Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
Ali G said:
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.
Is this supposed to be a response to my post or are you replying to something else? confused

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?

Terminator X

14,920 posts

203 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
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.

"the amount of radiation received from the Sun" this guy is nuts, small trace gas will kill us all I tell thee!

TX.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Why not get believer scientists to publish irrefutable evidence i.e. empirical data showing an anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance, or a visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data? Neither of these critical pieces of evidence exists, that's why. There would otherwise be no need for gigo modelling posing as evidence, nor for armwaving true belief. As we lack neither the TOA radiative imbalance evidence and the visible causal human signal, there's nothing to expose as reality is visible for any independent-minded person to see.
That's the way Teach - tell people to ask scientists for something you know is impossible to supply (not because the radiative imbalance isn't there but because it's beyond our abilities to directly measure it). How to be a more effective denier of well undertood physics is a form of education I guess.


XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
Since we're on an ice age tip, here's a documentary from History channel. I haven't watched it all so I'm sure there will be some global warming vibe towards the end but it is an interesting reminder that cold is far worse than warm.

https://youtu.be/fn9PUdY4Q0g

El Guapo

2,787 posts

189 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?
Don't forget bovine flatulence

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Why not get believer scientists to publish irrefutable evidence i.e. empirical data showing an anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance, or a visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data? Neither of these critical pieces of evidence exists, that's why. There would otherwise be no need for gigo modelling posing as evidence, nor for armwaving true belief. As we lack neither the TOA radiative imbalance evidence and the visible causal human signal, there's nothing to expose as reality is visible for any independent-minded person to see.
That's the way Teach - tell people to ask scientists for something you know is impossible to supply (not because the radiative imbalance isn't there but because it's beyond our abilities to directly measure it).
Replying in kind - that's the way, Believer; as you well know the reason we can't detect either is because they are too small and too insignificant. In terms of empirical science they don't exist.

It's not as though a colour blind satellite is looking for green wink and seeing nothing but red even though green is really there.

You are in effect affirming belief (by anyone) in invisible entities and adopting the NOAA Code...there's nothing measurable, nothing visible, but there may be something invisible. What a hoot. What a way to waste a trillion dollars when millions of people lack clean drinking water. Your position as an agw believer is objectively untenable, which is both obvious from your comments and entirely self-consistent with the credulous unscientific condition involved.

Good job we're in a politics thread as that position is not about science. Something which was already known.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
[bold]Why not get believer scientists to publish irrefutable evidence i.e. empirical data showing an anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance,[/bold] or a visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data? Neither of these critical pieces of evidence exists, that's why. There would otherwise be no need for gigo modelling posing as evidence, nor for armwaving true belief. As we lack neither the TOA radiative imbalance evidence and the visible causal human signal, there's nothing to expose as reality is visible for any independent-minded person to see.
That's the way Teach - tell people to ask scientists for something you know is impossible to supply (not because the radiative imbalance isn't there but because it's beyond our abilities to directly measure it). How to be a more effective denier of well undertood physics is a form of education I guess.
If that's impossible to supply then the theory of AGW is unproveable.

So why are, allegedly, so many scientists with enquiring minds apparently part of a consensus that it is a fact?

More importantly, why is this unproveable concept being used as the basis in some way or another for almost all political decisions that seems to be influencing policies towards both high levels of risk w/r energy availability in the immediate future and a huge expenditure of human capital to chase what could well be a total mirage?

What sort of strange psychology aggregates people into such group think rationales?



turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
El Guapo said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?
Don't forget bovine flatulence
hehe

Like carbon dioxide, empirical data shows, beyond the power of experimental error to alter, that methane changes occur after a temperature shift, not before, and therefore cannot be a cause of the temperature shift. Monnin et al.

Chickens are a Gaia shade of green, allegedly their gut lacks sufficient (or any) methanogenic bacteria to be a problem in the dreamworld of agw.


durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?
What has changed about the sun to cause the temperature to trend upward over the last century and a bit?

Edited by durbster on Wednesday 8th November 13:46

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
LongQ said:
If that's impossible to supply then the theory of AGW is unproveable.

So why are, allegedly, so many scientists with enquiring minds apparently part of a consensus that it is a fact?

More importantly, why is this unproveable concept being used as the basis in some way or another for almost all political decisions that seems to be influencing policies towards both high levels of risk w/r energy availability in the immediate future and a huge expenditure of human capital to chase what could well be a total mirage?

What sort of strange psychology aggregates people into such group think rationales?
Perhaps of as much concern, is that that which cannot be measured cannot therefore be used to falsify the hypothesis, leaving only evidence which is inconclusive and very susceptible to confirmation bias.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Why not get believer scientists to publish irrefutable evidence i.e. empirical data showing an anthropogenic forcing in TOA radiative imbalance, or a visible causal human signal in global climate (temperature) data? Neither of these critical pieces of evidence exists, that's why. There would otherwise be no need for gigo modelling posing as evidence, nor for armwaving true belief. As we lack neither the TOA radiative imbalance evidence and the visible causal human signal, there's nothing to expose as reality is visible for any independent-minded person to see.
That's the way Teach - tell people to ask scientists for something you know is impossible to supply (not because the radiative imbalance isn't there but because it's beyond our abilities to directly measure it).
Replying in kind - that's the way, Believer; as you well know the reason we can't detect either is because they are too small and too insignificant. In terms of empirical science they don't exist.

It's not as though a colour blind satellite is looking for green wink and seeing nothing but red even though green is really there.

You are in effect affirming belief (by anyone) in invisible entities and adopting the NOAA Code...there's nothing measurable, nothing visible, but there may be something invisible. What a hoot. What a way to waste a trillion dollars when millions of people lack clean drinking water. Your position as an agw believer is objectively untenable, which is both obvious from your comments and entirely self-consistent with the credulous unscientific condition involved.

Good job we're in a politics thread as that position is not about science. Something which was already known.
I'm no more a believer than you are a sceptic. I think I'm more of a sceptic than you frankly. You are a denier - someone who ignores evidence and makes impossible demands for proof.

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Perhaps of as much concern, is that that which cannot be measured cannot therefore be used to falsify the hypothesis, leaving only evidence which is inconclusive and very susceptible to confirmation bias.
What can't be measured?

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?
What has changed about the sun to cause the temperature to trend upward over the last century and a bit?

Edited by durbster on Wednesday 8th November 13:46
Answer the question please . Do you dispute it?

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
You're shooting from the hip without that basic knowledge, interesting.

Here are some of the major natural forcings at work over various typical timescales.

Decades to Centuries
solar irradiance
solar eruptivity

Tens to Hundreds of Thousands of Years
Milankovitch cycles

Millions to Hundreds of Millions of Years
Solar System motion within the galaxy


durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
What causes "natural warming"?
The Sun - do you dispute this?
What has changed about the sun to cause the temperature to trend upward over the last century and a bit?
Answer the question please . Do you dispute it?
Christ. Are you really asking me whether I agree that the sun produces heat? Five million pages and this is the level of debate. laugh

I'm asking you to explain the mechanism that links the current period of warming to the sun.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Perhaps of as much concern, is that that which cannot be measured cannot therefore be used to falsify the hypothesis, leaving only evidence which is inconclusive and very susceptible to confirmation bias.
What can't be measured?
Whatever it is that kerplunk pointed out cannot be measured.

Or, to put that another way, anything that cannot be satisfactorily measured to confirm an hypothesis via a theory.

When it can be measured - or when enough appropriate measurements that can be deemed reliable - have been obtained, we would have some ability to assess whether or not the hypothesis/theory seems to be valid.

In the early days of post "Dark Ages" scientific progress this process could take decades for almost anything. In some things processing through the stages of assessment became a lot faster over the years and now, with computers to hand, we tend to expect almost instantaneous answer to everything - except, perhaps, matters of the universe but I guess beyond populating Mars, that is so distant from most poeple's every day life experience that it can be understood as "interesting but not important at this time".

durbster

10,223 posts

221 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
LongQ said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Perhaps of as much concern, is that that which cannot be measured cannot therefore be used to falsify the hypothesis, leaving only evidence which is inconclusive and very susceptible to confirmation bias.
What can't be measured?
Whatever it is that kerplunk pointed out cannot be measured.
I was asking in the context of Ali G's post, as he seems to be implying that no part of the AGW theory can be measured.

XM5ER

5,087 posts

247 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Perhaps of as much concern, is that that which cannot be measured cannot therefore be used to falsify the hypothesis, leaving only evidence which is inconclusive and very susceptible to confirmation bias.
What can't be measured?
Whatever it is that kerplunk pointed out cannot be measured.
I was asking in the context of Ali G's post, as he seems to be implying that no part of the AGW theory can be measured.
The trouble with trolls is that they are addictive. A little outrage here, a little annoyance there, releases a little adrenaline, a bit of dopamine when you write your reply and the whole cycle goes round again. Durbster you should change your login to Golden Brown.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 8th November 2017
quotequote all
durbster said:
LongQ said:
durbster said:
Ali G said:
Perhaps of as much concern, is that that which cannot be measured cannot therefore be used to falsify the hypothesis, leaving only evidence which is inconclusive and very susceptible to confirmation bias.
What can't be measured?
Whatever it is that kerplunk pointed out cannot be measured.
I was asking in the context of Ali G's post, as he seems to be implying that no part of the AGW theory can be measured.
One could propose that the "bottom line" of policy informing output is the result of a calculation that uses many factors and measurements that are possibly actual but more often derived by adjustments, parameterisations or completely based on statistical calculations.

Anything used that cannot be directly measured or is a synthesis of unmeasurable data should make the results tentative until the parts of the measurement process that need to be improved in some way have in fact been improved and the data collected and verified.

Only then can it be considered sound enough to be included in policy making decisions.

In present times it seems that few are interested in applying that perspective before pushing policy.

One wonders why that might be.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED