Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

No, you don't answer questions at all it seems. Just post more pandering lists and appeals to authority.

I have to hand it to you, you're an expert level troll.

Same old denier bullshine, same old denier ad hom.

As was explained previously by someone you clearly don't know what an appeal to authority is. It's all a click or two away.

https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/logic...

Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority

In contrast, the scientific consensus is not an argument from authority. There are a couple of ways to think about this. The most basic and concise is that the scientific consensus is not based on an individual’s or small group’s credibility.

A more lengthy way to think about this is that the scientific community is convinced by evidence, not by individual charisma nor authority. I’ve said it many, many times before in this blog, and I’ve written at least a whole post on it, that contrary to seemingly popular opinion, scientists want to create new paradigms. They want to be able to convince their colleagues and detractors that they are correct. Upholding the status quo means you are guaranteed to be forgotten. And, the only way you are going to convince everyone that you are correct is to provide them with overwhelmingly convincing evidence and to show that your new model/idea explains all of the evidence that the previous one did at least as well, if not better.

Once this is done, the people who are experts in the field will be convinced. They can then go out and convince others in related fields that this is the actual way things work. Again — it’s not an authority, they are convincing people by the evidence. This process continues to trickle throughout the scientific community until there is a broad consensus on that issue.

By that point, what is a lay person to do? Should they trust Dr. Linus Pauling, a twice Nobel Laureate who claimed that high doses of Vitamin C basically prevented almost all illnesses and cured many diseases, including cancer? Or should they trust the scientific consensus – a group of tens of thousands of medical professionals who have read and been convinced by the research – that Pauling was deluded?

I’m not saying that you should trust the consensus view blindly. Try to understand it. Understand why the consensus is what it is. What is the evidence that has convinced everyone? At that point, if you still think they may be wrong, then figure out why the consensus view is not convinced by the evidence that you are. It is highly likely that you are misunderstanding something, not thousands of people who have spent their lives studying the issue.

[stew-STR160]

Diderot said:

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

No, you don't answer questions at all it seems. Just post more pandering lists and appeals to authority.

I have to hand it to you, you're an expert level troll.

Let's not exaggerate Stew. Expert implies certain intellectual capacity, and clearly the troll is challenged in that domain.

Expert definition- a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

Diderot said:

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

No, you don't answer questions at all it seems. Just post more pandering lists and appeals to authority.

I have to hand it to you, you're an expert level troll.

Let's not exaggerate Stew. Expert implies certain intellectual capacity, and clearly the troll is challenged in that domain.

Expert definition- a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

Thats all of you deniers fked then

[dickymint]

Diderot said:

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

No, you don't answer questions at all it seems. Just post more pandering lists and appeals to authority.

I have to hand it to you, you're an expert level troll.

Let's not exaggerate Stew. Expert implies certain intellectual capacity, and clearly the troll is challenged in that domain.

I think we've reached a consensus on this

Not to worry - I predict it's just a matter of time before the KO - give him enough rope etc. Over the lifetime of this topic 'we've seen em come and we'll see em go'

[Atomic12C]

LoonyTunes said:

.....
Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority
....

Finding it hard to follow the discussion on this thread.
Earlier you post about organisational/political consensus with lists, and then your latest post is about scientific consensus.
Two separate things but seemingly under the same single 'consensus' umbrella in your reasoning?

[Diderot]

Atomic12C said:

LoonyTunes said:

.....
Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority
....

Finding it hard to follow the discussion on this thread.
Earlier you post about organisational/political consensus with lists, and then your latest post is about scientific consensus.
Two separate things but seemingly under the same single 'consensus' umbrella in your reasoning?

Reasoning? Are you really convinced Loony the troll is capable of such things?

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Err, not sure where your graph is from, here are the 1990 model projections vs observations:


From: https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/how...

Edited by durbster on Thursday 11th October 20:35

Now look at the actual BEST line (Berkeley in the above):





Someone is lying with graphs.

Err, you'll have to explain. They're just different resolutions.

[LoonyTunes]

Atomic12C said:

LoonyTunes said:

.....
Scientific Consensus: NOT An Argument from Authority
....

Finding it hard to follow the discussion on this thread.
Earlier you post about organisational/political consensus with lists, and then your latest post is about scientific consensus.
Two separate things but seemingly under the same single 'consensus' umbrella in your reasoning?

There are Scientists in all walks of life.

Teaching
Researching
Advising
Theorising

And in all types of Organisation. University, Corporate, Govt etc

[LoonyTunes]

durbster said:

Err, you'll have to explain. They're just different resolutions.

I have to say that I thought that, the peaks and troughs appear to be roughly in alignment.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

You are happy to dodge and dive but never answer anything, You have a PHD in Weaselling, certainly.

[LoonyTunes]

Right, I'm off, there's only so much 'stupid' I can take in one day plus I have to walk a dog across some hills this afternoon.

Don't forget, it's getting cold out there, you'll need your hats

[Jinx]

durbster said:

Err, you'll have to explain. They're just different resolutions.

No they are obviously not. Look at the maximums and minimums. I suspect they've used a temporal smoothing to create an illusion of conformity.

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Err, you'll have to explain. They're just different resolutions.

No they are obviously not. Look at the maximums and minimums. I suspect they've used a temporal smoothing to create an illusion of conformity.

Looks like 'hide the decline' just got a tricky non-conformity partner.

Stovking Filler Alert. There's a new book with the subtitle Exploding the Link Between Overpopulation and Climate Change in which co-authors Desrochers and Szurmak challenge the notion that limiting population growth globally by having fewer children is the most effective way to prevent dangerous climate change. They argue, to the contrary, that the highest utility approach derives from economic development, supported by population growth. The context assumes that dangrous manmade warming exists - despite the lack of credible supporting empirical data - as the thesis relates to a view on how best to limit it within its own faith system. I've read a synopsis about the book but not the book - it's going on my list for Santa.

[Terminator X]

gadgetmac said:

Interesting use of 1990 predictions...almost 30 years ago...things have moved on.

Windows ‘95 was still five years away. Windows 3.1 was cutting edge operating system.

Google image search ‘mobile phone 1990’ or ‘tv 1990’

30 years ago isn't really that long when a lot of these predictions are for 100 years time. Anyway I went that far back so you can factually see predictions vs reality were wrong yet the same thing in 2018 has to be treated as gospel ...

TX.

[dickymint]

Terminator X said:

gadgetmac said:

Interesting use of 1990 predictions...almost 30 years ago...things have moved on.

Windows ‘95 was still five years away. Windows 3.1 was cutting edge operating system.

Google image search ‘mobile phone 1990’ or ‘tv 1990’

30 years ago isn't really that long when a lot of these predictions are for 100 years time. Anyway I went that far back so you can factually see predictions vs reality were wrong yet the same thing in 2018 has to be treated as gospel ...

TX.

Gadget just wants to blank the past and wait another 30 years for those that are left to say ‘wrong again’.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

Err, you'll have to explain. They're just different resolutions.

No they are obviously not. Look at the maximums and minimums. I suspect they've used a temporal smoothing to create an illusion of conformity.

Blimey, you're going to run with this are you

The data on the chart you've posted from Woodfortrees.org is exactly the same as the Yale one, only the latter has smoothed the line to make it easier to read. Doing that makes absolutely no difference to the trend in observed temperatures, plotted against the model projections, which is what the graph is showing.

You can even smooth the line yourself on Woodfortrees by adjusting the sample field.

[gadgetmac]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

He did not answer my question you know it and he knows it. Your post as per usual is just to have yet another personal cheap shot.

As a refresher here was your question

dickymint said:

PS. What exactly is a "climate science qualification" and how do you get one?

What you can't google What are the Climate Sciences or similar?

Do that then compare with your mate Tallblokes qualifications - post up the venn diagram

And this time try answering the question for a change.

Did you get an answer from Dick on this?

Global cooling was mentioned the other day, is Turbobloke still standing by his claim that its starting? After all, Solar Cycle 24 is coming to an end rght now. I ask as 2018 is on target to be the 4th warmest year on record.

[gadgetmac]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

He did not answer my question you know it and he knows it. Your post as per usual is just to have yet another personal cheap shot.

As a refresher here was your question

dickymint said:

PS. What exactly is a "climate science qualification" and how do you get one?

What you can't google What are the Climate Sciences or similar?

Do that then compare with your mate Tallblokes qualifications - post up the venn diagram

And this time try answering the question for a change.

Did you get an answer from Dick on this?

Global cooling was mentioned the other day, is Turbobloke still standing by his claim that its starting? After all, Solar Cycle 24 is coming to an end rght now. I ask as 2018 is on target to be the 4th warmest year on record.

[fakenews]

gadgetmac said:

I ask as 2018 is on target to be the 4th warmest year on record.

Oh really? So the Earth has never been this warm? There haven't been any naturally occurring warm and cold periods? The temperature of this planet has always been linear until man invented the wheel?

I'm technically the worlds fastest man (with the largest penis) if you ignore all prior data...two things which are complete fantasy.

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

The key part there is 'for you'.

As long as one is on the side of science and truth - who cares what you think?

that is the first thing you have posted on the thread that i agree with. i have an opinion, it differs from some others on this topic. in the grand scheme of things it counts for nada,same goes for your opinion.

Edited by wc98 on Saturday 13th October 10:57