Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[jshell]

durbster said:

And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as yourself.

You couldn't have got that statement any more wrong...even if you had a gaggle of climate scientists working on torturing it!

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

And the only people who ever refer to the science as "settled" are the people who believe it's not happening, such as...

Al Gore and Barack Obama are on the settled science side, so this means they believe "it" isn't happening; sure they don't!

Presumably "it" refers to manmade gw, and the non-existent visible causal human signal in global climate data. The invisible signal that's nowhere to be seen even in tortured data. At least those two charmers, and others of the same ilk, can console themselves at how special they are to see an invisible entity.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

TheExcession said:

What most of the 'AGW CO2 Sceptics' here are claiming is the science cannot be settled because the data is too corrupted, massaged and tortured into a politisised tax grab.

I know. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Unless modelled, perhaps.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

The basic science of AGW is proven and well understood. The consequences of it, however, are not so further research is needed.

I thought the consequences were clear - Global Extreme Weathergeddon Chaos and tax everything - They are just researching some 'science' to back that up

[TheExcession]

LongQ said:

durbster said:

TheExcession said:

What most of the 'AGW CO2 Sceptics' here are claiming is the science cannot be settled because the data is too corrupted, massaged and tortured into a politisised tax grab.

I know. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Unless modelled, perhaps.

Durbster - NO! You don't know. Nothing outside of the sphere of 'computer modelling' is predictable, and the 'computer models' are not working.

I don't think there is one poster who is sceptic AGW on this topic here on PH would, once presented with incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2 who would not hold his hands up and say 'Sorry, you know what I got it wrong'.

I would, and I'd bet good money that TB would too.

Until the human causality is found, 'it's just all noise all the time'.

Did you know that CO2 levels around 200ppm are at levels where photosynthesis begins to fail? Crops fail, trees begin to die - we as humans starve?

400ppm - is a bit too close to that minimum for my liking.

[LongQ]

TheExcession said:

LongQ said:

durbster said:

TheExcession said:

What most of the 'AGW CO2 Sceptics' here are claiming is the science cannot be settled because the data is too corrupted, massaged and tortured into a politisised tax grab.

I know. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Unless modelled, perhaps.

Durbster - NO! You don't know. Nothing outside of the sphere of 'computer modelling' is predictable, and the 'computer models' are not working.

I don't think there is one poster who is sceptic AGW on this topic here on PH would, once presented with incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2 who would not hold his hands up and say 'Sorry, you know what I got it wrong'.

I would, and I'd bet good money that TB would too.

Until the human causality is found, 'it's just all noise all the time'.

Did you know that CO2 levels around 200ppm are at levels where photosynthesis begins to fail? Crops fail, trees begin to die - we as humans starve?

400ppm - is a bit too close to that minimum for my liking.

The potential for the noise to be distracting to an extent that serious matters that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven don't get the attention they should ought also to be a concern.

[jet_noise]

durbster said:

TheExcession said:

What most of the 'AGW CO2 Sceptics' here are claiming is the science cannot be settled because the data is too corrupted, massaged and tortured into a politisised tax grab.

I know. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Indeed they do.

The claim that CO2 levels and global temperatures (notwithstanding that 2nd criteria's conceptual and measurement issues) which are well within natural variability are significantly altered by little old humanity and will result in some kind of thermageddon is not just extraordinary it is wild tin foil hattery of the highest order.
Then you get into cost/benefit analyses.

I want wholly transparent and certain reasoning and evidence before I will support any, repeat any, actions which raise the cost of energy upon which national prosperity and global advancement depends,

regards,
Jet

[durbster]

TheExcession said:

I don't think there is one poster who is sceptic AGW on this topic here on PH would, once presented with incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2 who would not hold his hands up and say 'Sorry, you know what I got it wrong'.

I would, and I'd bet good money that TB would too.

I hope that's a joke but most people here seem far too angry with the world for humour so it's hard to tell.

Assuming it's not a joke, please explain why the evidence that is good enough for pretty much every person or organisation who is qualified and educated in the relevant fields, is not good enough for the team here?

Until you can give me a reason to consider the judgement of "sceptic AGW posters in this thread" over, let's say, NASA, I'll continue to go with NASA.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

qualified and educated in the relevant fields,

Dammit I only did Chemistry, Physics and Maths at A-level and only Mathematics at degree level and have only worked in data for the last 16 years....
Obviously glorified geography (aka climate science) is well beyond my ken.

[hairykrishna]

TheExcession said:

Durbster - NO! You don't know. Nothing outside of the sphere of 'computer modelling' is predictable, and the 'computer models' are not working.

I don't think there is one poster who is sceptic AGW on this topic here on PH would, once presented with incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2 who would not hold his hands up and say 'Sorry, you know what I got it wrong'.

I would, and I'd bet good money that TB would too.

Until the human causality is found, 'it's just all noise all the time'.

What would "incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2" look like to you? What would persuade you?

[Jinx]

hairykrishna said:

What would "incontrovertible scientific data that categorically showed a link to AGW via CO2" look like to you? What would persuade you?

Opacity of the atmosphere to IR so my remote controls no longer work - my electric bar heater warming the air in my house rather than the just the objects - IR energy generators using the back radiation to power my phone and IPCC models to match reality (well ok not the last one as that was pushing things too far) .

[jshell]

Jinx said:

Opacity of the atmosphere to IR so my remote controls no longer work - my electric bar heater warming the air in my house rather than the just the objects - IR energy generators using the back radiation to power my phone and IPCC models to match reality (well ok not the last one as that was pushing things too far) .

Funny, I spent this morning with someone who studied climatology, and who thinks AGW is an unadulterated pile of shyte.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

qualified and educated in the relevant fields,

Dammit I only did Chemistry, Physics and Maths at A-level and only Mathematics at degree level and have only worked in data for the last 16 years....
Obviously glorified geography (aka climate science) is well beyond my ken.

Great.

This means you know more than NASA about how the atmosphere works?

[clyffepypard]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

durbster said:

qualified and educated in the relevant fields,

Dammit I only did Chemistry, Physics and Maths at A-level and only Mathematics at degree level and have only worked in data for the last 16 years....
Obviously glorified geography (aka climate science) is well beyond my ken.

Great.

This means you know more than NASA about how the atmosphere works?

No it doesn't, it just means we can spot the utter BS behind the CAGW alarmism, something you seem wilfully blind to!

However, the lack of a detectable tropospheric hotspot (the supposedly strongest signal predicted by the models) is the elephant in the room. It simply isn't there, and no amount of handwaving by the alarmists can account for this!
All your appeals to authority are meaningless when the fundamental prediction of the strong warming hotspot in the troposphere has failed miserably.

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Great.

This means you know more than NASA about how the atmosphere works?

NASA is an organisation. There are individuals who are probably more clued up over atmosphere dynamics and the chaotic nature of weather but when it comes to groups of people The unwisdom of crowds applies (especially if the group is not diverse) .

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Great.

This means you know more than NASA about how the atmosphere works?

NASA is an organisation. There are individuals who are probably more clued up over atmosphere dynamics and the chaotic nature of weather but when it comes to groups of people The unwisdom of crowds applies (especially if the group is not diverse) .

OK, so you're saying you know more about atmospheric science than the individual atmospheric scientists at NASA?

[Jinx]

durbster said:

OK, so you're saying you know more about atmospheric science than the individual atmospheric scientists at NASA?

Have you tried reading? It's a fantastic way to pick up ideas and thoughts from other people. Of course with reading to be successful you need to read the whole of the sentences and the entire paragraphs and not cherry pick. So go back to what I previously wrote and try again.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

OK, so you're saying you know more about atmospheric science than the individual atmospheric scientists at NASA?

Have you tried reading? It's a fantastic way to pick up ideas and thoughts from other people. Of course with reading to be successful you need to read the whole of the sentences and the entire paragraphs and not cherry pick. So go back to what I previously wrote and try again.

You're avoiding the question.

Where do you think NASA's climate information comes from, if it's not the individuals who work there?

[Jinx]

durbster said:

You're avoiding the question.

Where do you think NASA's climate information comes from, if it's not the individuals who work there?

I answered the question. I would also hope NASA climate information would come from the climate (aka Data) but you are probably accurate when you say it comes from the individuals who (previously in some cases) worked there.

[hairykrishna]

Jinx said:

Opacity of the atmosphere to IR so my remote controls no longer work - my electric bar heater warming the air in my house rather than the just the objects - IR energy generators using the back radiation to power my phone

So you're waiting for physics to change?

The emission spectrum of the earth, a bar heater and an IR LED are very different. 'IR' is a broad spectrum. If the atmosphere was opaque to everything from 700nm to 1mm wavelengths then we'd have bigger problems than AGW.