Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Ali G]

Is it time for this again, seems to have come around somewhat quicker this time!

Scientific method

Scientific Method said:

Hypotheses that are not in principle disprovable are not in the purview of science.

Given that there are no circumstances provided under which AGW can be disproved and a growing body of evidence to the contrary, the inquiring mind concludes it's non-scientific.

[durbster]

Ali G said:

Is it time for this again, seems to have come around somewhat quicker this time!

Scientific method

Scientific Method said:

Hypotheses that are not in principle disprovable are not in the purview of science.

Given that there are no circumstances provided under which AGW can be disproved and a growing body of evidence to the contrary, the inquiring mind concludes it's non-scientific.

That page you've linked to appears to be from a course about pseudo-science.

And here's the description for the course:

SMU said:

This course will provide you with an understanding of the scientific method sufficient to detect pseudoscience in its many guises: paranormal phenomena, free-energy devices, alternative medicine, intelligent design creationism, denial of human-induced climate change, propaganda, science-based-medicine denialism, misuse of data and statistics, and many others. You will learn to think critically and to question outlandish claims, hype, and outright BS.

https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/

So um... that's embarrassing.

[Ali G]

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Is it time for this again, seems to have come around somewhat quicker this time!

Scientific method

Scientific Method said:

Hypotheses that are not in principle disprovable are not in the purview of science.

Given that there are no circumstances provided under which AGW can be disproved and a growing body of evidence to the contrary, the inquiring mind concludes it's non-scientific.

That page you've linked to appears to be from a course about pseudo-science.

And here's the description for the course:

SMU said:

This course will provide you with an understanding of the scientific method sufficient to detect pseudoscience in its many guises: paranormal phenomena, free-energy devices, alternative medicine, intelligent design creationism, denial of human-induced climate change, propaganda, science-based-medicine denialism, misuse of data and statistics, and many others. You will learn to think critically and to question outlandish claims, hype, and outright BS.

https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/

So um... that's embarrassing.

Yes- I thought it would provide greater credibility for those of a particular persuasion than linking to an advocacy blog!

Just as an aside, any circumstances under which AGW would be falsified that you are aware of?

[LongQ]

Ali G said:

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Is it time for this again, seems to have come around somewhat quicker this time!

Scientific method

Scientific Method said:

Hypotheses that are not in principle disprovable are not in the purview of science.

Given that there are no circumstances provided under which AGW can be disproved and a growing body of evidence to the contrary, the inquiring mind concludes it's non-scientific.

That page you've linked to appears to be from a course about pseudo-science.

And here's the description for the course:

SMU said:

This course will provide you with an understanding of the scientific method sufficient to detect pseudoscience in its many guises: paranormal phenomena, free-energy devices, alternative medicine, intelligent design creationism, denial of human-induced climate change, propaganda, science-based-medicine denialism, misuse of data and statistics, and many others. You will learn to think critically and to question outlandish claims, hype, and outright BS.

https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/

So um... that's embarrassing.

Yes- I thought it would provide greater credibility for those of a particular persuasion than linking to an advocacy blog!

Just as an aside, any circumstances under which AGW would be falsified that you are aware of?

Ah, having read the linked piece I think I now appreciate why Trenberth made no claims about invisible Goblins running off with his missing heat.

That having been said it's probably worth remembering that this is the Political Thread and in that light I think the points made about Sceptics and Cynics would misplaced or at least incorrectly stressed to the, presumably, new intake of wet behind the ears students that the lecture seem to be aimed towards.

On the other hand as a message to the uninitiated about how they might expect to be understood should they ask any sort of non-doctrinaire based questions or have any extra-curriculum thoughts, it is concise and to the point. Only the least able of thinkers or complete nutters would fail to take notice.

[gadgetmac]

I’ve just read that Syria are to join the Paris Accord leaving the US as the only nation (from 197 nations) that is to reject the accord.

I appreciate that the US has said it intends to do its own CC housekeeping outside of the accord.

[turbobloke]

Lomborg has used IPCC gigo modelling methodology based on agw junkscience to demonstrate in a peer-reviewed paper that if all nations joined up and realised their climate pledges, the resulting reduction in global temperature by 2100 would be 0.05 deg C which is within the error bars of typical near-surface temperature data.

The point of joining, and the point of all the hot air and the astronomical cost, is?

[robinessex]

Poor countries want to blame rich countries for causing AGW, and then screw $Billions of 'compensation' for this. Which will go straight into the Swiss Bank account of some despot/ dictator.

[robinessex]

turbobloke said:

Lomborg has used IPCC gigo modelling methodology based on agw junkscience to demonstrate in a peer-reviewed paper that if all nations joined up and realised their climate pledges, the resulting reduction in global temperature by 2100 would be 0.05 deg C which is within the error bars of typical near-surface temperature data.

The point of joining, and the point of all the hot air and the astronomical cost, is?

Ask the resident PH authority on this. Durbster.

[turbobloke]

History of Politics lesson follows, it's also a lesson on the 'before' aspect of believer before/after u-turns...we're back in September 1972 when UEA CRU and its Director (Hubert Lamb) were ramping global cooling and an ice age ahead on the back of money from Big Oil which was used to found AGW Central.

[wc98]

zygalski said:

Question is, 'spam, if you have overwhelming evidence of AGW fraud by the climate science establishment, why don't you publish your original research and findings so that it can reach a wider audience than a corner if a car enthusiasts forum?

do you have even the slightest clue about any of the issues surrounding the debate on the science ? go read up on the temperature "data sets" . there is not one single other branch of science that would make any claims based upon what passes for data in climate science. go look up what the temperature was anywhere in america today on the ushcn . in two years time go check again and you will find the temperature will likely have increased or decreased for that vary same day,due to subsequent automated changes that happen daily as information is added .

anyone claiming trends, temps or anything else related to that load of ste is either stupid or a liar. the stats people involved in climate science are ste at what they do. they think statistical technique rules do not apply to their own special branch of "science". they are so wrapped up in adjusting numbers to compensate for real and perceived issues with the physical data sets they cannot and will not see what they have created from them is fking worthless to science, though of great value to politicians.

all, and i mean all of the groups issuing global temperature historical records are issuing products of varying quality. note the word products, they are not factual data sets.
so the most important aspect of global warming ,the warming itself hasn't even been bloody measured correctly. all that before we even get into the difference in heat capacity between dry and humid air.

[robinessex]

wc98 said:

zygalski said:

Question is, 'spam, if you have overwhelming evidence of AGW fraud by the climate science establishment, why don't you publish your original research and findings so that it can reach a wider audience than a corner if a car enthusiasts forum?

do you have even the slightest clue about any of the issues surrounding the debate on the science ? go read up on the temperature "data sets" . there is not one single other branch of science that would make any claims based upon what passes for data in climate science. go look up what the temperature was anywhere in america today on the ushcn . in two years time go check again and you will find the temperature will likely have increased or decreased for that vary same day,due to subsequent automated changes that happen daily as information is added .

anyone claiming trends, temps or anything else related to that load of ste is either stupid or a liar. the stats people involved in climate science are ste at what they do. they think statistical technique rules do not apply to their own special branch of "science". they are so wrapped up in adjusting numbers to compensate for real and perceived issues with the physical data sets they cannot and will not see what they have created from them is fking worthless to science, though of great value to politicians.

all, and i mean all of the groups issuing global temperature historical records are issuing products of varying quality. note the word products, they are not factual data sets.
so the most important aspect of global warming ,the warming itself hasn't even been bloody measured correctly. all that before we even get into the difference in heat capacity between dry and humid air.

Plus of course, the killer question. Planet a minute bit warmer, Armageddon ?

[robinessex]

Beeb CC story today

Paris climate accord: Syria 'to sign up', isolating US

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-419046...

The US is set to become isolated in its stance on the Paris climate agreement, after reports that Syria is preparing to join the deal.
The Paris deal unites the world's nations in tackling climate change.
Syria and Nicaragua were the only nations outside the deal when it was agreed in 2015. Nicaragua signed in October.
In June the US said it would withdraw, but the rules of the agreement state that this cannot be done until 2020.
Meanwhile, French officials said US President Donald Trump had not been invited to December's climate summit in Paris.
More than 100 countries have been invited to the summit, which is aimed at "building coalitions" with finance and business to further the accord, an aide to French President Emmanuel Macron said..................continues

What was agreed in Paris?

Enable rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy

[turbobloke]

Another consensus line, clearly we haven't had enough of that nonsense.

With science suborned and political patronage steaming ahead we really need a climate politics thread.

Good job we have one

[durbster]

Ali G said:

Yes- I thought it would provide greater credibility for those of a particular persuasion than linking to an advocacy blog!

Surely you should know by now that referencing anywhere beyond the safety of the internet commentary echo chamber is doomed to backfire

Ali G said:

Just as an aside, any circumstances under which AGW would be falsified that you are aware of?

Yeah loads. There's the supporting physical evidence (ice, sea-levels, temperature, permafrost, animal migration etc.)? If CO2 continued to increase but glaciers stopped retreating, air temperature started a consistent downward trend and the permafrost refroze, the theory would fail the evidence test.

In what is always described by deniers as a chaotic system, do you think it's just a coincidence that all the natural, physical evidence supports AGW? It could be, but is increasingly unlikely.

Failing that, you would either have to disprove the long-established theory that greenhouse gases affect air temperature, or that the concentration of man-made CO2 is increasing. If it really is "junkscience,", it'll be really easy to disprove the theories its based on.

Makes you wonder why nobody has already...

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Ali G said:

Yes- I thought it would provide greater credibility for those of a particular persuasion than linking to an advocacy blog!

Surely you should know by now that referencing anywhere beyond the safety of the internet commentary echo chamber is doomed to backfire

Ali G said:

Just as an aside, any circumstances under which AGW would be falsified that you are aware of?

Yeah loads. There's the supporting physical evidence (ice, sea-levels, temperature, permafrost, animal migration etc.)? If CO2 continued to increase but glaciers stopped retreating, air temperature started a consistent downward trend and the permafrost refroze, the theory would fail the evidence test.

In what is always described by deniers as a chaotic system, do you think it's just a coincidence that all the natural, physical evidence supports AGW? It could be, but is increasingly unlikely.

Failing that, you would either have to disprove the long-established theory that greenhouse gases affect air temperature, or that the concentration of man-made CO2 is increasing. If it really is "junkscience,", it'll be really easy to disprove the theories its based on.

Makes you wonder why nobody has already...

You obviously haven't been paying attention then, have you ?

[Ali G]

Every day is a learning day! Apparently there are now alternative versions of the uncontroversial scientific method depending upon 'denier' status, and AGW falsification can only be determined by the next ice-age.

Truly, the stuff of genius.

Suitability of models for policy making determined through rigorous application of the scientific method?

Pah!

[Jinx]

durbster said:

In what is always described by deniers as a chaotic system, do you think it's just a coincidence that all the natural, physical evidence supports AGW?

You are confusing natural global warming with AGW. The physical evidence (warmer poles, fewer hurricanes and extended growing seasons) is expected due to natural warming. The AGW bit requires a hot spot in the troposphere (doesn't exist), feedbacks from increased water vapour (no evidence) and some strange anti biosphere concept that that warmer world is a worse world (when all evidence suggests that a warmer world is a net benefit to life on earth) .
I'll leave you with my favourite quote from the climategate emails:

Wils said:

<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

You (durbster) are confusing natural global warming with AGW. The physical evidence (warmer poles, fewer hurricanes and extended growing seasons) is expected due to natural warming. The AGW bit requires a hot spot in the troposphere (doesn't exist), feedbacks from increased water vapour (no evidence) and some strange anti biosphere concept that that warmer world is a worse world (when all evidence suggests that a warmer world is a net benefit to life on earth) .
I'll leave you with my favourite quote from the climategate emails:

Wils said:

<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]

Yes that's a beaut, more so given the origin.

No, hang on, the priests (and disciples) believe it's all settled, no room for doubt

[robinessex]

A couple of worthy quotes from a recent Private Eye

"We learn from History, that we do not learn from History"

George Hegel

"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it"

George Santayana

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

In what is always described by deniers as a chaotic system, do you think it's just a coincidence that all the natural, physical evidence supports AGW?

You are confusing natural global warming with AGW. The physical evidence (warmer poles, fewer hurricanes and extended growing seasons) is expected due to natural warming.

What causes "natural warming"?