Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
d0ntp4n1c said:
The beauty of the scientific method is that its not possible for it to be so completely hijacked by special interest groups.
It doesn't need to be completely hijacked, there are plenty of voices against you just don't here them on the BBC. If you look at what happened at Hadley Cru can you say that was proper science in action (HINT: it was a disgrace)? d0ntp4n1c said:
Ok. One more go ...
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.
There is so much fail in that paragraph it is scary. Consensus is a complete fallacy, lets look at a modern example of "consensus fail". Stomach ulcers, doctors and medical researchers firmly believed and entered this "scientific consensual" state that stress and diet were the only factors of concern in the formation of stomach ulcers. 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.
That was until Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren, PROVED, in the most unequivocal way, namely experimenting on himself, that the Helicobacter pylori bacteria was a primary cause. Consensus suddenly meant nothing, evidence is everything. The black swan happily shreds consensus.
In the light of above, can you tell me how much scientifically significant climate warming has taken place in the last 18 years? Remember the whole evidence based premise of science above.
Let's ask Phil Jones, he of CRU of University of East Anglia fame, the high priest of warming, notice the very first word of his answer.
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present (2010) there has been no statistically-significant global warming"
Phil Jones:
Yes but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. "
Courtesy of the BBC.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 26th February 11:18
What has the BBC got to do with it? Are they biased? No idea. Certainly lost trust in them since they have utterly failed to report the privatisation of the NHS.
Go and look at the most respected scientific journals like Nature and Science if you want to see what the scientific community thinks. Go on, I dare you.
Go and look at the most respected scientific journals like Nature and Science if you want to see what the scientific community thinks. Go on, I dare you.
d0ntp4n1c said:
What has the BBC got to do with it? Are they biased? No idea. Certainly lost trust in them since they have utterly failed to report the privatisation of the NHS.
Go and look at the most respected scientific journals like Nature and Science if you want to see what the scientific community thinks. Go on, I dare you.
We have and they've been royally shredded. Go back to the start of this thread and read it if you dare. Or do you have a closed mind?Go and look at the most respected scientific journals like Nature and Science if you want to see what the scientific community thinks. Go on, I dare you.
d0ntp4n1c said:
What has the BBC got to do with it? Are they biased? No idea. Certainly lost trust in them since they have utterly failed to report the privatisation of the NHS.
Go and look at the most respected scientific journals like Nature and Science if you want to see what the scientific community thinks. Go on, I dare you.
Scientific consensus again. Go and look at the most respected scientific journals like Nature and Science if you want to see what the scientific community thinks. Go on, I dare you.
You did read my response above didn't you ? Clearly not.
Not here to debate specific points of evidence. My only point is that there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change is happening and caused by human activity. This is an extremely non-controversial position to hold. My belief is entirely rational and founded on my understanding and trust in the scientific method.
There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
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.
Unfortunately that method also has something called the prediction-v-observation sanity check before a hypothesis can be considered validated.
No point in tweaking feedbacks in the models when you don't even know if all the variables are present.
d0ntp4n1c said:
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
The consensus, for what it's worth, would be better labelled 'claimed consensus'. The oft quoted metric on consensus has been pulled to bits so often it's a true wonder you claim such a position with a straight face.Toddling back off to your activist central to claim victory?
d0ntp4n1c said:
Not here to debate specific points of evidence. My only point is that there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change is happening and caused by human activity. This is an extremely non-controversial position to hold. My belief is entirely rational and founded on my understanding and trust in the scientific method.
There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
Warming? What warming? There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
The consensus is currently 'oh f
k, it hasn't happened'...BliarOut said:
d0ntp4n1c said:
Not here to debate specific points of evidence. My only point is that there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change is happening and caused by human activity. This is an extremely non-controversial position to hold. My belief is entirely rational and founded on my understanding and trust in the scientific method.
There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
Warming? What warming? There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
The consensus is currently 'oh f
k, it hasn't happened'...To accuse us of refusing to see the point after saying you are not here to debate the points of evidence shows a sadly closed mind.
I am waiting and have been waiting for the "Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide?" question to be answered, even responded to. And not just from you, you are not alone.
And I have been waiting here for far more than the twenty four hours you gave us of your time.
The climate does change, always has. And the posters in here who know far more about this than I have pointed out to you that "warming" per se has not occurred for many years.
I think you took a wrong turn somehwere in your belief system, but hey, it is YOURS enjoy it...
I am waiting and have been waiting for the "Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide?" question to be answered, even responded to. And not just from you, you are not alone.
And I have been waiting here for far more than the twenty four hours you gave us of your time.
The climate does change, always has. And the posters in here who know far more about this than I have pointed out to you that "warming" per se has not occurred for many years.
I think you took a wrong turn somehwere in your belief system, but hey, it is YOURS enjoy it...
d0ntp4n1c said:
Not here to debate specific points of evidence.
What else is there barring evidence ? Faith ? d0ntp4n1c said:
My only point is that there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change is happening and caused by human activity. This is an extremely non-controversial position to hold. My belief is entirely rational and founded on my understanding and trust in the scientific method.
Consensus again, please refer to post above, to the fallacy, utter drivel and irrationality that is consensus.d0ntp4n1c said:
There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
He is a renowned global warming advocate, even to the point of falsifying and destroying data and he admits, through gritted teeth of course, that the evidence shows no scientifically significant warming has taken place in 18 years.d0ntp4n1c said:
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
And again, opinions are like rectums, we all have one. Evidence is the key. That old scientific method thing again.Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 26th February 15:02
Dear dp,
The sword cuts both ways
Do you see how it is your mind that is closed not ours?
I expect that all sceptics here are fully aware of mainstream scientific opinion. They have also examined different points of view and come to the studied conclusion that the mainstream is (with a capital wubble-u) Wrong.
It has happened before with science and it will happen again,
regards,
Jet
d0ntp4n1c said:
Not here to debate specific points of evidence. My only point is that there is a general consensus amongst the scientific community that climate change is happening and caused by human activity. This is an extremely non-controversial position to hold. My belief is entirely rational and founded on my understanding and trust in the scientific method.
There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
Why do you not believe Phil Jones now when he queries AGW? Why did you believe him before when he expressed points supporting AGW?There's no point in quoting Phil Jones - why do you believe his answer when you don't believe anything else he says?
Anyway, enough already, there's no point to this. If no one is prepared to go and look at what the mainstream scientific opinion is then I'm wasting my time.
The sword cuts both ways
Do you see how it is your mind that is closed not ours?
I expect that all sceptics here are fully aware of mainstream scientific opinion. They have also examined different points of view and come to the studied conclusion that the mainstream is (with a capital wubble-u) Wrong.
It has happened before with science and it will happen again,
regards,
Jet
Firstly the 97% false consensus is only 75 anonymous self-selected respondents. This is referenced far and wide.
Secondly:
Secondly:
Hulme and Mahony paper in Physical Geography said:
Claims such as "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff