were supposed to be having, or is that next week?

At the moment my Accuweather App tells me that this week is to be not terribly warm but wet. Rain scheduled for 12 minutes from now.

The Heatwave is next Monday and perhaps part of Tuesday before the rain arrives.

There are times when the App is so far off the mark one wonders whether the location tracking facility on the phone has slipped into a parallel universe but more frequently it is pretty accurate at the current time and sometimes spot on the minute about the arrival of rain or increasing wind speed.

The, the Heatwave is next Monday. Although as I recall there is no way a short period of warm weather mildly hotter than the "norm" fits the definition of a heat WAVE. Perhaps the definition needs some adjustment.

[Jacobyte]

This is rather an interesting article on "intellectual orthodoxy" and climate change. Nothing really new, but it's not often you see the media highlighting the unscientific approach that is driving the sanctimonious authoritarianism to which we've become accustomed:

http://capx.co/intellectual-orthodoxy-is-a-bigger-...

[turbobloke]

Thanks for the link.

Intellectual orthodoxy and groupthink, spawning peer review abuse and data 'adjustments' - these are all implicated in the scandalous and diversionary waste of time and money aka non-existent AGW.

[durbster]

Jacobyte said:

This is rather an interesting article on "intellectual orthodoxy" and climate change. Nothing really new, but it's not often you see the media highlighting the unscientific approach that is driving the sanctimonious authoritarianism to which we've become accustomed:

http://capx.co/intellectual-orthodoxy-is-a-bigger-...

I agree with the author's basic point - the new trend for denying free speech in Universities is a problem - but attempting to link that to climate change is misjudged.

The Einstein example that's often put forward fails on one basic point: Einstein could prove his theories scientifically. The case against AGW has not.

If Einstein had made his career by writing blogs instead of testing his theories, the author of that article might have a point.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Jacobyte said:

This is rather an interesting article on "intellectual orthodoxy" and climate change. Nothing really new, but it's not often you see the media highlighting the unscientific approach that is driving the sanctimonious authoritarianism to which we've become accustomed:

http://capx.co/intellectual-orthodoxy-is-a-bigger-...

I agree with the author's basic point - the new trend for denying free speech in Universities is a problem - but attempting to link that to climate change is misjudged.

The Einstein example that's often put forward fails on one basic point: Einstein could prove his theories scientifically. The case against AGW has not.

If Einstein had made his career by writing blogs instead of testing his theories, the author of that article might have a point.

The case FOR AGW hasn't been prooved yet either. Back to square one !!

[Jacobyte]

durbster said:

Einstein could prove his theories scientifically.

Not in the specific case mentioned in the article: the General Theory of Relativity is unproven. Yet those scientists finding conflicting data are not called dissenters. That's because they are fortunate that their scientific integrity doesn't rely on a politically propagated myth.

[robinessex]

And the above promptly followed by more CC & AGW bks

Decline of fishing in Lake Tanganyika 'due to warming'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3700...

"New research blames rising temperatures over the last century as the key cause of decline in one of the world's most important fisheries.

Lake Tanganyika is Africa's oldest lake and its fish are a critical part of the diet of neighbouring countries.

But catches have declined markedly in recent decades as commercial fleets have expanded.

However this new study says that climate warming and not overfishing is the real cause of the problem."

Funny, not once in the story was the ACTUAL MEASSURED TEMP CHANGE in the lake reported!!

[El Guapo]

durbster said:

Einstein could prove his theories scientifically. The case against AGW has not.

The General Theory of Relativity has not been proven, hence the keyword "theory".
The Theory (more a hypothesis, actually) of Anthropogenic Global Warming has, similarly, not been proven.
Ohm's Law - proven.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics - proven.

Which bit do you not get?

[durbster]

Jacobyte said:

durbster said:

Einstein could prove his theories scientifically.

Not in the specific case mentioned in the article: the General Theory of Relativity is unproven. Yet those scientists finding conflicting data are not called dissenters. That's because they are fortunate that their scientific integrity doesn't rely on a politically propagated myth.

Which sceptical scientist do you think is an equivalent to Einstein in this situation?

And what is the opposing theory they're putting forward that challenges the mainstream scientific understanding?

[Einion Yrth]

durbster said:

The case against AGW has not {been proven}.

The burden if proof lies on those making a positive claim, in this case that after four and a half billion years of constant, unceasing, natural climate change, suddenly that has all changed and mankind is controlling the system. In the absence of this proof, and it certainly seems absent to me, then the null hypothesis obtains, and that is that all is pretty much exactly as it always has been; climate changes, naturally.

[Jacobyte]

durbster said:

Jacobyte said:

durbster said:

Einstein could prove his theories scientifically.

Not in the specific case mentioned in the article: the General Theory of Relativity is unproven. Yet those scientists finding conflicting data are not called dissenters. That's because they are fortunate that their scientific integrity doesn't rely on a politically propagated myth.

Which sceptical scientist do you think is an equivalent to Einstein in this situation?

And what is the opposing theory they're putting forward that challenges the mainstream scientific understanding?

The term "sceptical scientist" only refers to those that go against the grain of a belief. Science isn't about belief.

All scientists should be sceptical by their very nature, so the "sceptical" adjective only serves to sensationalise an opposing voice - exactly reflecting the article that I linked to at the top of this page.

In terms of testing Einstein, scientists are doing a great job - just look at how quantum theory differs. It's extremely exciting without the need for outcome-biased emotional attachment or politically-driven peer pressure to cloud their judgment.

Edited by Jacobyte on Tuesday 9th August 11:52

[turbobloke]

durbster via EY said:

The case against AGW has not {been proven}.

There's no AGW case until there's a visible causal human signal in global climate data.

Until then you're referring to heresy against doctrine, and there's plenty of it about.

[jet_noise]

Einion Yrth said:

durbster said:

The case against AGW has not {been proven}.

The burden if proof lies on those making a positive claim, in this case that after four and a half billion years of constant, unceasing, natural climate change, suddenly that has all changed and mankind is controlling the system. In the absence of this proof, and it certainly seems absent to me, then the null hypothesis obtains, and that is that all is pretty much exactly as it always has been; climate changes, naturally.

^^^^^^^^
This x10000000000000000

As the internet vernacular has it

[durbster]

Einion Yrth said:

durbster said:

The case against AGW has not {been proven}.

The burden if proof lies on those making a positive claim, in this case that after four and a half billion years of constant, unceasing, natural climate change, suddenly that has all changed and mankind is controlling the system. In the absence of this proof, and it certainly seems absent to me, then the null hypothesis obtains, and that is that all is pretty much exactly as it always has been; climate changes, naturally.

But that's not true. Nobody has claimed the climate doesn't change naturally and nobody has claimed mankind is now "controlling" it.

The theory is that mankind is influencing the climate by increasing the levels of greenhouse gases (specifically CO2).

Water can become polluted naturally and we can pollute it. It's the same principle.

It's misleading to say natural variance is ignored as it is very much part of the research into AGW. The research says that natural processes account for X amount of warming, but we are observing Z amount of warming and the understanding of AGW fits that gap pretty well.

Jacobyte said:

The term "sceptical scientist" only refers to those that go against the grain of a belief. Science isn't about belief.

All scientists should be sceptical by their very nature, so the "sceptical" adjective only serves to sensationalise an opposing voice - exactly reflecting the article that I linked to at the top of this page.

By "sceptical scientists" I mean those claiming AGW does not exist (if there are any). I didn't mean it literally.

Of course scientists should be and are sceptical, and the amount of research going on into AGW right now shows that's the case. That's why people are studying ocean acidification, glaciers, permafrost, polar ice. That's why we're putting up satellites to monitor sea levels, ice and temperature. There are thousands people conducting research that tests AGW; to see if the observations match the predictions and to get more information about how the climate works and might be affected by human activity.

After several decades now and the evidence has grown, not diminished.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The article you posted raised the Einstein analogy and I'm saying it has no relevance here. Einstein was an exceptional mind and a scientist. There is no equivalent here.

[Jacobyte]

Ah, I may have misunderstood your question. In which case, to paraphrase:

Q. Who is modern the equivalent to Einstein?
A. Every scientist that doesn't cling onto the mantra "the science is settled".