Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

chris watton

22,477 posts

259 months

Saturday 29th November 2014
quotequote all
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.

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!
Over the years, I have found that this is their last line of defence - their only way to try and bite back when their back is up against the wall.

Mr2Mike

20,143 posts

254 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
chris watton said:
Over the years, I have found that this is their last line of defence - their only way to try and bite back when their back is up against the wall.
What and who are you talking about?

chris watton

22,477 posts

259 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
What and who are you talking about?
The activists and their final desperate appeal to authority.

TooLateForAName

4,725 posts

183 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
Variomatic said:
TooLateForAName said:
And you quote desmogblog of all places to discredit someone else's source? Sometimes the mind boggles!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murry_Salby

You dispute the record?

Variomatic

2,392 posts

160 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
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 wink





eta: Incidentally, you are aware that references to wikipedia are considered worse than useless in any academic context, aren't you? Just checking wink

Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 30th November 14:24

TooLateForAName

4,725 posts

183 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
Things haven't changed in this thread have they?

Diderot

7,263 posts

191 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
TooLateForAName said:
Things haven't changed in this thread have they?
Why would they? Small matter of no warming for 18+ years despite large increase in CO2, no human signal in the data, and same old circular illogic spewed out by CAGW proponents.


Variomatic

2,392 posts

160 months

Sunday 30th November 2014
quotequote all
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 smile

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

542 posts

125 months

Monday 1st December 2014
quotequote all
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

Variomatic

2,392 posts

160 months

Monday 1st December 2014
quotequote all
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 laugh

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

13,158 posts

202 months

Monday 1st December 2014
quotequote all
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?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Monday 1st December 2014
quotequote all
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

1,009 posts

164 months

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Monday 1st December 2014
quotequote all
I'd take non peer reviewed or a arxiv submission as long as it's coherent. I can only find second hand for/against style posts.

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Tuesday 2nd December 2014
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
"An analysis shared exclusively with New Scientist" - I think they need to change the name...

kingofdbrits

622 posts

192 months

Tuesday 2nd December 2014
quotequote all
Lotus 50 said:
I like big advert for Shell. Not shy about being on the payroll of 'Big Oil' smile

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

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
Has sceptical science site been discussed here before?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-st...

Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
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)?

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
kingofdbrits said:
I like big advert for Shell. Not shy about being on the payroll of 'Big Oil' smile
confused
Why would that be a problem?

Oh of course, New Scientist is in on the great conspiracy too. Silly me.

hairykrishna

13,158 posts

202 months

Thursday 18th December 2014
quotequote all
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.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED