Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
Climate Realist Dr Nir Shaviv, who once carried out some climate modelling using gigo models (but still prefers empirical data, good chap, and can therefore be forgiven) has some thoughts for true believers to consider.
'Anyone who appeals to authority or to a majority [97%] to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing.'
'There is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature.'
'Over geological time scales, there were huge variations in CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations.'
'The simple truth is that in the height of the middle ages it was probably just as warm as the latter half of the 20th century'
'Let us use our limited resources to treat real problems.'
'Anyone who appeals to authority or to a majority [97%] to substantiate his or her claim is proving nothing.'
'There is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature.'
'Over geological time scales, there were huge variations in CO2 (a factor of 10) and they have no correlation whatsoever with the temperature. 450 million years ago there was 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but more extensive glaciations.'
'The simple truth is that in the height of the middle ages it was probably just as warm as the latter half of the 20th century'
'Let us use our limited resources to treat real problems.'
durbster said:
You believe the 97% thing is not accurate. OK.
If you really believe there are a vast number of climate scientists out there who reject AGW, where the hell are they?
For example, why do you think there are no stories in New Scientist about this great debate that's apparently still raging?
And before the inevitable repetitive turbowaffle about the consensus being meaningless; the point of putting a figure on the scientific consensus was only to address the public misconception that AGW was still unproven. That clearly wasn't true ten years ago and absolutely isn't now, since the evidence has only grown.
Indeed, even the Trump administration is part of the (growing?) consensus.If you really believe there are a vast number of climate scientists out there who reject AGW, where the hell are they?
For example, why do you think there are no stories in New Scientist about this great debate that's apparently still raging?
And before the inevitable repetitive turbowaffle about the consensus being meaningless; the point of putting a figure on the scientific consensus was only to address the public misconception that AGW was still unproven. That clearly wasn't true ten years ago and absolutely isn't now, since the evidence has only grown.
Perhaps some folk on here are right, the 97% is inaccurate.
Maybe it needs rounding-up to 98%.
dickymint said:
durbster said:
All the data supports AGW.
The anti-AGW side in this thread is utterly relentless with the bullying, intimidation and personal insults.
Says the guy that came back into the thread after a ten day day break with nothing to add except a pop at TB The anti-AGW side in this thread is utterly relentless with the bullying, intimidation and personal insults.
It was to show how similar the language and tone is used by a notable Creationist to reject evolution, as by turbobloke to reject AGW. Thereby making the point that those who claim to be the ultimate authority and simply dismiss the opposition as deluded, do not necessarily do so with evidence on their side. And are, perhaps, protesting too much about the belief aspect.
Would you like to comment on that or will you continue to "play the man and not the ball", as turbobloke says?
sidicks said:
zygalski said:
No wonder 'spam hates peer review.
It's not even how junkscience works, it's pure tat with its fatal shortcomings already pointed out. It would be overly generous to apply an 'appeal to consensus logical fallacy' criticism to such dreck, it's so weak.
Tat debunk said:
In the never ending quest for alarmists to one-up their incompetent friends, they continue to seek out new ways to demonstrate their own computer illiteracy. Enter James Powell who in a meaningless analysis is apparently ignorant that the 'Web of Science' database does not have a "peer-reviewed" filter and the existence of a search phrase in a returned result does not determine its context. Thus, all that can be claimed is there were 13,950 meaningless search results not "peer-reviewed scientific articles" for a query of the 'Web of Science' database with 24 chosen by strawman argument.
http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/faq/answers.htmlhttp://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS59B4/help/WO...
In particular:
1. The context of how the "search phrases" were used in all the results was never determined.
2. The results are padded by not using the search qualifier "anthropogenic".
3. The 13,950 results cannot all be claimed to be peer-reviewed as the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter.
4. It's a strawman argument that skeptics deny or reject there has been a global temperature increase of a fraction of a degree since the end of the little ice age.
As diagnosed above, pure tat copied and pasted with the usual lack of thought but mucho belief.
zygalski said:
dickymint said:
zygalski said:
Meanwhile, in the real world, companies continue to develop renewables, keep investing billions of their own money in green tech, all to help perpetuate the AGW sham which they could easily disprove, if only they visited this thread, looked at a few graphs and read 'spam's copy/pastes.
Nope they do it to make a profit and guess what? It’s not “their own money”!!Sounds like tin foil hat bulls
t to me.Proof please...
Also, how much are the US subsidies for fossil fuel production?
Edited by zygalski on Saturday 25th November 14:21
durbster said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
All the data supports AGW.
The anti-AGW side in this thread is utterly relentless with the bullying, intimidation and personal insults.
Says the guy that came back into the thread after a ten day day break with nothing to add except a pop at TB The anti-AGW side in this thread is utterly relentless with the bullying, intimidation and personal insults.
It was to show how similar the language and tone is used by a notable Creationist to reject evolution, as by turbobloke to reject AGW. Thereby making the point that those who claim to be the ultimate authority and simply dismiss the opposition as deluded, do not necessarily do so with evidence on their side. And are, perhaps, protesting too much about the belief aspect.
Would you like to comment on that or will you continue to "play the man and not the ball", as turbobloke says?
...... 
withheld Can I interrupt the chat, and ask if I can borrow an AGW advocates mathematical and computational skills, to knock me up a quick programme to predict this weeks lottery numbers. After all, the lottery is random, and the climate is a mathematically chaotic system, the same, so it should dead easy ! All the winning lottery numbers are readily available, just like climate data stuff from the past!
Are there a whole generation of zygalskis to age through the voting system and influence the next decade or so of politics?
If so I really do fear for the grandchildren but, as ever, they will end up dealing with their lives in the context of what seems normal to them and what they think they know.
Any politician today who claims they are putting forward policies that or for the benefit of future generations is simply lying. (In modern parlance).
In reality they are, as politicians always do, pushing ideas that give them some self perceived status and attest to their self importance. That's what politicians are for.
In times past they could make statements and take positions through the press or public meetings. Information so publicised and the results of it could be readily managed in most cases and it took a while for the flow to complete so commonsense had time to appear.
That's not so easy now and so nobody seems to care much about whether a statement is correct or not before it takes flight and become "fact". Honour and even honesty seem to be of less concern to anyone and likely unknown as a concept to young generations.
The consensus position in politics seems to be that it is OK to support this position.
I have always wondered what careless anarchy might look like in political and social terms so I'm torn between trying to avoid what would seem to the inevitability of unpredictable catastrophe and the opportunity to observe the effects of thoughtlessness in full flow. The latter is very tempting. Very Douglas Adams - Restaurant at the end of the Universe sort of thing.
zygalski should use the name zabriskie - it would be more to the point.
Oh well, Bliars "Education, Education, Education" seems to have had the effect he wished for.
Likewise his talk of "Choices" as if they were real options for any situation.
Presumably we are starting to see some of the results of his self proclaimed success.
If so I really do fear for the grandchildren but, as ever, they will end up dealing with their lives in the context of what seems normal to them and what they think they know.
Any politician today who claims they are putting forward policies that or for the benefit of future generations is simply lying. (In modern parlance).
In reality they are, as politicians always do, pushing ideas that give them some self perceived status and attest to their self importance. That's what politicians are for.
In times past they could make statements and take positions through the press or public meetings. Information so publicised and the results of it could be readily managed in most cases and it took a while for the flow to complete so commonsense had time to appear.
That's not so easy now and so nobody seems to care much about whether a statement is correct or not before it takes flight and become "fact". Honour and even honesty seem to be of less concern to anyone and likely unknown as a concept to young generations.
The consensus position in politics seems to be that it is OK to support this position.
I have always wondered what careless anarchy might look like in political and social terms so I'm torn between trying to avoid what would seem to the inevitability of unpredictable catastrophe and the opportunity to observe the effects of thoughtlessness in full flow. The latter is very tempting. Very Douglas Adams - Restaurant at the end of the Universe sort of thing.
zygalski should use the name zabriskie - it would be more to the point.
Oh well, Bliars "Education, Education, Education" seems to have had the effect he wished for.
Likewise his talk of "Choices" as if they were real options for any situation.
Presumably we are starting to see some of the results of his self proclaimed success.
robinessex said:
Can I interrupt the chat, and ask if I can borrow an AGW advocates mathematical and computational skills, to knock me up a quick programme to predict this weeks lottery numbers. After all, the lottery is random, and the climate is a mathematically chaotic system, the same, so it should dead easy ! All the winning lottery numbers are readily available, just like climate data stuff from the past!
No need to model the lottery just buy 175000000 tickets job done 
As for climate not even 175000000 sooper dooper compooters will get you 1 number correct dickymint said:
robinessex said:
Can I interrupt the chat, and ask if I can borrow an AGW advocates mathematical and computational skills, to knock me up a quick programme to predict this weeks lottery numbers. After all, the lottery is random, and the climate is a mathematically chaotic system, the same, so it should dead easy ! All the winning lottery numbers are readily available, just like climate data stuff from the past!
No need to model the lottery just buy 175000000 tickets job done As for climate not even 175000000 sooper dooper compooters will get you 1 number correct 
zygalski said:
Nice to see the representatives of the 3% out in force tonight.
You guys do know that your contributions to threads like this is why N,P&E is the laughing stock of this site?
Deniers in denial... come and see them play in here folks!
I thought the comments about predicting climate being as accurate as the lottery were a joke but I think he was serious. You guys do know that your contributions to threads like this is why N,P&E is the laughing stock of this site?
Deniers in denial... come and see them play in here folks!
zygalski said:
Nice to see the representatives of the 3% out in force tonight.
You guys do know that your contributions to threads like this is why N,P&E is the laughing stock of this site?
Deniers in denial... come and see them play in here folks!
It’s worrying but at the same time comforting in a ‘bad news/good news’ kinda way.You guys do know that your contributions to threads like this is why N,P&E is the laughing stock of this site?
Deniers in denial... come and see them play in here folks!
The bad news is there are nutters on the loose espousing some flat-earth type beliefs on climate change and quoting scientists who also believe adam and eve really were the first humans.
The good news is we have them coralled into a small corner of the internet.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff