Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

El stovey

24,482 posts

200 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Isn't the man in the street allowed an opinion then?
Obviously especially as it’s a discussion forum but at the same time you have to expect those opinions to be treated with incredulity when they go against the scientific community and are based on nothing of any substance.
So common sense, logic and scepticism is off the menu then ?
Would common sense and logic lead you to the conclusion that you’re right and the scientific community and all the scientific institutions are wrong or lying about AGW?

That doesn’t sound likely does it?

Scepticism might but then it should be based on something rather than a political belief and dislike of the BBC and similar institutions.



robinessex

6,625 posts

118 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
Isn't the man in the street allowed an opinion then?
Obviously especially as it’s a discussion forum but at the same time you have to expect those opinions to be treated with incredulity when they go against the scientific community and are based on nothing of any substance.
So common sense, logic and scepticism is off the menu then ?
Would common sense and logic lead you to the conclusion that you’re right and the scientific community and all the scientific institutions are wrong or lying about AGW?

That doesn’t sound likely does it?

Scepticism might but then it should be based on something rather than a political belief and dislike of the BBC and similar institutions.
Try this then. Does a minute rise in the planets temperature (whatever that actually means) a problem? Is there cast iron, 100%, irrefutable evidence or data to show this? It’s experienced a range of temperatures for 4.5 billion years, and seems to have survived ok.

gadgetmac

4,029 posts

45 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
The planet (as you put it) has been around for 4.5 billion years and survived. Sadly we humans haven't been on it for 4.5 billion years so it's a rubbish point. The planet also had different mixtures of gases together with other influences that were different (ie Solar radiation) over this time.

Do you seriously think scientists and scientific institutes in the field have overlooked this argument?

No, Really?


zygalski

5,392 posts

82 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
The planet (as you put it) has been around for 4.5 billion years and survived. Sadly we humans haven't been on it for 4.5 billion years so it's a rubbish point. The planet also had different mixtures of gases together with other influences that were different (ie Solar radiation) over this time.

Do you seriously think scientists and scientific institutes in the field have overlooked this argument?

No, Really?
What possible impact could we have?






turbobloke

83,665 posts

197 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
the scientific community and all the scientific institutions
You don't know what 'the scientific community' thinks about agw, nor do you know what 'the scientific institurions' think; organisations don't have a consciousness and it's merely activists on committees who claim to speak for them - it's not the membership.

There is disagreement at IPCC meetings such that a Convening Lead Author shut down a meeting when some of those present questioned their pet theory as evidenced by a Lead Author present at the gathering, so this idea of unanimity is wrong even for the main pro-agw advocacy group.

Even if 'the scientific community' and 'the scientific institurions' were as inaccurately described ^ it would not say anything about whether there is credible empirical data to support the view.

Opinions aren't evidence within the scientific method and you cannot change that by repeatedly claiming otherwise.

The likelihood of an opinion being correct or incorrect can only be measured by comparison with the implications of credible empirical data, the opinion holder is not a valid metric.

The Royal Society motto 'Take Nobody's Word For It' is spot on and it even applies to them.

Repeated use of sarc/ad homs/fallacies including shooting the messenger merely confirms the weakness of arguments on offer in support of agw.


Advertisement

Jinx

8,699 posts

197 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
So that’s great, your job in “data” has empowered you to analyse data related to the subject and let you to conclude that the scientific community and scientific institutions have interpreted it wrongly or are lying about their findings?

So have you done anything with this discovery of yours? It’s a pretty earth shattering discovery that you’ve made, could you do more with it than post about it here perhaps?

These revelations would change the scientific consensus, make you world famous and pretty much change the course of humanity.

I’m just finding it hard to understand how you know about all these travesties in science and politics happening but aren’t doing anything with your discovery?
The actual consensus is a rather trivial one and on the science thread much has been discussed around what the actual position is (earth has warmed and mankind is responsible for some of that warming) . Hardly consensus shattering to suggest mankind isn't responsible for that much of the noted warming is it?
Being right doesn't make you famous - how many individuals were right when they pointed out that Archimedes theories of motion were incorrect (we don't know as they were not published) - took until Newton was taken seriously to get that changed. How long did it take for plate tectonics to be accepted? Peer review can only ever reinforce the accepted view as getting alternate views published is reliant on finding reviewers that accept that alternate views are possible.
You believe in the political statements of the "authorities" - did it occur to you that most are pretty much just cashing in on the reputations of scientists who have gone before? That the agencies themselves are really only as trustworthy as those that currently hold the political positions?


dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
So that’s great, your job in “data” has empowered you to analyse data related to the subject and let you to conclude that the scientific community and scientific institutions have interpreted it wrongly or are lying about their findings?

So have you done anything with this discovery of yours? It’s a pretty earth shattering discovery that you’ve made, could you do more with it than post about it here perhaps?

These revelations would change the scientific consensus, make you world famous and pretty much change the course of humanity.

I’m just finding it hard to understand how you know about all these travesties in science and politics happening but aren’t doing anything with your discovery?
The actual consensus is a rather trivial one and on the science thread much has been discussed around what the actual position is (earth has warmed and mankind is responsible for some of that warming) . Hardly consensus shattering to suggest mankind isn't responsible for that much of the noted warming is it?
Being right doesn't make you famous - how many individuals were right when they pointed out that Archimedes theories of motion were incorrect (we don't know as they were not published) - took until Newton was taken seriously to get that changed. How long did it take for plate tectonics to be accepted? Peer review can only ever reinforce the accepted view as getting alternate views published is reliant on finding reviewers that accept that alternate views are possible.
You believe in the political statements of the "authorities" - did it occur to you that most are pretty much just cashing in on the reputations of scientists who have gone before? That the agencies themselves are really only as trustworthy as those that currently hold the political positions?
Wasting your time Jinx. ‘The four horsemen of the apocalypse’ are just hell bent on ridiculing anything anybody says about their faith. Any question they ask is loaded.

Jasandjules

61,773 posts

166 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Scepticism might but then it should be based on something rather than a political belief and dislike of the BBC and similar institutions.
Come now I think it is plain that cui bono stands, if needs be alone, in support of scepticism (not to mention simple intelligence requires a discovery of the source of information and any bias, explicit or implicit, which may be derived).

As Lord Blackadder said "Dr Hoffman of Stuttgart is it"............

wc98

6,658 posts

77 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
zygalski said:
What possible impact could we have?





one of the better examples of uhi i have seen, thanks for posting.

turbobloke

83,665 posts

197 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
What possible impact could we have?





one of the better examples of uhi i have seen, thanks for posting.
yes

It's also a reminder of the pernicious problem of light pollution (alongside local urban heat island thermal pollution).

Still, if agw activists manage to hold the thirld world in poverty for longer than necessary and de-industrialise the USA all will be well.

silly

deeps

4,512 posts

178 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
Here's a good read, the comments section is very interesting too...

Article said:
The prolonged el Niño of 2016-2017, not followed by a la Niña, has put paid to the great Pause of 18 years 9 months in global warming that gave us all such entertainment while it lasted. However, as this annual review of global temperature change will show, the credibility gap between predicted and observed warming remains wide, even after some increasingly desperate and more or less openly prejudiced ever-upward revisions of recent temperatures and ever-downward depressions in the temperatures of the early 20th century in most datasets with the effect of increasing the apparent rate of global warming. For the Pause continues to exert its influence by keeping down the long-run rate of global warming.
Snip
Article said:
My impression is that the editor has realized we are right. We are waiting for a new section from our professor of control theory on the derivation of the transfer function from the energy-balance equation via a leading-order Taylor-series expansion. That will be with us at the end of the month, and the editor will then send the paper out for review again. I’ll keep you posted. If we’re right, Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2) will be 1.2 [1.1, 1.3] C°, far too little to matter, and not, as the models currently imagine, 3.4 [2.1, 4.7] C°, and that, scientifically speaking, will be the end of the climate scam.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/10/the-credibility-gap-between-predicted-and-observed-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR0IuAIgwKnYhuWe-yV6N2afESJE-KX1UEjTmoufhYbXyjV77n0dmJkazQU

dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
Here's a good read, the comments section is very interesting too...

Article said:
The prolonged el Niño of 2016-2017, not followed by a la Niña, has put paid to the great Pause of 18 years 9 months in global warming that gave us all such entertainment while it lasted. However, as this annual review of global temperature change will show, the credibility gap between predicted and observed warming remains wide, even after some increasingly desperate and more or less openly prejudiced ever-upward revisions of recent temperatures and ever-downward depressions in the temperatures of the early 20th century in most datasets with the effect of increasing the apparent rate of global warming. For the Pause continues to exert its influence by keeping down the long-run rate of global warming.
Snip
Article said:
My impression is that the editor has realized we are right. We are waiting for a new section from our professor of control theory on the derivation of the transfer function from the energy-balance equation via a leading-order Taylor-series expansion. That will be with us at the end of the month, and the editor will then send the paper out for review again. I’ll keep you posted. If we’re right, Charney sensitivity (equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2) will be 1.2 [1.1, 1.3] C°, far too little to matter, and not, as the models currently imagine, 3.4 [2.1, 4.7] C°, and that, scientifically speaking, will be the end of the climate scam.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/10/the-credibility-gap-between-predicted-and-observed-global-warming/?fbclid=IwAR0IuAIgwKnYhuWe-yV6N2afESJE-KX1UEjTmoufhYbXyjV77n0dmJkazQU
None of the three reviewers, therefore, had actually read the paper they were ostensibly reviewing"

reminds me of a certain trio in here rofl

mondeoman

9,277 posts

203 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
Jinx said:
? El stovey was arguing that Global emergency did not equal impending apocalypse.

I argued that not only was global emergency equal to impending apocalypse ...
mondeoman said:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

What Is at Stake?
Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (12, 39, 49, 50) (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.

An uninhabitable planet sounds kinda apocalyptic to me.
Impending apocalypse, 200 years in the future? That's not what we're talking about. The claim was the prediction of an apocalypse that's supposed to have happened already. To remind you:

Both these papers are requesting action now to prevent further damage in the future.
You asked for papers that indicated apocalypse by global warming. You've been shown at least one. Argue against the content of the paper or stfu. Consider the question answered, no matter how much you wriggle and obsfucate

El stovey

24,482 posts

200 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
Wasting your time Jinx. ‘The four horsemen of the apocalypse’ are just hell bent on ridiculing anything anybody says about their faith. Any question they ask is loaded.
dickymint said:
None of the three reviewers, therefore, had actually read the paper they were ostensibly reviewing"

reminds me of a certain trio in here rofl
Have you just got someone else banned or are your adding skills no better than your fake (boiler) engineering qualifications?

deeps

4,512 posts

178 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
None of the three reviewers, therefore, had actually read the paper they were ostensibly reviewing"

reminds me of a certain trio in here rofl
Can't think who you possibly mean, I think I shall call them GED (Gadget, El and Durbs) for future reference. laugh

Cue another barrage of scientific institution diversions. I think I shall name them SID for future reference. Cue GED with SID. laugh

Bacardi

1,937 posts

213 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Turbocalypse Now

On a car forum in 2019, PHers take a perilous and increasingly hallucinatory journey upriver to find Turbobloke and his cult, a once-promising scientist, a boiler engineer, a university professor and other pretend boffins who have reportedly gone completely mad.
It makes you wonder why someone with such a vast sanctimonious intellect would spend so much time posting to a small cult of nutters in some backwater of a car forum… you would have to be certifiable. What’s your excuse?

El stovey

24,482 posts

200 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
? El stovey was arguing that Global emergency did not equal impending apocalypse.

I argued that not only was global emergency equal to impending apocalypse ...
mondeoman said:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

What Is at Stake?
Hothouse Earth is likely to be uncontrollable and dangerous to many, particularly if we transition into it in only a century or two, and it poses severe risks for health, economies, political stability (12, 39, 49, 50) (especially for the most climate vulnerable), and ultimately, the habitability of the planet for humans.

An uninhabitable planet sounds kinda apocalyptic to me.
Impending apocalypse, 200 years in the future? That's not what we're talking about. The claim was the prediction of an apocalypse that's supposed to have happened already. To remind you:

Both these papers are requesting action now to prevent further damage in the future.
You asked for papers that indicated apocalypse by global warming. You've been shown at least one. Argue against the content of the paper or stfu. Consider the question answered, no matter how much you wriggle and obsfucate
Wrong again.

Kawasicki said:
Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.

Climate Science
Promising catastrophe since 1968
This is where the whole apocalypse thing started. As usually you’ve waded in without having a clue.

mondeoman

9,277 posts

203 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.
All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one. biggrin

This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.

The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.

Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...? smile
El Stovey gets it wrong, again.
Paper provided.
I'll wait for your apology.
Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 10th January 22:45


Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 10th January 22:46

El stovey

24,482 posts

200 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
Has the apocalypse arrived? No.

That’s all the data I need to disprove the climate science community. It’s like their whole existence depends on them ignoring the plainly obvious.
All the data you need is a prediction from your imagination? A rather difficult position to counter, that one. biggrin

This is one of the laziest and most common strawman arguments; that climate scientists have been predicting an "apocalypse" that never came. They didn't, of course. Science doesn't really operate in that arena.

The reality is: they have predicted pretty much the rather mundane pattern of events that have happened for over half a century. Of course, in any projection you would have extremes of scenarios which is exclusively what the press report on. That's something that happens in all science reporting, sadly, but it's rarely real.

Er, unless you can point to a widely accepted, peer-reviewed paper that actually predicted "an apocalypse"...? smile
El Stovey gets it wrong, again.
Paper provided.
I'll wait for your apology.
Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 10th January 22:45


Edited by mondeoman on Thursday 10th January 22:46
I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood the argument.

I’ll try it like this for you,

Poster A - the apocalypse hasn’t arrived as predicted
Poster B - who said there would be an apocalypse by now?
You - look someone said last year, in a few hundred years the earth would be uninhabitable, I win.

They’re arguing about scientists saying the apocalypse would have arrived by now.

You’re arguing about papers predicting stuff hundreds of years in the future.


dickymint

16,092 posts

195 months

Thursday 10th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
Wasting your time Jinx. ‘The four horsemen of the apocalypse’ are just hell bent on ridiculing anything anybody says about their faith. Any question they ask is loaded.
dickymint said:
None of the three reviewers, therefore, had actually read the paper they were ostensibly reviewing"

reminds me of a certain trio in here rofl
Have you just got someone else banned or are your adding skills no better than your fake (boiler) engineering qualifications?
For the last time I’ve never been or claimed to have been a “boiler engineer” and none of my engineering qualifications are “fake” keep digging if it keeps you happy wavey