Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
deeen said:
KareemK said:
Do we have anyone on here who's actually a climate scientist and not some armchair professor using google search to throw up stats that purport to disprove AGW?
Anyone?
1. That's a bit like asking a vicar to disprove god.Anyone?
2. You're asking the wrong question; try instead looking for proof that mankind is a major factor in climate change?
3. Occam's Razor - the climate changed perfectly well, all by itself, before humans existed... why would we need to add another explanation? (CF. Canute)
4. No need to appeal to authority - don't be scared to think for yourself!
Variomatic said:
TooLateForAName said:
Very reliable source....
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-s...
And you quote desmogblog of all places to discredit someone else's source? Sometimes the mind boggles!http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-s...
You dispute the record?
TooLateForAName said:
I take it you are aware of the term ad hominem attack? In case you're not, in football terms it's called playing the man, not the ball. It's what desmogblog devotes probably 97%(™ The Consensus Inc) of its bandwidth to (except, of course, when it's justifying "dubious" behaviour by members of The Team, such as Gleick doing things that in any other circumstances would be classed as phishing and illegal under various telecoms laws).
The record you refer to has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the quality or validity of Salby's research - in fact, if you bothered to look past the ad homs, you'd find that he's very well regarded, including having several textbooks to his name that are standard texts for undergraduate courses.
You'd also find that his work on climate has been presented with enough information for others to replicate and confirm or falsify it. Which is something the AGW team consistently refuse to do, despite it being an essential part of science to allow others access to all the information needed.
But, hey, play the man if you like - in this game the referee is very much paid for by your side so the rules only matter one way
eta: Incidentally, you are aware that references to wikipedia are considered worse than useless in any academic context, aren't you? Just checking
Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 30th November 14:24
TooLateForAName said:
Things haven't changed in this thread have they?
If you mean that you still can't get way with attacking the man instead of his science like you can on the fan-boy sites then, no, things haven't changed The clue's in the title, btw. "scientific debate" not "politics of". Generally people who try to drag politics / personalities in on either side are called out for it.
Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 30th November 21:53
plunker said:
It should be noted that ad website is perfectly fine though. The validity of web page content can be judged by opinion about the domain it's hosted on.
climate war rule #237
Oh, I wish there was a Like button for that climate war rule #237
It[s a fair point and I guess most of us are guilty of putting up with more "iffy" content from some sites than others.
Personally, as a lifelong socialist, I get seriously fed up with many of the right wing rants on many of the "sceptic" sites. Partly because I tend not to agree with them - if it really is a case of saving the world then the "dollar cost" really shouldn't matter. After all, all those dollars are only going to move around if they're spent and end up in someone else's pocket!
But mainly because I don't like my science and politics mixed. Which is why I have a real thing against ad homs. It doesn't matter what you think of someone politically or personally if what they're saying is true. If Jimmy Saville told you it's a bad idea to climb into that cage with a lion in it then doing it anyway because of who he was would be really rather stupid!
hairykrishna said:
Does Salby have a paper/website laying out his theory? I don't want to sit through his lecture. A quick google suggests he doesn't believe that the observed CO2 rise is due to burning fossil fuels?
A paper was promised but still no sign of it. I'm not smart enough to undestand all the technical arguments but there's alot of 'the obs don't fit the theory so the obs must be wrong' to it I think (eg ice core data) so he's probably got his work cut out getting it through peer review.Lotus 50 said:
"An analysis shared exclusively with New Scientist" - I think they need to change the name... Lotus 50 said:
I like big advert for Shell. Not shy about being on the payroll of 'Big Oil' Quoted for future reference.
An analysis shared exclusively with New Scientist suggests that the global slowdown in the rise of air temperatures is probably over, and we are entering another period of rapid warming
Has sceptical science site been discussed here before?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...
Halb said:
Has sceptical science site been discussed here before?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...
You mean the website created by a [poor] cartoonist with members that have delusions of being members of the Forth Reich ( photos available)?https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...
Halb said:
Has sceptical science site been discussed here before?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...
Now you've done it. You'll be linking to scienceofdoom or, god forbid, realclimate next and people will really start to get upset.https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff