Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
Good username poor argument!
I have known countless smokers in my quite longish life.
Lots of them have died over the years, some with respiratory diseases often induced by smoking, not one of my personal acquaintances has succumbed to cancer of the lungs.
Smoking causes many illnesses, some of the causes induce lung cancer.
So from a bad argument can I accept the rest of your argument?
Hmm. I'll have a think over here, out of the way...
Nice trollery though 9/10 for 2 posts, but must do better.
I have known countless smokers in my quite longish life.
Lots of them have died over the years, some with respiratory diseases often induced by smoking, not one of my personal acquaintances has succumbed to cancer of the lungs.
Smoking causes many illnesses, some of the causes induce lung cancer.
So from a bad argument can I accept the rest of your argument?
Hmm. I'll have a think over here, out of the way...
Nice trollery though 9/10 for 2 posts, but must do better.
d0ntp4n1c said:
You don't have to believe anything, just don't pretend its for scientific reasons. You might as well argue that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer.
Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.
Explain this one to me then - given radiative energy transfer is the slowest means of energy transfer (or thermos flasks wouldn't work) How can slightly changing the amount of CO2 in a convection current (the atmosphere) change surface temperature? The surface is losing energy at a particular rate (via convection, evaporation and radiation) you slightly reduce the radiative rate - would that not just increase the convection rate? Of course some scientists have different views, just saying that there is an overwhelming consensus and if you trust the method then you should trust the conclusions.
I'm not trolling, just stating what is actually a fact - that in the scientific community the reality of human-induced climate change is well-established and not at all controversial. The debate is about climate-sensitivity not whether it's happening at all.
More extreme weather is just one aspect of climate change. If you don't believe it then that's fine but it's an anti-scientific position to hold.
By the way, yes you do "believe" in scientific theories. Belief is just what you hold to be true, for whatever reason.
More extreme weather is just one aspect of climate change. If you don't believe it then that's fine but it's an anti-scientific position to hold.
By the way, yes you do "believe" in scientific theories. Belief is just what you hold to be true, for whatever reason.
d0ntp4n1c said:
More extreme weather is just one aspect of climate change. If you don't believe it then that's fine but it's an anti-scientific position to hold.
In that case climate change isn't happening...lots of data highlighting a reduction or no change position in extreme weather events
QED
Please explain though how the GCMs (with their warming poles models) leads to "more extreme weather"
Extreme weather is more likely the greater the temperature gradiant from equator to pole. Therefore if there is more extreme weather the pole warming GCM must be wrong unless global cooling is taking place. If global cooling is taking place the premise increased CO2 = warming must be wrong.
If CO2 increases warming which increases extremes then the GCMs are wrong. If the GCMs are wrong then the entire "evidence" thus far provided that CO2 leads to warming is wrong.
This entire push to CO2 forced climate change causes more extreme weather is contradictory to the CO2 causes warming theory. The GCMs used to predict the CO2 thermogeddon are at odds to "more extreme weather" as the polar temperature differential is reduced in all GCM warming scenarios.
This is possibly why the warmist "Nature" publication is against the extreme weather meme.
Dear d,
regards,
Jet
d0ntp4n1c said:
I'm not trolling, just stating what is actually a fact - that in the scientific community the reality of human-induced climate change is well-established and not at all controversial. The debate is about climate-sensitivity not whether it's happening at all.
More extreme weather is just one aspect of climate change. If you don't believe it then that's fine but it's an anti-scientific position to hold.
By the way, yes you do "believe" in scientific theories. Belief is just what you hold to be true, for whatever reason.
Try positing to your scientific community that AGW is not real or the sensitivity is low enough to be indistinguishable from natural variations and you'll see how "controversial" it is,More extreme weather is just one aspect of climate change. If you don't believe it then that's fine but it's an anti-scientific position to hold.
By the way, yes you do "believe" in scientific theories. Belief is just what you hold to be true, for whatever reason.
regards,
Jet
d0ntp4n1c said:
Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.
You're new here, aren't you.El Guapo said:
d0ntp4n1c said:
Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others. If you think there is seriously any scientific debate about this then you've been completely misled.
You're new here, aren't you.
d0ntp4n1c said:
Either you believe that science works or not. If you do then you'll believe that climate change is happening
That's wrong on so many levels it could only come from a global warming activist.Is your surname Hansen?
d0ntp4n1c said:
and that it's caused by humans because that view is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
From the rising CO2 causing no warming for 17 years? er... doesn't that mean the evidence fails to support it?d0ntp4n1c said:
There's no point quoting the few dissenting papers because they are so massively outweighed by the all the others.
So you are saying that science works by weighing the papers on each subject, and the heaviest gets the 'truth' award?Is your first name Richard?
I am new to posting, yes. Though I can understand why anyone sharing my views would want to hide since it seems unlikely that'll get much of a reception if I post elsewhere on the forums.
Not trying to argue with anyone over the evidence for climate change but I do understand and trust the scientific method and therefore can't come to any other conclusion than to agree with the scientific consensus.
It's very easy to find out what the consensus is on climate change because there's the (whisper it) IPCC report every few years. You can either believe that the IPCC are some kind of global conspiracy or you can believe they represent thousands of scientists. That's the choice. Either go with the science or not, but you can't cherry pick bits of it to support your view. If you find a few mistakes then you can dismiss the whole thing or you can wonder why there were only a few mistakes.
Find it a bit strange that on a forum where everyone is interested in mechanics and engineering that there is such an antagonism towards science. And yes honestly the views in this thread are extremely anti-science.
Anyway, since mentioning the IPCC will clearly make me sound like a troll I think I'll just leave it there.
Not trying to argue with anyone over the evidence for climate change but I do understand and trust the scientific method and therefore can't come to any other conclusion than to agree with the scientific consensus.
It's very easy to find out what the consensus is on climate change because there's the (whisper it) IPCC report every few years. You can either believe that the IPCC are some kind of global conspiracy or you can believe they represent thousands of scientists. That's the choice. Either go with the science or not, but you can't cherry pick bits of it to support your view. If you find a few mistakes then you can dismiss the whole thing or you can wonder why there were only a few mistakes.
Find it a bit strange that on a forum where everyone is interested in mechanics and engineering that there is such an antagonism towards science. And yes honestly the views in this thread are extremely anti-science.
Anyway, since mentioning the IPCC will clearly make me sound like a troll I think I'll just leave it there.
Oh dear
No-one wants you to bring us the head of some turbulent climate scientist here*
But could there be a chance of "Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide?" getting an answer?
You'd be amazed at how receptive we could be.
And to be honest * I might not mind if you did, they are causing the future of my grandchildren to become decidedly uncertain except there will be poverty forced upon their sceptr'd realm.
not nice
No-one wants you to bring us the head of some turbulent climate scientist here*
But could there be a chance of "Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide?" getting an answer?
You'd be amazed at how receptive we could be.
And to be honest * I might not mind if you did, they are causing the future of my grandchildren to become decidedly uncertain except there will be poverty forced upon their sceptr'd realm.
not nice
d0ntp4n1c said:
I do understand and trust the scientific method
So do scientists and non-scientists on PH, and others. That's the problem.Scientist Jo Nova said:
Up until the 1998 MBH paper came out, it was widely understood that there was a Medieval Warm Period, indeed there were hundreds of papers available at the time. The Hockey Stick Graph completely rewrote everything, yet was accepted and widely promoted without anyone so much as asking for the data until, of course, McIntyre and McKitrick. It will go down in the annals of science as one of the most egregious examples of “the not-so-scientific” method.
YAD062? Remember the singularities of climate nonscience...judithgate (one scientist) treemometers (one tree YAD062) and sea level (one HK tidal gauge)...Not to mention broken peer review so all calls on 'paper weight' are off.
Keep the faith
d0ntp4n1c said:
I am new to posting, yes. Though I can understand why anyone sharing my views would want to hide since it seems unlikely that'll get much of a reception if I post elsewhere on the forums.
Not trying to argue with anyone over the evidence for climate change but I do understand and trust the scientific method and therefore can't come to any other conclusion than to agree with the scientific consensus.
It's very easy to find out what the consensus is on climate change because there's the (whisper it) IPCC report every few years. You can either believe that the IPCC are some kind of global conspiracy or you can believe they represent thousands of scientists. That's the choice. Either go with the science or not, but you can't cherry pick bits of it to support your view. If you find a few mistakes then you can dismiss the whole thing or you can wonder why there were only a few mistakes.
Find it a bit strange that on a forum where everyone is interested in mechanics and engineering that there is such an antagonism towards science. And yes honestly the views in this thread are extremely anti-science.
Anyway, since mentioning the IPCC will clearly make me sound like a troll I think I'll just leave it there.
Best you do. IPCC scientists Not trying to argue with anyone over the evidence for climate change but I do understand and trust the scientific method and therefore can't come to any other conclusion than to agree with the scientific consensus.
It's very easy to find out what the consensus is on climate change because there's the (whisper it) IPCC report every few years. You can either believe that the IPCC are some kind of global conspiracy or you can believe they represent thousands of scientists. That's the choice. Either go with the science or not, but you can't cherry pick bits of it to support your view. If you find a few mistakes then you can dismiss the whole thing or you can wonder why there were only a few mistakes.
Find it a bit strange that on a forum where everyone is interested in mechanics and engineering that there is such an antagonism towards science. And yes honestly the views in this thread are extremely anti-science.
Anyway, since mentioning the IPCC will clearly make me sound like a troll I think I'll just leave it there.
d0ntp4n1c said:
Find it a bit strange that on a forum where everyone is interested in mechanics and engineering that there is such an antagonism towards science. And yes honestly the views in this thread are extremely anti-science.
On the contrary, most on here are very pro-science and admire great scientists. Where I have a problem is that the well-established scientific principle of openness has been hijacked by special-interest groups. As soon as I first heard "the science is settled" I knew something was afoot.Can you honestly say that the conduct of certain people at CRU had anything to do with science or the advancement of human knowledge?
El Guapo said:
d0ntp4n1c said:
Find it a bit strange that on a forum where everyone is interested in mechanics and engineering that there is such an antagonism towards science. And yes honestly the views in this thread are extremely anti-science.
On the contrary, most on here are very pro-science and admire great scientists. Where I have a problem is that the well-established scientific principle of openness has been hijacked by special-interest groups. As soon as I first heard "the science is settled" I knew something was afoot.Can you honestly say that the conduct of certain people at CRU had anything to do with science or the advancement of human knowledge?
You also seem to be falling foul of the BBC trick:
Climate Change == Global Warming == Man made
X Wrong
Climate change ... yes. It can't be static and never has been
Global Warming ... well there was some a while ago but to show it as current you have to cherry pick your data points (no global temperature rise for 17 years. An actual FACT).
Man made ... No evidence
Ok. One more go ...
The beauty of the scientific method is that its not possible for it to be so completely hijacked by special interest groups. Look at Ben Goldacre's work on unpublished trials in the Pharmaceutical industry to see that you can't hide results from good analysis.
If you were genuinely pro-science you could go to any number of websites and find the answers to all your questions. But these are all denounced as being warmist or activists or whatever so you take no notice. Go and search Nature or Scientific American or any other well-respected journal and see what articles there are about climate change. It's not hard to do. Find out what the great scientists you so admire think about it (yes I know, that's tantamount to appealing to authority).
The point is that its much easier to find out what the consensus is on climate change than to repeat the work of thousands of researchers around the world. That's how it works. And it works because people love proving each other wrong, so forming a consensus is a messy business but if one does emerge then you know you have to take it seriously.
This argument is about the nature of science because if human-induced climate change is not happening then the whole scientific method has failed. It would be great news if that were true but given science's success in every other field it's also spectacularly unlikely.
The beauty of the scientific method is that its not possible for it to be so completely hijacked by special interest groups. Look at Ben Goldacre's work on unpublished trials in the Pharmaceutical industry to see that you can't hide results from good analysis.
If you were genuinely pro-science you could go to any number of websites and find the answers to all your questions. But these are all denounced as being warmist or activists or whatever so you take no notice. Go and search Nature or Scientific American or any other well-respected journal and see what articles there are about climate change. It's not hard to do. Find out what the great scientists you so admire think about it (yes I know, that's tantamount to appealing to authority).
The point is that its much easier to find out what the consensus is on climate change than to repeat the work of thousands of researchers around the world. That's how it works. And it works because people love proving each other wrong, so forming a consensus is a messy business but if one does emerge then you know you have to take it seriously.
This argument is about the nature of science because if human-induced climate change is not happening then the whole scientific method has failed. It would be great news if that were true but given science's success in every other field it's also spectacularly unlikely.
d0ntp4n1c said:
This argument is about the nature of science because if human-induced climate change is not happening then the whole scientific method has failed.
Err, no. You seem very confused. AGW was posited as an hypothesis, predictions were made, observation does not see those predictions coming to pass - the hypothesis falls. That a number of rent-seeking pseudo scientists have denied these facts tells me nothing about the scientific method at all.d0ntp4n1c said:
Ok. One more go ...
The beauty of the scientific method is that its not possible for it to be so completely hijacked by special interest groups. Look at Ben Goldacre's work on unpublished trials in the Pharmaceutical industry to see that you can't hide results from good analysis.
If you were genuinely pro-science you could go to any number of websites and find the answers to all your questions. But these are all denounced as being warmist or activists or whatever so you take no notice. Go and search Nature or Scientific American or any other well-respected journal and see what articles there are about climate change. It's not hard to do. Find out what the great scientists you so admire think about it (yes I know, that's tantamount to appealing to authority).
The point is that its much easier to find out what the consensus is on climate change than to repeat the work of thousands of researchers around the world. That's how it works. And it works because people love proving each other wrong, so forming a consensus is a messy business but if one does emerge then you know you have to take it seriously.
This argument is about the nature of science because if human-induced climate change is not happening then the whole scientific method has failed. It would be great news if that were true but given science's success in every other field it's also spectacularly unlikely.
Is the BBC unbiased?The beauty of the scientific method is that its not possible for it to be so completely hijacked by special interest groups. Look at Ben Goldacre's work on unpublished trials in the Pharmaceutical industry to see that you can't hide results from good analysis.
If you were genuinely pro-science you could go to any number of websites and find the answers to all your questions. But these are all denounced as being warmist or activists or whatever so you take no notice. Go and search Nature or Scientific American or any other well-respected journal and see what articles there are about climate change. It's not hard to do. Find out what the great scientists you so admire think about it (yes I know, that's tantamount to appealing to authority).
The point is that its much easier to find out what the consensus is on climate change than to repeat the work of thousands of researchers around the world. That's how it works. And it works because people love proving each other wrong, so forming a consensus is a messy business but if one does emerge then you know you have to take it seriously.
This argument is about the nature of science because if human-induced climate change is not happening then the whole scientific method has failed. It would be great news if that were true but given science's success in every other field it's also spectacularly unlikely.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff