New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

Genuine question: if the many scientists who support the idea of AGW are wrong, are they -

(1) knowingly wrong (presumably to obtain funding); or

(2) accidentally wrong?

To allege 1 is to allege a vast amount of scientific fraud. Not impossible, perhaps, but not very plausible.

To allege 2 is to suggest that a great many scientists are making simple blunders that some clever people on a car forum can spot. Again, not impossible, but is it very likely?

When I say many scientists, take the latest IPCC report - 209 lead scientists, 600 plus contributors, 50 reviewers, 9,200 papers cited.

As to the level of consensus, see

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/art...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

Does the existence of this consensus have no significance? Saying that there used to be a consensus that the Sun orbited the Earth adds nothing, as that was not a consensus based on modern scientific disciplines.

I would be interested in receiving genuine answers to the above which are posed as genuine questions. Is the widely held position on AGW a vast fraud or a huge cock up? Leave aside what politicians may want (albeit that it is notable that politicians often favour large and well established industries such as the oil industry). What about all those scientists? I know that you can find scientists here and there to take the other line, but they are a distinct minority. This does not in itself make them wrong, but, if the majority are wrong, that takes some explaining.

Some will be knowingly wrong. Some are guilty of "Nobel cause corruption" (eg Michael Mann's Hockey stick). Many really believe in the "concensus".

Irving Janis wrote an interesting book "Groupthink" which investigates group behaviour. One of the examples that he studied was the disastrous US invasion of the Bay of Pigs. It is astonishing to think that 4,000 US soldiers could have taken on Cuba's 240,000 well armed and trained forces. Some of the senior Generals, civil servants and politicians must have known that the mission was doomed from the outset. And yet, nobody questioned the decision to invade.

We see similar behaviour in Climate Science.

There is a wikipedia page on groupthink here...

[anonymous-user]

Scientists are by disposition and training analytical, critical and sceptical. How realistic is it to suggest that a very large number of scientists are falling victim to a form of collective hysteria? A small bunch of guys in sweaty rooms at the Pentagon and White House is not the same as lots of scientists scattered across universities and research institutes across the globe.

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

Scientists are by disposition and training analytical, critical and sceptical. How realistic is it to suggest that a very large number of scientists are falling victim to a form of collective hysteria? A small bunch of guys in sweaty rooms at the Pentagon and White House is not the same as lots of scientists scattered across universities and research institutes across the globe.

Scientists in the hard sciences (Physics, astronomy, chemistry etc.) are largely as you describe them.

Climate science is not a hard science. No physicist would tell you that you should believe him because his position represents the concensus. The Royal Society has as its motto "nullius in verba". This is completely at odds with what we see in climate science.

Consider the way that Chris Lintott (U. of Oxford) works. He gives the public direct access to his data, and asks them to help him analyse it. He does this with data that he hasn't seen.

Now consider the way that Chris Jones (U. of East Anglia) works. He has said that he would delete his data rather than let the public see it. That is truely astonishing behaviour - and there is only one explanation for it.

Here is another link to Wikipedia. The Scientific Method...

In short, science involves formulating theories, making predictions, and then making observations. If the observations contradict the predictions, then the theory is wrong. If the observations agree with the predictions, it just means that the theory has not been disproven.

In climate science, the predictions have been proven wrong so many times that it is laughable. They told us to expect more droughts, and we got floods. "No, No, we didn't more droughts. We meant both more droughts and more rain.

They told us that our children wouldn't know what snow looked like.

They told us that the polar bears were threatened. A recent survey shows that the are at record numbers.

They used photoshopped images of forlorn looking bears on a small piece of ice.

They also photoshopped steam coming out of cooling towers to make it look black.

None of this stuff happens in the "hard" sciences.

All of it happens in climate science. This is why so many people distrust it.

[anonymous-user]

I am familiar with scientific method. Climate science uses physics and chemistry, and includes many observations. It is possible, for example, to measure gases, ice formation and melting, and other such matters, and historical data obtainable from ice cores. The science does't proceed on the basis of consensus (the word is spelled thus, by the way), but it so happens that there is a consensus. My question is are we really to suppose that the consensus is based on fraud or error?

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

I am familiar with scientific method. Climate science uses physics and chemistry, and includes many observations. It is possible, for example, to measure gases, ice formation and melting, and other such matters, and historical data obtainable from ice cores. The science does't proceed on the basis of consensus (the word is spelled thus, by the way), but it so happens that there is a consensus. My question is are we really to suppose that the consensus is based on fraud or error?

Your question is irrelevant because the answer is:-

Nullius in Verba.

Edited by don4l on Sunday 23 November 15:02

[anonymous-user]

No, you're just ducking the question and reciting a mantra. If AGW is not real, then a vast number of scientists are either frauds or idiots. How likely is that?

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

No, you're just ducking the question and reciting a mantra. If AGW is not real, then a vast number of scientists are either frauds or idiots. How likely is that?

First, I didn't say that AGW wasn't real. Don't throw strawmen at me.

The rest of your post is utter nonsense!

Were the scientists who thought that Newton was 100% correct frauds or idiots?

Before him Kepler??

Now Einstein?

Consensus has no place in science.

[goldblum]

don4l said:

In short, science involves formulating theories, making predictions, and then making observations.

Observe, theorise, predict isn't it? I'm curious - how does one theorise and hypothesize about something without observing it first?

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

...

Consensus has no place in science.

Try telling a doctor that. You appear to be missing the point. There happens to be a broad consensus. That is not in itself proof of validity of the ideas, but it may be a significant fact. Those who claim that the science is fraudulent or negligent have to explain how so many are either fraudulent or careless in their work.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

...

Consensus has no place in science.

Try telling a doctor that.

About peptic ulcers? Go right ahead.

Breadvan72 said:

You appear to be missing the point. There happens to be a broad consensus.

There appears to be, because the smnall number in agreement have been repeating the same thing over and over and their media contacts parrot it, but there isn't. There is agreement among the small number of 'scientists' in The Team over IPCC way. Surveys outside that claiming a wider consensus demand a sense of humour to be taken beyond the expected headline.

Breadvan72 said:

That is not in itself proof of validity of the ideas, but it may be a significant fact. Those who claim that the science is fraudulent or negligent have to explain how so many are either fraudulent or careless in their work.

Yes it's not proof of validity or anything else.

As to explanation it's been done already, if not to death, in many places incuding PH.

Your attempt to invert the null hypothesis - intentional or not - has also been done before.

What one person thinks, or what any group may choose to agree upon, that means nothing when the data agrees with something else, particularly when the data has already been stretched to breaking point and still fails to confess after decades of torture.

This is all in the public domain.

[don4l]

Breadvan72 said:

don4l said:

...

Consensus has no place in science.

Try telling a doctor that. You appear to be missing the point. There happens to be a broad consensus. That is not in itself proof of validity of the ideas, but it may be a significant fact. Those who claim that the science is fraudulent or negligent have to explain how so many are either fraudulent or careless in their work.

Well, we have covered the Scientific Method, the fact that consensus is irrelevant, and why Nullius in Verba is important.

We have discovered that the vast majority of scientists throughout history have been wrong about almost everything.

You claim that you understand these things, but everything that you posts demonstrates the opposite.

Anyway, I must go out now. I'm off to see a bunch of lovely girls from Thailand.

[turbobloke]

don4l said:

Well, we have covered the Scientific Method, the fact that consensus is irrelevant, and why Nullius in Verba is important.

Unfortunately the data is not important to those pushing The Cause for The Team because the data shows manmadeup climate change has no visible presence in any global climate measures and there remains no established causality to humans in any global climate data.

Anyone dropping by to drop comments who hasn't been keeping up at the back can check the online search results for 'Independent Review Discovers that NCDC Fumbles Data Handling in GHCN Climate Data' as a recent and not particularly remarkable illustration of the mess otherwise known as a corrupted near surface temperature database.

Pom poot pasa Thai dai nit noi kap.

[McWigglebum4th]

Breadvan72 said:

No, you're just ducking the question and reciting a mantra. If AGW is not real, then a vast number of scientists are either frauds or idiots. How likely is that?

What kind of global warming?

the little bit of global warming where it will make fk all difference to anyone

or the global warming we see in the media that will kill EVERYONE


As i have great difficulty in believing in the 2nd type


And that is what you and your right on friends are trying to save me from

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

No, you're just ducking the question and reciting a mantra. If AGW is not real, then a vast number of scientists are either frauds or idiots. How likely is that?

Not at all, there's no ducking of questions elsewhere but you're missing the point.

Those scientists know that no visible causal human signal exists in global climate data.

Natural variation completely dominates the picture when it comes to global climate data. The IPCC is reduced to making up percentages that they say represent their confidence in their own belief that there is a very small totally invisible signal that they believe ought to be in there.

At a time when everyone knows about 'The Pause' and there has been nothing in response to more and more tax gas emissions, the IPCC increased their confidence that they can see an invisible signal. Even a lawyer should be able to call that one out.

That's faith not science, and in climate models these 'scientists' get the chance to plant a human signal and push the gigo form models ahead of data. Unfortunately for them time has run out on that also as the real world temperature has not cooperated and the climate projections from a sequence of IPCC Reports have been falsified.

[anonymous-user]

I don't believe in catastrophe theories - why do you assume that I do? I accept that it is more likely than not that human activity has had and is continuing to have a deleterious effect on climate, but the effect is slow. I don't buy in to many of the proposed solutions. I think that we ought in any event to have moved further away from fossil fuels by now, but are held back from doing so by vested interests, which can have negative geopolitical effects.

Turbobloke, do you regard 600 authors as a small team? Do you regard thousands of papers as the work of a few misguided or mendacious enthusiasts?

[McWigglebum4th]

Breadvan72 said:

I don't believe in catastrophe theories - why do you assume that I do? I accept that it is more likely than not that human activity has had and is continuing to have a deleterious effect on climate, but the effect is slow. I don't buy in to many of the proposed solutions. I think that we ought in any event to have moved further away from fossil fuels by now, but are held back from doing so by vested interests, which can have negative geopolitical effects.

So do you believe it is minimal effect?

If so why are we sacrificing grannies to the god of CO2?


Its a pile of ste

[anonymous-user]

I think it is small but not de minimis, and may have cumulatively undesirable effects over the next several decades to centuries. I don't think that there is going to be a major disaster, but pressures on parts of the world that are already adversely affected by resource problems may be exacerbated, and that can't help with stability and development.

Turbobloke, is the increase in C02 since the Industrial Revolution a purely natural coincidence?

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

I don't believe in catastrophe theories - why do you assume that I do?

Not sure who that's for but who mentioned catastrophe apart from you?
.

Breadvan72 said:

I accept that it is more likely than not that human activity has had and is continuing to have a deleterious effect on climate, but the effect is slow.

Presumably in your law work you accept evidence over blind faith, but you have no evidence of any human influence on global climate as there is no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.

Equally, if you had taken the time to read the vast amount of accurate information on even PH climate threads you would see that nobody is saying there is absolutely no effect from adding some carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. What sound science and the data tell us is that this is in the nature of a transient and insignificant delay in cooling, not the global warming of IPCC vintage.

Breadvan72 said:

I don't buy in to many of the proposed solutions. I think that we ought in any event to have moved further away from fossil fuels by now, but are held back from doing so by vested interests, which can have negative geopolitical effects.

OK at the start but the vested interests are working the other way. Renewables cannot be a solution (search PH for the link to 'Intermittency Problem' and see today on the climate politics thread for...in fact don't, here it is.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...

Also you might find this informative though with that warning, something tells me you might be tempted not to look.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/walter-s...

Breadvan72 said:

Turbobloke, do you regard 600 authors as a small team? Do you regard thousands of papers as the work of a few misguided or mendacious enthusiasts?

With respect you need to get to know your IPCC mob better. The IPCC money shot is written by a team of about 12, who work in attribution. It's a small team. It wouldn't matter how many there were, there are larger numbers who disagree, see under NIPCC. It wouldn't matter how many there are in this other group either, what matters is that their position aligns with the data.

The bandwagon rolls on partly by irrationally asserting the supremacy of inadequate climate model gigo over the data and partly via ideologically based political patronage.

The wider IPCC group sees a lot of disagreement but discussions get shut down when valid objections are raised at IPCC meetings, and when reviewers point out that entire Report sections are dreck and why, they are ignored. IPCC is about advocacy more than science.

Yes there are some shady characters, as you would know if you had followed the climate myths more closely.

[anonymous-user]

The catastrophe bit was a response to some else above who suggested that I am signed up to some sort of calamity scenario. As to the rest, it reads to me like the mantras of your faith, with the threads here on a car forum as your Holy Texts. You get to be High Priest of Denial on a forum for car enthusiasts, but forgive me if I am more impressed by universities than by a body of work represented by this forum.

[turbobloke]

"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Prof Mike Hulme (UEA) a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony."

A sub-group of that small group are the hundreds or thousands of scientists that some people wrongly refer to when allocating IPCC SPM views to a far larger number.

As per previous comments from various people, look not at size (of groups) but to the data. If you understand the basic concept of causality it won't take more than a couple of minutes. If you can see an invisible signal then you're a true believer, in the apt and literal sense that reflects how this term was coined within the scientific community.