Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Author
Discussion

dickymint

16,993 posts

203 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
Show us!

gadgetmac

5,854 posts

53 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
You doubt the mans integrity? Surprise surpriserolleyes
This, from Dicky “Report Button” Mint laugh

gadgetmac

5,854 posts

53 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
And this is the problem. So many deniers posting in a style (and with content) that belies there supposed employment status and/or education attainment.

deeps

4,741 posts

186 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
durbster said:
You might be interested in this Twitter thread. It's a collection of studies of the relationship between rejection of science and political leaning. It's based on the main topics where science is rejected: vaccines, climate change, GMOs etc.

https://twitter.com/ichiloe/status/108266320300229...

There's a consistent pattern:


Suggesting your view on this is likely to be ideological, not fact-based.

Sources are all in the thread.

This is your field, apparently, so what do you make of that?
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).

El stovey

27,747 posts

208 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).
Yes it will indeed be funny, how will it be proven to be a false theory?

If it isn’t then presumably you’ll be admitting you were completely wrong?

Bearing in mind these threads have been going for a few years and it’s still your cult of fake boffins against the scientific community and you haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus for some odd reason. hehe

Dindoit

1,645 posts

39 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)

NoNeed

13,666 posts

145 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Dindoit said:
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Do you have any proof of this?

dickymint

16,993 posts

203 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
Where's the data? Those are conclusions with graphics. Pretty sure the methodologies for these "survey" based "studies" have already been ripped apart, for example: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/lewandowsky-shows...

And remember - correlation is not causation - this applies to sociology as well.
scratchchin

You run to an advocacy blog rather than going to look into it yourself? That is absolutely not what I would expect from somebody who apparently works with data (and I work with data analysts).

The sources and further explanations are all in the thread, as I said.
You doubt the mans integrity? Surprise surpriserolleyes
This, from Dicky “Report Button” Mint laugh
WTF are you on?

deeps

4,741 posts

186 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
gadgetmac said:
And this is the problem. So many deniers posting in a style (and with content) that belies there supposed employment status and/or education attainment.
Oh dear! By the look of that post your own education attainment may not be so hot! laugh

I'm not the grammar police by any stretch, live and let live, but within such a condescending holier than thou post, the irony is worth pointing out!

deeps

4,741 posts

186 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
deeps said:
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).
Yes it will indeed be funny, how will it be proven to be a false theory?

If it isn’t then presumably you’ll be admitting you were completely wrong?

Bearing in mind these threads have been going for a few years and it’s still your cult of fake boffins against the scientific community and you haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus for some odd reason. hehe
Time will reveal all.

'The average Liberal Warmist of today does not believe in precisely the same imbecilities that the Greek of the Fourth Century before Christ believed in, but the things that he does believe in are often quite as idiotic.'

'The profoundest truths of the Middle Ages are now laughed at by school boys. The profoundest truths of MMGW theory will be laughed at, a few decades hence, even by school teachers.'

mondeoman

9,341 posts

211 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
El stovey said:
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.
Point taken, apologies

robinessex

7,316 posts

126 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Who cares about what might happen 100s of years in the future

PRTVR

4,776 posts

166 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
The thing with " hundreds of years in the future" is that the people who predict it will not be around to justify their statements.
Take some of the older predictions, the viability of the Alps as a ski resort is one that made me chuckle, a warming climate gives less snow, totally logical, untill you have record snowfall, the reason for the outlandish predictions is purely to reinforce the story line.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate-change-threat...

Yes this is weather not climate, but predictions made about weather caused by climate change should stand, the temperature is increasing at a steady rate the snow loss should be proportional to the increase,but clearly it's not leading to some to question their predictions.

LittleBigPlanet

755 posts

86 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
robinessex said:
Who cares about what might happen 100s of years in the future
Those who either own and/or manage assets (like railways, skyscrapers, power stations, bridges, ports etc.) might have a bit of an interest. Maybe.

Do you know how many skyscrapers (>150m) worldwide have had to be demolished? I'll let you do some research to find that out. Shouldn't be difficult given the expertise here.

We are building things that will be around for a long time, it helps to know what conditions these things should be designed for in the future.

turbobloke

85,439 posts

205 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
The thing with " hundreds of years in the future" is that the people who predict it will not be around to justify their statements.
There's another problem.

Coupled Non-linear Chaotic System - IPCC

IPCC said:
...therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

The climate is still a coupled non-linear chaotic system and long-term prediction of future climate states is still not, and never will be, possible. A side dish from this meal is that the notion of 'stabilising the climate' is unscientific twaddle. Attempting to do so by trying to manipulate the atmospheric carbon dioxide level via taxation is doubly nonsensical. Future generations will indeed look back and wonder what the faithful were smoking.

What we get at this point, as per evidence in this and other threads, is that somebody who thinks they know something but doesn't stabs a pointy finger at the 70+ climate models and claims that some sort of probabilistic distribution is conferring wisdom. While having a 70-sided coin is useful to tossers, as it may come down on something "more or less" to their liking (but not accurately so) the probability thing falls down flat because even with 70+ models, all possible outcomes are not included and therefore as the input is incomplete the outcome is unreal.

There is no skill present and no usefulness in pondering the gigo of poorly fed unpredictability.


NoNeed

13,666 posts

145 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
Dindoit said:
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Do you have any proof of this?
I take that as a no then

turbobloke

85,439 posts

205 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
NoNeed said:
Dindoit said:
More conservatives believe in climate change than evolution. Christ! (or not)
Do you have any proof of this?
I take that as a no then
Can't speak for Dindoit but it may refer to Republicans across the pond.

A survey is claimed to have shown that 42% believe in evolution whereas 49% believe in global warming. However, note the terms global warming/climage change and that the human influence issue isn't explicitly included.

As we know, personal viewpoints are freely available to all but offer nothing externally. Collections of these in surveys can achieve the pooling of ignorance quite easily.

Empirical observational data is where to look, otherwise...

Royal Society said:
Take Nobody's Word For It

kerplunk

3,659 posts

151 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
El stovey said:
deeps said:
"Rejection of science" ??? laugh

Will be funny to repost this in a few years time when the struggling AGW climate scam finally runs out of breath (but maybe not CO2) and is proven to be a false theory. How silly those Liberals will look.

(Cue DEG with SID).
Yes it will indeed be funny, how will it be proven to be a false theory?

If it isn’t then presumably you’ll be admitting you were completely wrong?

Bearing in mind these threads have been going for a few years and it’s still your cult of fake boffins against the scientific community and you haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus for some odd reason. hehe
Time will reveal all.

'The average Liberal Warmist of today does not believe in precisely the same imbecilities that the Greek of the Fourth Century before Christ believed in, but the things that he does believe in are often quite as idiotic.'

'The profoundest truths of the Middle Ages are now laughed at by school boys. The profoundest truths of MMGW theory will be laughed at, a few decades hence, even by school teachers.'
Interesting foresight of future scientific outcomes there. Looks like you don't need the proof to emerge - you just *know*

Time will reveal all - that part at least is true.





gadgetmac

5,854 posts

53 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
deeps said:
gadgetmac said:
And this is the problem. So many deniers posting in a style (and with content) that belies there supposed employment status and/or education attainment.
Oh dear! By the look of that post your own education attainment may not be so hot! laugh

I'm not the grammar police by any stretch, live and let live, but within such a condescending holier than thou post, the irony is worth pointing out!
Go on then Double D, Point out the grammatical errors. laugh

I can see a spelling mistake but maybe in your world that’s “grammar” laugh

And as you say, the irony is indeed worth pointing out...namely that you criticise something that is in fact correct.

And you entrench that irony by attacking a (supposed) grammar error and not the content in order to deflect away from the point.

Classic denier tactics.

gadgetmac

5,854 posts

53 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
dickymint said:
WTF are you on?
Not the report button trying to get people banned.