Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
LongQ said:
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 threahd.
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.
The whole bet thing could as equally be applied to your position as well so you do it if you are so confident.
jshell said:
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:
LongQ said:
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 threahd.
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.
The whole bet thing could as equally be applied to your position as well so you do it if you are so confident.
Additionally I don't have a career or funding based on the proposition. So my commitment in fiscal terms based on income potential is zero.
No risk of income exists, only the costs associated with the politicians making policies based on long term forward predictions that cannot be proven by observation and measurement comparison until that time arrives.
In effect I am being penalised in advance anyway. You want to make that a double jeopardy?
LongQ said:
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.
I did realise proof of delivery but of course you are attempting to relate your hypothetical scenario to what you believe is the scenario of CC.
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
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 threahd.
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.
The whole bet thing could as equally be applied to your position as well so you do it if you are so confident.
Additionally I don't have a career or funding based on the proposition. So my commitment in fiscal terms based on income potential is zero. G
No risk of income exists, only the costs associated with the politicians making policies based on long term forward predictions that cannot be proven by observation and measurement comparison until that time arrives.
In effect I am being penalised in advance anyway. You want to make that a double jeopardy?
Do you accept that climate change is happening?
Do you refute the science that sets out to explain why?
If so
Produce credible science to explain the change?
If the measurements are wrong furnish us with the correct ones?
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
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 threahd.
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.
The whole bet thing could as equally be applied to your position as well so you do it if you are so confident.
Additionally I don't have a career or funding based on the proposition. So my commitment in fiscal terms based on income potential is zero. G
No risk of income exists, only the costs associated with the politicians making policies based on long term forward predictions that cannot be proven by observation and measurement comparison until that time arrives.
In effect I am being penalised in advance anyway. You want to make that a double jeopardy?
Do you accept that climate change is happening?
Do you refute the science that sets out to explain why?
If so
Produce credible science to explain the change?
If the measurements are wrong furnish us with the correct ones?
robinessex said:
How about you produce the EVIDENCE it's due to humans. And when you do, you can go claim the $100,000 that Durbster doesn't want. PS. Also tell us if it matters if the planet actually gets 0.1 degree warmer in the next 100yrs, or whatever the latest guess is.
It is hiding in plain site you just need to open your eyes. I am just asking for the science to be presented in some recognized journal that explains CC without human contribution to refute the published science so far produced.The rest of what you put is not even worth replying to just deflection tactics.
robinessex said:
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
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 threahd.
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.
The whole bet thing could as equally be applied to your position as well so you do it if you are so confident.
Additionally I don't have a career or funding based on the proposition. So my commitment in fiscal terms based on income potential is zero. G
No risk of income exists, only the costs associated with the politicians making policies based on long term forward predictions that cannot be proven by observation and measurement comparison until that time arrives.
In effect I am being penalised in advance anyway. You want to make that a double jeopardy?
Do you accept that climate change is happening?
Do you refute the science that sets out to explain why?
If so
Produce credible science to explain the change?
If the measurements are wrong furnish us with the correct ones?
Of course it should be the other way round, but the climate liars and doom-mongers do play a clever game.
DapperDanMan said:
jshell said:
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...Skeptical science is not sceptical and promotes every shonky story.
DapperDanMan said:
robinessex said:
How about you produce the EVIDENCE it's due to humans. And when you do, you can go claim the $100,000 that Durbster doesn't want. PS. Also tell us if it matters if the planet actually gets 0.1 degree warmer in the next 100yrs, or whatever the latest guess is.
It is hiding in plain site you just need to open your eyes. I am just asking for the science to be presented in some recognized journal that explains CC without human contribution to refute the published science so far produced.The rest of what you put is not even worth replying to just deflection tactics.
robinessex said:
Durbster MKII reply. The temperature of the planet NEVER stays still. Is it better for it to go up, or down?. Until that's answered, the rest in irrelevant. Talk about having a solution, without knowing if a problem exists!!!
It appears you think people don't respond to your posts because you're making such devastating points that they can't, when in fact you are ignored because the points you are making are so banal that they're simply not worth responding. It's somehow even more embarrassing to see you posting it in this subforum.If you were actually interested in answers to these extremely basic questions (and ignore anyone who answers them anyway), you could find them with five minutes of Googling but that would mean straying from safety of turbobloke's wing, and it looks like you're not brave enough to do that.
If you would do your own research with an open mind you'd see these questions have comprehensively answered many times over.
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
DapperDanMan said:
LongQ said:
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 threahd.
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.
The whole bet thing could as equally be applied to your position as well so you do it if you are so confident.
Additionally I don't have a career or funding based on the proposition. So my commitment in fiscal terms based on income potential is zero. G
No risk of income exists, only the costs associated with the politicians making policies based on long term forward predictions that cannot be proven by observation and measurement comparison until that time arrives.
In effect I am being penalised in advance anyway. You want to make that a double jeopardy?
Do you accept that climate change is happening?
Do you refute the science that sets out to explain why?
If so
Produce credible science to explain the change?
If the measurements are wrong furnish us with the correct ones?
Your follow up questions are irrelevant to that point.
However they make it clear that your intent has nothing to do with seeking an answer for discussion.
One thing I will give you about your "style" is that you make your intentions transparent.
We have all been here before.
If you want to get a better feel for my opinion, and I have no doubt that you don't, read the full thread.
DapperDanMan said:
It is hiding in plain site you just need to open your eyes. I am just asking for the science to be presented in some recognized journal that explains CC without human contribution to refute the published science so far produced.
The question that always pops up in my mind is......what caused climate change events in the past when humans were not making significant (if any) contributions.We know that the climate of this planet is anything but static.
The planet has had ice ages, mini ice ages, periods where there were no permanent ice caps, periods where the CO2 content of the atmosphere was high - but the temperature low, and vice versa.
We know that solar activity has been relatively high during the last 100 years with 8 solar cycles having greater than 100 sunspots. The solar cycle in the 1960s produced the highest number ever recorded at almost 200 (in the 1800s only 3 solar cycles had greater than 100 sunspots and in the 1700s only 4 cycles had greater than 100). We also know that low sunspot numbers can cause severe cooling as happened towards the end of the 1600s and the beginning of the 1800s during the maunder and dalton minimums. If the current sunspot trend continues - it looks like we are heading towards another such event fairly soon.
It would be silly to suggest that human contributions to the atmospheric composition of the planet aren't having some effect - however given evidence of past climate shifts that were clearly not due to the actions of man, I am doubtful it is as significant as is being made out. It would also be profoundly naive to suggest that the climate should remain static - and completely delusional to suggest that we can keep it that way. Humans seem to have this bizarre fixation with preserving things 'just as they are'
One way or another - the climate of this planet will change at some point whether we like it or not. We have to adapt to that change.
DapperDanMan said:
It is hiding in plain site you just need to open your eyes. I am just asking for the science to be presented in some recognized journal that explains CC without human contribution to refute the published science so far produced.
The rest of what you put is not even worth replying to just deflection tactics.
So you didn't bother with my links then..... The rest of what you put is not even worth replying to just deflection tactics.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
Durbster MKII reply. The temperature of the planet NEVER stays still. Is it better for it to go up, or down?. Until that's answered, the rest in irrelevant. Talk about having a solution, without knowing if a problem exists!!!
It appears you think people don't respond to your posts because you're making such devastating points that they can't, when in fact you are ignored because the points you are making are so banal that they're simply not worth responding. It's somehow even more embarrassing to see you posting it in this subforum.If you were actually interested in answers to these extremely basic questions (and ignore anyone who answers them anyway), you could find them with five minutes of Googling but that would mean straying from safety of turbobloke's wing, and it looks like you're not brave enough to do that.
If you would do your own research with an open mind you'd see these questions have comprehensively answered many times over.
ks. And I had my opinion of this long before coming her, so don't need TB's wing, the guy you are obviously afraid of, because he regularly shoots you down in flames. And my point is exactly that Durbs, devastating. Which is why you've never answered, but evaded, every time I've asked. We all know why, it'll kill your belief stone dead!!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.Richard Tol said:
In their paper, Cook and colleagues argue that 97% of the relevant academic literature endorses that humans have contributed to observed climate change. This is unremarkable. It follows immediately from the 19th century research by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius. In popular discourse, however, Cook’s finding is often misrepresented. The 97% refers to the number of papers, rather than the number of scientists. The alleged consensus is about any human role in climate change, rather than a dominant role, and it is about climate change rather than the dangers it might pose.
Richard Tol said:
There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.
Tol's point about Cook at co's work being misrepresented in popular discourse is apparently a good one:Jinx said:
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.
Where is that quote from?Edited by plunker on Thursday 30th March 15:38
plunker said:
Where is that quote from?
Me on PH - HTH (I am able to construct arguments and formulate ideas independently of websites) . Edited by plunker on Thursday 30th March 15:38
You seem incapable of separating the science from the man. Tol believes in global warming and yet he is still able to show that Cook's paper was a steaming pile of horse excrement. I call that a double whammy.
Jinx said:
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
Rather than just starting with that, why didn't you add this?http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11?utm_source=T...
robinessex said:
I've done years of Googling CC. Answer is, it's a solution looking for a problem. And it’s also complete bks. And I had my opinion of this long before coming her
In other words, you had already made up your mind and then used Google to find things that backed you up. That's not the same thing. ks. And I had my opinion of this long before coming herOK, so if you don't rely on turbobloke for your information, who do you get your information from? What sources did you use to reach these conclusions?
robinessex said:
, so don't need TB's wing, the guy you are obviously afraid of, because he regularly shoots you down in flames.
He's been proven wrong countless times, his argument is wildly inconsistent and hypocritical yet your faith remains strong. You are a true believer.
robinessex said:
And my point is exactly that Durbs, devastating.
There are three kinds of men:He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb
durbster said:
robinessex said:
I've done years of Googling CC. Answer is, it's a solution looking for a problem. And it’s also complete bks. And I had my opinion of this long before coming her
In other words, you had already made up your mind and then used Google to find things that backed you up. That's not the same thing. ks. And I had my opinion of this long before coming herOK, so if you don't rely on turbobloke for your information, who do you get your information from? What sources did you use to reach these conclusions?
robinessex said:
, so don't need TB's wing, the guy you are obviously afraid of, because he regularly shoots you down in flames.
He's been proven wrong countless times, his argument is wildly inconsistent and hypocritical yet your faith remains strong. You are a true believer.
robinessex said:
And my point is exactly that Durbs, devastating.
There are three kinds of men:He who is knowledgeable and knows he is knowledgeable. He is wise, learn from him.
He who is ignorant and knows that he's ignorant. Teach him.
And he who is ignorant but doesn't know that he's ignorant. This one is stupid, avoid him.
- Arabic proverb
Some help. You obviously need it
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11647-clima...
Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:40
Edited by robinessex on Friday 31st March 09:51
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff