Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Jinx said:
DapperDanMan said:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-sc...
Anyone can pick a random article to support their point of view can't they.
Is there consensus that the earth is in oblate spheroid?
Is there consensus that if you release an apple from your hand it falls to the ground?
Is there consensus that the earth orbits the sun?
You see consensus doesn't mean it is wrong.
If you start from a conclusion and work backwards you will find you are right.
Random article? It was a follow up from when Professor Richard Tol had demolished the original John (not a scientist) Cook's 97% paper. FFS there is no consensus. It is a lie. SKS is a website by a car-fAnyone can pick a random article to support their point of view can't they.
Is there consensus that the earth is in oblate spheroid?
Is there consensus that if you release an apple from your hand it falls to the ground?
Is there consensus that the earth orbits the sun?
You see consensus doesn't mean it is wrong.
If you start from a conclusion and work backwards you will find you are right.
king-toonist.'Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true.'
Maybe should have been further enhanced with 'it doesn't make them false either'. Sometimes it is more about what you leave out than what you put in.
Edited by DapperDanMan on Wednesday 29th March 09:39
DibblyDobbler said:
DapperDanMan said:
Like I said prove or shut up.
Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan! Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
My point is this. If man's contribution to climate change is non existent or negligible then that is an hypothesis which then requires further investigation which may well lead to a paper etc. etc.
So when I say prove it that is what I mean.
DapperDanMan said:
The team at SKS https://skepticalscience.com/team.php looks like a broad spectrum of people.
'Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true.'
That is a correct statement but maybe should have been further enhanced with 'it doesn't make them false either'. Sometimes it is more about what you leave out than what you put in.
SKS is an advocacy site. It is as scientific and impartial as desmog. The 97% is a lie and the 97% consensus that "mankind's effect on climate via burning of fossil fuels is dangerous" is a total fabrication. There may be a consensus that mankind is having an effect on climate via burning of fossil fuels (there has never been a vote) but what the effects are, and will they be dangerous? There is no consensus. 'Consensus has no place in science. Academics agree on lots of things, but that does not make them true.'
That is a correct statement but maybe should have been further enhanced with 'it doesn't make them false either'. Sometimes it is more about what you leave out than what you put in.
DapperDanMan said:
Aggressive, really.
My point is this. If man's contribution to climate change is non existent or negligible then that is an hypothesis which then requires further investigation which may well lead to a paper etc. etc.
So when I say prove it that is what I mean.
Reversal of the scientific method. It has yet to be shown that mankind has an effect on climate change - the null hypothesis remains intact. My point is this. If man's contribution to climate change is non existent or negligible then that is an hypothesis which then requires further investigation which may well lead to a paper etc. etc.
So when I say prove it that is what I mean.
DapperDanMan said:
DibblyDobbler said:
DapperDanMan said:
Like I said prove or shut up.
Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan! Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
My point is this. If man's contribution to climate change is non existent or negligible then that is an hypothesis which then requires further investigation which may well lead to a paper etc. etc.
So when I say prove it that is what I mean.
Really?
If you received an invoice for something you did not recognise as a purchase and were told that you would have to prove you did not buy anything that would justify the invoice or else it would go do debt collection and a negative credit record, how would you feel?
How would you prove that the invoice was not valid and avoid the credit record demerit?
durbster said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan!
Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
But if you know that, you should also know that the adjustments don't really change the outcome.Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
I don't think there's ever going to be a binary black/white, right/wrong answer to all this, it'll just be shades of grey which will take decades to emerge. If we're all still around in 20/30 years and it's roasting outside then you can go for 'I told you so'! My money is on nothing very dramatic happening
DibblyDobbler said:
durbster said:
DibblyDobbler said:
Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan!
Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
But if you know that, you should also know that the adjustments don't really change the outcome.Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
I don't think there's ever going to be a binary black/white, right/wrong answer to all this, it'll just be shades of grey which will take decades to emerge. If we're all still around in 20/30 years and it's roasting outside then you can go for 'I told you so'! My money is on nothing very dramatic happening
In return for that a successful proof would see the value of the fund doubled. No proof would see it forfeit.
LongQ said:
If we are thinking about wagers then I would like to see all of the leading proponents of CC take on a bet that pitched their entire worth into a fund that would be help pin escrow for up to 100 years or until absolute, unchallenged, measured proof of human induced CC with negative outcomes became available.
In return for that a successful proof would see the value of the fund doubled. No proof would see it forfeit.
That proof already exists in all sorts of forms and you reject it absolutely, so what makes you think you would you accept it in the future?In return for that a successful proof would see the value of the fund doubled. No proof would see it forfeit.
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
DibblyDobbler said:
DapperDanMan said:
Like I said prove or shut up.
Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan! Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
My point is this. If man's contribution to climate change is non existent or negligible then that is an hypothesis which then requires further investigation which may well lead to a paper etc. etc.
So when I say prove it that is what I mean.
Really?
If you received an invoice for something you did not recognise as a purchase and were told that you would have to prove you did not buy anything that would justify the invoice or else it would go do debt collection and a negative credit record, how would you feel?
How would you prove that the invoice was not valid and avoid the credit record demerit?
The science has been done on linking human activity with climate change. If you feel strongly enough that it isn't happening do the science and produce an alternative explanation and get it published. Saying it is all lies and it isn't happening is not science.
As for bets and pots of money and lets see in years to come it is just the latest gimmick to silence those who are not PH sheep and stop them responding. It doesn't work.
As for yanking my chain that doesn't work either. I have no skin in the game unlike some with their decade long tirade. I assume DD is an experienced yanker
.I would just like a thread on PH about climate change in the science sub forum to actually be about science.
Jinx said:
DapperDanMan said:
The science has been done on linking human activity with climate change.
If you could send this to the IPCC I am sure they would appreciate it (AR5 - latest report - has this at an agreed 95% level of confidence - how is this science again)?Science
It is spelt out throughout the document of the linkage. So you examine 167 pages and pick a single number from god knows where (if god existed of course) does none of what that report contains bother you in the slightest?
durbster said:
LongQ said:
If we are thinking about wagers then I would like to see all of the leading proponents of CC take on a bet that pitched their entire worth into a fund that would be help pin escrow for up to 100 years or until absolute, unchallenged, measured proof of human induced CC with negative outcomes became available.
In return for that a successful proof would see the value of the fund doubled. No proof would see it forfeit.
That proof already exists in all sorts of forms and you reject it absolutely, so what makes you think you would you accept it in the future?In return for that a successful proof would see the value of the fund doubled. No proof would see it forfeit.
DapperDanMan said:
How did they produce such a document?
Science
It is spelt out throughout the document of the linkage. So you examine 167 pages and pick a single number from god knows where (if god existed of course) does none of what that report contains bother you in the slightest?
Erm noScience
It is spelt out throughout the document of the linkage. So you examine 167 pages and pick a single number from god knows where (if god existed of course) does none of what that report contains bother you in the slightest?
Politics
Much in the report shows the science is less sure than the previous report (especially given the "pause") and that the majority of negative effects within the next 100 years is at the "low confidence" level.
The 95% is from the summary for policy makers.
The report itself bothers me (and not only for what Donna Laframboise exposed). What a waste of money - we have had an entire unit of climate since the start of this nonsense and yet the science is no closer to finding an ECS (the range increased since the previous report)!!
Jinx said:
DapperDanMan said:
How did they produce such a document?
Science
It is spelt out throughout the document of the linkage. So you examine 167 pages and pick a single number from god knows where (if god existed of course) does none of what that report contains bother you in the slightest?
Erm noScience
It is spelt out throughout the document of the linkage. So you examine 167 pages and pick a single number from god knows where (if god existed of course) does none of what that report contains bother you in the slightest?
Politics
Much in the report shows the science is less sure than the previous report (especially given the "pause") and that the majority of negative effects within the next 100 years is at the "low confidence" level.
The 95% is from the summary for policy makers.
The report itself bothers me (and not only for what Donna Laframboise exposed). What a waste of money - we have had an entire unit of climate since the start of this nonsense and yet the science is no closer to finding an ECS (the range increased since the previous report)!!
As I stated earlier if you want the current policy around CC to change then you need to produce compelling science to support your position. There is already science to support the contrary position to your's so use science to defeat it. Why is this so difficult to understand?
DapperDanMan said:
So it bothers you because you believe it is a waste of money but the actual content doesn't because you are absolutely convinced it is all rubbish and purely driven by a political need to tax and control not by the possible implications?
As I stated earlier if you want the current policy around CC to change then you need to produce compelling science to support your position. There is already science to support the contrary position to your's so use science to defeat it. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Because there hasn't been the science to support CCC. The IPCC has had 5 reports and the last one backtracked (scientifically) on AR4, could find no link in CO2 and extreme weather, acknowledged a (at the time 15 year) pause and yet the "political" summary somehow quantified the confidence at 95% (where previously it was at 90%). Have a quick read of Dr Tim Ball's take on the processAs I stated earlier if you want the current policy around CC to change then you need to produce compelling science to support your position. There is already science to support the contrary position to your's so use science to defeat it. Why is this so difficult to understand?
But you want science. The problem is there is so much bad science going on it will take awhile to refute it all so we'll start with this
Or if reading isn't your thing try this
DapperDanMan said:
The team at SKS https://skepticalscience.com/team.php looks like a broad spectrum of people.
This one? http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-abo...DapperDanMan said:
I would just like a thread on PH about climate change in the science sub forum to actually be about science.
That's fair comment in some small way.This forum has been so quiet recently I failed to spot that it wasn't the the Political thread.
That said I would still be inclined to see the proponents of the current science history relate to the subject put their finances and pension funds on the line for a period far enough into the future to be meaningful.
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
DibblyDobbler said:
DapperDanMan said:
Like I said prove or shut up.
Gosh you're a bit aggressive Dan! Revisions to the data are well known and documented - you could argue they are warranted but you must be aware of them surely?
My point is this. If man's contribution to climate change is non existent or negligible then that is an hypothesis which then requires further investigation which may well lead to a paper etc. etc.
So when I say prove it that is what I mean.
Really?
If you received an invoice for something you did not recognise as a purchase and were told that you would have to prove you did not buy anything that would justify the invoice or else it would go do debt collection and a negative credit record, how would you feel?
How would you prove that the invoice was not valid and avoid the credit record demerit?
If you are the owner, congratulations.
The proof of delivery question is what we are talking about really I suppose - but I doubt you would realise that.
What if the demand was from the Tax authorities.
They write to tell you personally to advise that they believe you have underpaid tax by some large amount.
You ask them what that relates to. They won't tell tell you. Just ask you to pay or prove that you do not owe the tax.
And before you say this is a made up situation, it isn't.
They hold all the control strings over your financial affairs, credit rating, and so on.
Now prove that you do not owe them anything.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff