Caroline Lucas: Something needs to be done about her

[offendi]

"Something needs to be done" , the pitiful cry of the ineffectual man.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

Fact is self-delusion.

I know what you mean, but not quite so in science.

Refuting a hypothesis by counter-example or false prediction is not delusional but it is sufficient. Usually!

Maintaining belief in such a notion after the fact, that's delusional, which is where we are with manmadeup global warming.

Going the other way, absolute truth doesn't exist in science as fact, since hypotheses and theories are steps on the pathway of contingent truth.

Anyway, time for a cup of tea.

[turbobloke]

offendi said:

"Something needs to be done" , the pitiful cry of the ineffectual man.

Are you offering that as an example, or as advice?

If the former they say confession is good for the soul. If the latter, it needs to be aimed at Lucas, since your quote is a war cry of the true believers.

Tea...

[drivin_me_nuts]

As a local mp, she seems to be rather liked by those with a more laid back agenda. She is an interesting mirror if the local demographic; wealthy dissolusioned Tories, likewise labour supporters and then a broad spread of those with an agenda as diverse as the colours of the rainbow. She's trendy in a town that loves alternative.

I suspect she will be around a while.... In her valiant attempt at 'socking it to the man'...

[Countdown]

Waffle you say ?

turbobloke said:

There is no human signal visible in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide

My best attempt at translating that piece of flowery prose would be

I think Turbobloke said:

"There is no evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming"

And yet there are plenty of scientists who state that there ARE links between CO2 and global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09061...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climat...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...

The IPCC said:

it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century

The above information contradicts what you stated and seems to support Caroline Lucas's point of view. So does that make you "delusional"?

[Countdown]

Derek Smith said:

There is very little fact. There are explanations of observations but that is about all. Newton explained gravity and everyone was happy. It was taken as fact. Einstein came along and suggested another explanation which could be tests. Newton, it would appear, was talking out of his telescope. That said, they flew to the moon using Newtonian physics but satnav needs Einstein.

Everyone goes on about Darwin but On the Origin of Species has been 'developed' in the ensuing 150 years of course, DNA being just one process he was not aware of.

It didn't mean the observed phenomenon were wrong, just the the explanation lacked something.

Fact is self-delusion.

I would add that everything we know as individuals AND as a society, is continually reviewed, refined, updated. At one time 100% of the people may have believed the Earth was flat. We are now at a point where 99.99999999% believe that the Earth is spherical.

In relation to MMGW it would be silly to INSIST it does or does not exist and equally silly to brand anybody who dares to take the opposite view as delusional.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

Waffle you say ?

turbobloke said:

There is no human signal visible in global climate data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide

My best attempt at translating that piece of flowery prose would be

I think Turbobloke said:

"There is no evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming"

And yet there are plenty of scientists who state that there ARE links between CO2 and global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/09061...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climat...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_i...

The IPCC said:

it is a greater than a 90 percent certainty that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century

The above information contradicts what you stated and seems to support Caroline Lucas's point of view. So does that make you "delusional"?

Correct it's not waffle it's expressing reality in scientific terms that are appropriate to a science-type situation.

Scientists saying there are links between A and B - that's your view of evidence? It's mere opinion. My accurate statement, the one you criticised without any basis, described the actual position in terms of data and evidence, in doing so I avoidedanything as trivial as opinion.

It doesn't matter how many scientists are deluded, numbers don't determine veracity. Ask any of them for the location of that necessary causal human signal, the invisible one in the statement you don't appear to get on with.

You cited IPPC, allow me to expand: the fact that 100% wasn't cited should have given you a clue.

[turbobloke]

This is for Countdown and apologies to others for going this far off-topic.

This is what lies behind the IPCC gobbledigook on percentages:

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)

There was and is no visible causal human signal in global climate data.

Unless you can point us to it?

And since those supposed scientists, whose mere opinion is so credulously believed, cannot do so either, I know in advance that you can't.

Which is where we came in - delusion iirc.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

Correct it's not waffle it's expressing reality in scientific terms that are appropriate to a science-type situation.

Given that I managed to convey the same message in simpler terms and fewer words I'd suggest perhaps it was waffle...

turbobloke said:

Scientists saying there are links between A and B - that's your view of evidence?

Unless they woke up one sunny day and decided just to say something for the hell of it I'm guessing their statements are based on evidence.

turbobloke said:

It's mere opinion. My accurate statement, the one you criticised without any basis, described the actual position in terms of data and evidence, in doing so I avoidedanything as trivial as opinion.

Right. So the scientists who don't agree with your position have no evidence and are basing their views on some kind of guess? Whereas your views are based on evidence you yourself have obtained (as opposed to the views of another group of scientists)?

The point I'm trying to make is that some of the finest minds in the world cannot agree on GW, whether or not it exists, and what may or may not be causing it. Therefore its silly and childish to label anybody delusional just because the viewpoint or opinions they hold are not the same as yours. Especially as their views/opinions have as much scientific support as yours.

turbobloke said:

You cited IPPC, allow me to expand: the fact that 100% wasn't cited should have given you a clue.

100% of people don't agree that the Earth isn't flat. It doesn't mean that the Earth isn't flat

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Correct it's not waffle it's expressing reality in scientific terms that are appropriate to a science-type situation.

Given that I managed to convey the same message in simpler terms and fewer words I'd suggest perhaps it was waffle...

No, as it happens, it's good to make things as simple as possible but no simpler, your version has key omissions and is imprecise.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Scientists saying there are links between A and B - that's your view of evidence?

Unless they woke up one sunny day and decided just to say something for the hell of it I'm guessing their statements are based on evidence.

You'd be wrong. Where is the evidence? Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to carbon dioxide emissions? You already read, I presume, the IPCC telling you they have no idea if or when it will appear.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

It's mere opinion. My accurate statement, the one you criticised without any basis, described the actual position in terms of data and evidence, in doing so I avoidedanything as trivial as opinion.

Right. So the scientists who don't agree with your position have no evidence and are basing their views on some kind of guess? Whereas your views are based on evidence you yourself have obtained (as opposed to the views of another group of scientists)?

No, on data widely available to scientists.

It's not necessary to credulously rely on mere opinion, as you do.

Countdown said:

The point I'm trying to make is that some of the finest minds in the world cannot agree on GW

You would be surprised how wrong that is, the finest minds are not in the IPCC's coterie of propagandists. Their information pollution comes from a few dozen government placemen. Many fine minds do agree that manmadeup warming is junkscience, which it is.

Countdown said:

whether or not it exists, and what may or may not be causing it. Therefore its silly and childish to label anybody delusional just because the viewpoint or opinions they hold are not the same as yours. Especially as their views/opinions have as much scientific support as yours.

That's not correct, it's their opinion (it's not a scientific one as there is no evidence for it) and my correct interpretation of data.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

You cited IPPC, allow me to expand: the fact that 100% wasn't cited should have given you a clue.

100% of people don't agree that the Earth isn't flat. It doesn't mean that the Earth isn't flat

That smiley won't let you off the hook.

Argumentum ad captandum on top of argumentum ad populum on top of argumentum ad verecundiam. There are some remaining logical fallacies you may find appealing but you're running out fast.

And still, you have no evidence in data to support the position of those you follow so assiduously. Where is that causal human signal that must exist? If you wish to save yourself some time, I've been looking through the scientific literature for it over more than 30 years and in the nearly 10 years of climate threads nobody supporting the junkscience of manmadeup warming has produced it or showed where it is. How long do you have?

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)

means

"We do not know when we can prove conclusively that Climate Change is influenced by Human activity"

It does not mean that there definitely isn't any impact on the climate as a result of human activities. For example there is plenty of evidence linking CO2 to climate change.

turbobloke said:

Unless you can point us to it?

Ok, I'll give it a bash.

IPCC Cimate Change 2007 said:

There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming

Seems pretty clear to me.

turbobloke said:

And since those supposed scientists, whose mere opinion is so credulously believed, cannot do so either, I know in advance that you can't.

That's the problem with stating something with absolute certainty - there is the risk of ending up looking like an idiot.

[12gauge]

I didnt see QT but usually these green MPs only call themselves green as its less offensive/has fewer negative connotations than 'communist'

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

"Finally we come to the most difficult question of all: 'when will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?' In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in this Chapter it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is 'We do not know'."
(IPCC SAR 1995 WG1 draft Ch 8 Section 8.6)

means

"We do not know when we can prove conclusively that Climate Change is influenced by Human activity"

It does not mean that there definitely isn't any impact on the climate as a result of human activities. For example there is plenty of evidence linking CO2 to climate change.

No there isn't. The evidence links climate change to carbon dioxide and if you knew much at all about the topic you're engaged in discussing you would know exactly what is meant.

And as to your first comment, you seem to be forgetting about the important difference between a refutation and a positive proof.

All that I've claimed is that, in the past until now, there has been (and remains) no visible signal in global climate data with estblished causality to humans. That remains so, and is a fact. Those who believe in invisible signals may reasonably be said to be delusional, or to have another motive for making the bogus claim.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Unless you can point us to it?

Ok, I'll give it a bash.

IPCC Cimate Change 2007 said:

There is very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming

Seems pretty clear to me.

That's an opinion, and an uncertain one, and I asked for data showing a causal human signal. You replied with something waffly.

You're in the field of science here and you seem to be out of your depth quite quickly.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

And since those supposed scientists, whose mere opinion is so credulously believed, cannot do so either, I know in advance that you can't.

That's the problem with stating something with absolute certainty - there is the risk of ending up looking like an idiot.

There's no risk in the case we refer to, your lack of awareness has led you astray.

Even after your valiant attempts at making a case from nothing but opinion, where none exists, we still lack any data showing a causal human signal in global climate data.

[NoNeed]

12gauge said:

I didnt see QT but usually these green MPs only call themselves green as its less offensive/has fewer negative connotations than 'communist'

They will also travel anywhere by any means to sell their comunistgreen message.

[MarkRSi]

Eric Mc said:

Even though I don't agree with roughly 99% of what she says, I am always worried about comments which contain the wish that "something needs to be done about him/her".

We know what needs to be done, don't vote for her. If she is the best parliamentary candidate in the Brighton constituency, that is more of a reflection of those who stood against her at the last election.

This.

The question should be;

"Brighton : Something needs to be done about it"

Nuke it from orbit?

[NoNeed]

MarkRSi said:

Eric Mc said:

Even though I don't agree with roughly 99% of what she says, I am always worried about comments which contain the wish that "something needs to be done about him/her".

We know what needs to be done, don't vote for her. If she is the best parliamentary candidate in the Brighton constituency, that is more of a reflection of those who stood against her at the last election.

This.

The question should be;

"Brighton : Something needs to be done about it"

Nuke it from orbit?

What a waste of fairy costumes

[turbobloke]

12gauge said:

I didnt see QT but usually these green MPs only call themselves green as its less offensive/has fewer negative connotations than 'communist'

Spot on.

[Countdown]

turbobloke said:

No, as it happens, it's good to make things as simple as possible but no simpler, your version has key omissions and is imprecise.

Please point out which omissions were "key" and thereby failed to convey the true gist of your statement.

turbobloke said:

You'd be wrong. Where is the evidence? Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to carbon dioxide emissions? You already read, I presume, the IPCC telling you they have no idea if or when it will appear.

See my previous post.

turbobloke said:

No, on data widely available to scientists.

At the risk of going round in circles the data has been interpreted differently by different scientists. There isn't a consensus and there isn't anything which suggests, categorically, that (A) is right and (B) is wrong. Anybody who suggests their viewpoint is definitely right is risking being as delusional as the people who disagree with them

turbobloke said:

You would be surprised how wrong that is, the finest minds are not in the IPCC's coterie of propagandists. Their information pollution comes from a few dozen government placemen. Many fine minds do agree that manmadeup warming is junkscience, which it is.

So, on the one hand, the IPCC can't make a definite statement that MMGW exists. OTOH they're a bunch of propagandists whose information is polluted by Govt placemen (who seemingly have a vested interest in proving MMGW). And of course anybody who disagrees with MMGW must, by default, be of fine mind.

turbobloke said:

That's not correct, it's their opinion (it's not a scientific one as there is no evidence for it) and my correct interpretation of data.

For the umpteenth time just because their interpretation of the (same) data is different to yours it doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong.

turbobloke said:

Argumentum ad captandum on top of argumentum ad populum on top of argumentum ad verecundiam. There are some remaining logical fallacies you may find appealing but you're running out fast.

Perish the thought that you're using the self same style of argument

turbobloke said:

And still, you have no evidence in data to support the position of those you follow so assiduously. Where is that causal human signal that must exist?

I don't have the evidence. The IPCC apparently have sufficient evidence though. (see above)

turbobloke said:

If you wish to save yourself some time, I've been looking through the scientific literature for it over more than 30 years and in the nearly 10 years of climate threads nobody supporting the junkscience of manmadeup warming has produced it or showed where it is. How long do you have?

I haven't looked at it in any great detail. However if I'm told that something is true with great conviction by somebody (especially when that person has quoted Kelvin McKenzie as a source of credible evidence) my scepticism and cynical nature takes over.

[turbobloke]

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

No, as it happens, it's good to make things as simple as possible but no simpler, your version has key omissions and is imprecise.

Please point out which omissions were "key" and thereby failed to convey the true gist of your statement.

As revealed by your later mistakes, failing to define the evidence that will suffice merely allows opinion to be offered as evidence. For proof we need only look at your posts, which offer mere opinion as sufficient evidence.

Wrong.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

You'd be wrong. Where is the evidence? Where is the visible human signal in global climate data with established causality to carbon dioxide emissions? You already read, I presume, the IPCC telling you they have no idea if or when it will appear.

See my previous post.

Which added nothing? Why expect me to repeat worthless tasks

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

No, on data widely available to scientists.

At the risk of going round in circles the data has been interpreted differently by different scientists.

No it hasn't.

There is no visible causal human signal in global climate data. This is not a matter of interpretation. What you must mean to imply is that there are some who believe in an invisible signal.

Countdown said:

There isn't a consensus and there isn't anything which suggests, categorically, that (A) is right and (B) is wrong.

Yes there is, there is no visible causal human signal in the data. How hard is that to grasp?

Countdown said:

Anybody who suggests their viewpoint is definitely right is risking being as delusional as the people who disagree with them

That's too general, too imprecise. In this case the issue is the presence of a visible, causal human signal - that's what manmade global warming must produce to exist. That visible causal human signal does not exist, so work the rest out for yourself. It's not a matter of interpretation either.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

You would be surprised how wrong that is, the finest minds are not in the IPCC's coterie of propagandists. Their information pollution comes from a few dozen government placemen. Many fine minds do agree that manmadeup warming is junkscience, which it is.

So, on the one hand, the IPCC can't make a definite statement that MMGW exists.

Because it doesn't?

Countdown said:

OTOH they're a bunch of propagandists whose information is polluted by Govt placemen (who seemingly have a vested interest in proving MMGW). And of course anybody who disagrees with MMGW must, by default, be of fine mind.

Did you look up argumentum ad captandum?

What you said, nevertheless, is quite close to reality. IPCC is an advocacy organisation, producing propaganda.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

That's not correct, it's their opinion (it's not a scientific one as there is no evidence for it) and my correct interpretation of data.

For the umpteenth time just because their interpretation of the (same) data is different to yours it doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong.

To make it very clear...

Global climate data has no visible causal human signal. I interpret that fact to mean that there is no evidence that will suffice to allow a statement that manmade warming even exists.

If others look at the same lack of a visible signal and interpret that as meaning that there is an invisible one, again, work it out for yourself.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

Argumentum ad captandum on top of argumentum ad populum on top of argumentum ad verecundiam. There are some remaining logical fallacies you may find appealing but you're running out fast.

Perish the thought that you're using the self same style of argument

Correct, in my replies I have not as yet appealed to the gullibility of the masses or appealed to consensus or appealed to authority to support my case.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

And still, you have no evidence in data to support the position of those you follow so assiduously. Where is that causal human signal that must exist?

I don't have the evidence. The IPCC apparently have sufficient evidence though. (see above)

No, they don't. Also see above.

Countdown said:

turbobloke said:

If you wish to save yourself some time, I've been looking through the scientific literature for it over more than 30 years and in the nearly 10 years of climate threads nobody supporting the junkscience of manmadeup warming has produced it or showed where it is. How long do you have?

I haven't looked at it in any great detail.

Obviously

Countdown said:

However if I'm told that something is true with great conviction by somebody (especially when that person has quoted Kelvin McKenzie as a source of credible evidence) my scepticism and cynical nature takes over.

Playground stuff and irrelevant, what I say or do shouldn't matter to you particularly if you doubt my word, you should look at primary sources of evidence and in science that means data. That's what I base my position on, not opinion and waffle.

As it happens, and as you know, Kelvin Mackenzie wasn't quoted on climate science, he was quoted as saying three things: Tony Blair is a creep; as a former Prime Minister you might have thought Blair would act with total propriety; and he (KM) doesn’t care that Blair minimises his tax payment.

He did say that, and I agreed with him.

Now all you have to do is find that suprascientific invisible signal and post it on here, at which point quite a few people will stop thinking Lucas is a menace.

[rovermorris999]

Countdown said:

I haven't looked at it in any great detail. However if I'm told that something is true with great conviction by somebody (especially when that person has quoted Kelvin McKenzie as a source of credible evidence) my scepticism and cynical nature takes over.

Perhaps you should. Try reading the climate thread in the Science section. Lots of food for thought for an open mind.