Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Jinx said:
Broke Ranks? So they are turncoats are they - traitors to the holy cause? And please - quoting from William Connolley infested wiki??
And changing the argument when I provided an instance that countered your previous "appeal to all scientific authorities"?
I only needed one example to prove your "appeal to all scientific authorities" was fallacious.
Oh and the statement you quoted is wrong. The amount of water vapour has been declining and as this is 80% of all GHG then the statement is a false one.
Edited to add - did you read the picture? Can you tell the difference between "Climate related" and "Rejecting global warming"?
William Connolley, you say.....And changing the argument when I provided an instance that countered your previous "appeal to all scientific authorities"?
I only needed one example to prove your "appeal to all scientific authorities" was fallacious.
Oh and the statement you quoted is wrong. The amount of water vapour has been declining and as this is 80% of all GHG then the statement is a false one.
Edited to add - did you read the picture? Can you tell the difference between "Climate related" and "Rejecting global warming"?
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-sc...
KareemK said:
LOL
Why are all of you people arguing with me???
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute and start your first sentence with "You do know how the scientific method works right?"
Post up their reply and I'll join you in 'sceptics corner' if they are flumoxed by your scientific reasoning and conclude that the weight of your argument clearly demonstrates that AGW is indeed a myth or even arguable.
Don't tell me, I can't debate the nuances of climate science. But this thread does have a touch of the "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king" about it. Get a REAL scientist involved and you'd carry some weight.
It's almost as if you have no answers Why are all of you people arguing with me???
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute and start your first sentence with "You do know how the scientific method works right?"
Post up their reply and I'll join you in 'sceptics corner' if they are flumoxed by your scientific reasoning and conclude that the weight of your argument clearly demonstrates that AGW is indeed a myth or even arguable.
Don't tell me, I can't debate the nuances of climate science. But this thread does have a touch of the "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king" about it. Get a REAL scientist involved and you'd carry some weight.
TX.
Variomatic said:
Durbster, this is exactly why "trusting the scientists" is such a bad idea.
That paper is riddled with problems that are very well documented. Not least of which are several well established AGW sceptics who have been rated as "believers" and actually come out in public to say so.
Even Mike Hulme of UEA has described it as "The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed."
The 97% figure seems too difficult to quantify in a way that'll tell us anything so that wasn't the bit I was interested in. It's the other stats (the ones I mentioned) that I thought were interesting, in that so few papers rejected the AGW position or offered no alternative.That paper is riddled with problems that are very well documented. Not least of which are several well established AGW sceptics who have been rated as "believers" and actually come out in public to say so.
Even Mike Hulme of UEA has described it as "The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed."
I saw something posted on Twitter a few months ago that represented this subject it better so I was looking for that when I found the link I posted. I thought it was the same thing but maybe not, and if it's not valid then that's fine.
Terminator X said:
It's almost as if you have no answers
TX.
It's almost as if you're a scientist TX.
A seemingly illiterate scientist too:
KareemK said:
As thats not gonna happen I'll bow out now - cheers all 
orKareemK said:
Don't tell me, I can't debate the nuances of climate science
or evenKareemK said:
LOL
Why are all of you people arguing with me???
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute (or even the guy offering $10k?)
Post up their reply
KK.Why are all of you people arguing with me???
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute (or even the guy offering $10k?)
Post up their reply
durbster said:
The 97% figure seems too difficult to quantify in a way that'll tell us anything so that wasn't the bit I was interested in. It's the other stats (the ones I mentioned) that I thought were interesting, in that so few papers rejected the AGW position or offered no alternative.
That was another of the problems (related to the one about rating known sceptics as believers).Say a paper had this in its abstract:
"We examined the Pterodactyl dental records and compared with the CO2 emissions from world ostrich egg farming. We concluded that, while there is no doubt that man's activity has had an effect on climate since prehistoric times, our study shows that the effect is neither significant nor increasing in modern times"
The way Jones, Nutspread et al rated papers would show that as supporting the whole AGW thing because it admits that we have an effect - which few serious sceptics would deny seeing as every living thing (and many non-living ones) on the planet have some effect on climate.
It's on record, from the authors of papers finding that our effect isn't important, that their papers have been rated to show the exact opposite of what they concluded.
So even the "other statistics" in that piece of bogroll are meaningless. It's been seriously questioned how it ever got through peer review, but most of the plausible answers sound like conspiracy theories involving groups of people "peer reviewing" each others work regardless of merit.
Obviously a conspiracy theory because that could never happen in science, could it?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/...
Incidentally, given that the story above shows that peer review clearly can be corrupted, the protestations after climate gate that "they may have said they'd manipulate journals but didn't mean it because it could never happen in reality" fall pretty flat!
KareemK said:
LOL
Why are all of you people arguing with me???
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute and start your first sentence with "You do know how the scientific method works right?"
Post up their reply and I'll join you in 'sceptics corner' if they are flumoxed by your scientific reasoning and conclude that the weight of your argument clearly demonstrates that AGW is indeed a myth or even arguable.
Don't tell me, I can't debate the nuances of climate science. But this thread does have a touch of the "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king" about it. Get a REAL scientist involved and you'd carry some weight.
AGW is more of a religion now, science has less and less to do with it.Why are all of you people arguing with me???
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute and start your first sentence with "You do know how the scientific method works right?"
Post up their reply and I'll join you in 'sceptics corner' if they are flumoxed by your scientific reasoning and conclude that the weight of your argument clearly demonstrates that AGW is indeed a myth or even arguable.
Don't tell me, I can't debate the nuances of climate science. But this thread does have a touch of the "in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king" about it. Get a REAL scientist involved and you'd carry some weight.
The example of stomach ulcers and antibiotics is a great illustration of what's happened to "climate science".
Not to mention, how do you define a "climate scientist"? Someone who believes in AGW, maybe? So what would yu expect them to say to such letters?
What do you think of the theory of AGC I posted earlier, by the way? I was hoping an AGW believer could find something wrong with it for me. Maybe I should start a new thread, to avoid de-railing this one?
durbster said:
Variomatic said:
Durbster, this is exactly why "trusting the scientists" is such a bad idea.
That paper is riddled with problems that are very well documented. Not least of which are several well established AGW sceptics who have been rated as "believers" and actually come out in public to say so.
Even Mike Hulme of UEA has described it as "The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed."
The 97% figure seems too difficult to quantify in a way that'll tell us anything so that wasn't the bit I was interested in. It's the other stats (the ones I mentioned) that I thought were interesting, in that so few papers rejected the AGW position or offered no alternative.That paper is riddled with problems that are very well documented. Not least of which are several well established AGW sceptics who have been rated as "believers" and actually come out in public to say so.
Even Mike Hulme of UEA has described it as "The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed."
I saw something posted on Twitter a few months ago that represented this subject it better so I was looking for that when I found the link I posted. I thought it was the same thing but maybe not, and if it's not valid then that's fine.
deeen said:
KareemK said:
To prove your point write to the Royal Institute and start your first sentence with "You do know how the scientific method works right?"
Post up their reply and I'll join you in 'sceptics corner' if they are flumoxed by your scientific reasoning and conclude that the weight of your argument clearly demonstrates that AGW is indeed a myth or even arguable.
AGW is more of a religion now, science has less and less to do with it.Post up their reply and I'll join you in 'sceptics corner' if they are flumoxed by your scientific reasoning and conclude that the weight of your argument clearly demonstrates that AGW is indeed a myth or even arguable.
Mr2Mike said:
I certainly am. It's a tragedy that this previously august institution, renown for its scientific neutrality and scrupulous conduct, is now immersed in political activism.
And another.Apparently they're now a Political/Religious organisation then and no longer involved in real Science.
OK.
Edited by KareemK on Tuesday 15th July 11:19
QuantumTokoloshi said:
KareemK said:
And another.
Apparently they're now a Political/Religious organisation then and no longer involved in real Science.
OK.
How about responding to my point, about the lack of warming in the last 18 years... global warming BUT no warming, HUGE problem right there.Apparently they're now a Political/Religious organisation then and no longer involved in real Science.
OK.
Art0ir said:
I think he's in the same position as me; neither the time or inclination to familarise myself with the nuances of climate science, certainly not to the extent that I can draw any hard conclusions from the data available.
Then there is a simple way to separate the wheat from the chaff in this debate. Has the global average temperature shown any scientifically significant increase in the last 15 to 18 years? The answer is NO.
It is fairly difficult to have global warming without an actual temperature increase. A quick Google search will confirm this. Why this has happened is a whole different kettle of fish, but the naked evidence is there to find.
Art0ir said:
I think he's in the same position as me; neither the time or inclination to familarise myself with the nuances of climate science, certainly not to the extent that I can draw any hard conclusions from the data available.
Add me to that too. There's very little point getting into heated arguments about the science with people who know as little as I do about the subject. 
I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.
Art0ir said:
I think he's in the same position as me; neither the time or inclination to familarise myself with the nuances of climate science, certainly not to the extent that I can draw any hard conclusions from the data available.
That there is the problem. The scarcity of reliable data, the problem using a midpoint average of Tmax and Tmin to determine the energy in the atmosphere, previously reliable data being altered to maintain the storyline. If the subject was being dealt with scientifically the conclusions should be "not enough data available to draw any conclusions".But it hasn't and isn't being handled scientifically. The chicken littles have decided Global Warming is the greatest threat to mankind (when historically Ice ages in the Earth's history is a known threat and far more damaging to life). As such any delay is fraught with such peril that totally unsuitable and highly expensive solutions are peddled and embraced with alacrity -irrespective of the actual harm they are doing to people living today.
2100 is a long way off and even according to the IPCC AR5 nothing bad is expected to happen before then. Think of how humanity was 86 years ago and where we are today -do we need to encourage growth and innovation to ensure our survival or pauper ourselves and live in a subsistence "sustainability" that is less likely to cope with any disasters, natural or otherwise?
The solutions being peddled are the wrong ones even if they had got the problem right in the first place.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff