Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

You have blind faith in the institutions, politicians, scientists. You can't look beyond it or any deeper.

I have blind faith in nothing. I do however listen to scientists and their research conclusions.

Please show me your own 'deeper' research and conclusions.

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

You have blind faith in the institutions, politicians, scientists. You can't look beyond it or any deeper.

I have blind faith in nothing. I do however listen to scientists and their research conclusions.

Please show me your own 'deeper' research and conclusions.

That which has been gained over the last 10 years or so?
That which adheres to a basic scientific principle of question everything?
That which understands that concensus is a political concept, not scientific, by its nature.
That which has seen evidence of tampering, falsifying, direct efforts to stem any disent...

I can't show you what's in my brain...I can tell you to read more, and get off the alarmist bandwagon and open your eyes. A 'qualified' scientist does not mean that they are actually capable or respectable.

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

I have blind faith in nothing. I do however listen to scientists and their research conclusions.

Please show me your own 'deeper' research and conclusions.

how do you decide which conclusions to believe ? we recently had someone cite a paper by a well known met climate scientist on the other thread. within that paper was a section relating to solar output and it's effect on the temperature record. i contacted both that scientist (he never replied) and the scientist i would regard as one of the worlds most foremost solar physicists due to him and his team being the only climate related scientists to predict any climate phenomena accurately in an observable timescale.

his opinion was the solar part of the the other scientists paper was making claims not supported by solar science, hence to me that paper is wrong in all its conclusions.

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

I can't show you what's in my brain...I can tell you to read more, and get off the alarmist bandwagon and open your eyes. A 'qualified' scientist does not mean that they are actually capable or respectable.

Wow, I don't know where to start with that

Best you carry on with the unqualified meteorologists and their blogs, discredited scientists and big oil funded institutes.

'Blinkered' doesn't really do it justice

I am so glad you lot don't run the world though.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

I can't show you what's in my brain...I can tell you to read more, and get off the alarmist bandwagon and open your eyes. A 'qualified' scientist does not mean that they are actually capable or respectable.

Wow, I don't know where to start with that

Best you carry on with the unqualified meteorologists and their blogs, discredited scientists and big oil funded institutes.

'Blinkered' doesn't really do it justice

I am so glad you lot don't run the world though.

But the foundation of his argument is sound It's Big Climate just like Big Pharma.

If you can't even see that then award yourself a dozen rofl's.

[LoonyTunes]

I'm out of this particular thread, it's as ridiculous as the Politics thread with the same old deniers posting the same old guff from the same old discredited sources.

I'll pick it up in the political thread - it's bound to be on repeat-post to there as well.

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

Wow, I don't know where to start with that

Best you carry on with the unqualified meteorologists and their blogs, discredited scientists and big oil funded institutes.

'Blinkered' doesn't really do it justice

I am so glad you lot don't run the world though.

Other than your lists, what have you contributed to any of this? Just more troll tactics.

You're on my list now.

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

Other than your lists, what have you contributed to any of this? Just more troll tactics.

You're on my list now.

Please keep me on it, no sneaking back for a random drive-by trolling

[DocJock]

LoonyTunes said:

I'm out of this particular thread, it's as ridiculous as the Politics thread with the same old deniers posting the same old guff from the same old discredited sources.

I'll pick it up in the political thread - it's bound to be on repeat-post to there as well.

Thank feck for that. Please keep it there.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

durbster said:

If you still don't understand the point being made here, I simply don't know how to write it in a simpler way and can't help you.

Whilst on the surface you are claiming that as you can look at the source of the science rather than relying on advocacy blogs but by phrasing the "complain about SKS" [paraphrase] when all it's doing is showing the science that you can get direct from the sources [/paraphrase] you are implying a whole different point.
I was suggesting that WUWT is not dissimilar given as it frequently provides links back to the science ...

Except you've ignored the crucial point: WUWT is asking you to believe that all the sources of the science are wrong about their own research, and only its bloggers are telling the truth.

Jinx said:

(ergo both are advocacy blogs - though one is vastly more popular - maybe having an ex-TV meteorologist helps with the ratings) .

Did you check that, or do you just believe everything they tell you.

[Halb]

stew-STR160 said:

Climate models found to be wrong, don't match up with actual observations-

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-climate-simulate-air...

are the climate models the main evidence connecting climate change to human's behaviour?

[wc98]

LoonyTunes said:

I'm out of this particular thread, it's as ridiculous as the Politics thread with the same old deniers posting the same old guff from the same old discredited sources.

I'll pick it up in the political thread - it's bound to be on repeat-post to there as well.

not only out of the thread, out of your depth when it comes to the science as can be seen by the swerve. bye, don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.

[wc98]

Halb said:

are the climate models the main evidence connecting climate change to human's behaviour?

looking at the assumptions made in the all the ipcc reports right up to the latest one the answer has to be yes.

[wc98]

durbster said:

Except you've ignored the crucial point: WUWT is asking you to believe that all the sources of the science are wrong about their own research, and only its bloggers are telling the truth.

Jinx said:

(ergo both are advocacy blogs - though one is vastly more popular - maybe having an ex-TV meteorologist helps with the ratings) .

Did you check that, or do you just believe everything they tell you.

where do you see that on wuwt ? they usually post the background on any papers ,the "data" used to come to conclusions and then voice an opinion on it. they also have numerous active and retired scientists contributing and commenting. sks is an echo chamber. mnost dissenting voices are moderated as can be seen in many old comment threads as it looks like the sks members have been writing replies to no one. happened every time they got caught out lying and were challenged on it.

there is plenty stuff on wuwt that is biased as well. also plenty stuff that can be challenged and it often is. that doesn't happen very often on the warmist blogs.

[durbster]

Halb said:

stew-STR160 said:

Climate models found to be wrong, don't match up with actual observations-

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-climate-simulate-air...

are the climate models the main evidence connecting climate change to human's behaviour?

Nope, not at all.

The models use what is already known about how our atmosphere reacts to changes in its numerous ingredients, to try and project what the effects of AGW are likely to be in the most likely conditions we'll see. They didn't start with models and work backwards, the science is established first then the models built around it.

It's a bit like how a hurricane trajectory model isn't there to prove anything about hurricanes, it's to apply what's already known about hurricanes.

Honestly, you would have to be grasping at straws if you read an article like the above and think it provides some proof against the science of AGW.

[Halb]

durbster said:

It's a bit like how a hurricane trajectory model isn't there to prove anything about hurricanes, it's to apply what's already known about hurricanes.

Honestly, you would have to be grasping at straws if you read an article like the above and think it provides some proof against the science of AGW.

This might be a little bit away from the ;science' aspect, but it's connected. WHy are people not convinced by the science?

[mondeoman]

www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

Global Warming and Hurricanes (revised Sept.2018)

Section E.Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups.

Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.


Just to confirm, no link between hurricanes and models, or indeed hurricanes and the global average temperature construct.

[durbster]

Halb said:

durbster said:

It's a bit like how a hurricane trajectory model isn't there to prove anything about hurricanes, it's to apply what's already known about hurricanes.

Honestly, you would have to be grasping at straws if you read an article like the above and think it provides some proof against the science of AGW.

This might be a little bit away from the ;science' aspect, but it's connected. WHy are people not convinced by the science?

At the heart has been a sustained PR campaign by powerful fossil fuel companies in the US, to make people think the science is controversial when it's not. As long as there's doubt in the public, there's not as much pressure on politicians to act.

Basically, it's exactly the same thing that tobacco companies did to delay smoking legislation. An organisation that was instrumental in those campaigns is also involved in this one, which says a lot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Instit...

Also, people generally are rubbish at parsing fact from fiction online. An alarming number of people accept some text on a picture on facebook without question, and think they are "doing their own research"

It's fascinating really. And on top of all that, there's a trend towards general distrust of institutions and experts leading to a rise in conspiracy theories generally. The vaccinations, the Doctors, the scientists, George Soros, the BBC and migrant caravans are all coming to get us.

The rise of the paranoid deserves a thread on its own really.

[stew-STR160]

durbster said:

Halb said:

stew-STR160 said:

Climate models found to be wrong, don't match up with actual observations-

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-climate-simulate-air...

are the climate models the main evidence connecting climate change to human's behaviour?

Nope, not at all.

The models use what is already known about how our atmosphere reacts to changes in its numerous ingredients, to try and project what the effects of AGW are likely to be in the most likely conditions we'll see. They didn't start with models and work backwards, the science is established first then the models built around it.

It's a bit like how a hurricane trajectory model isn't there to prove anything about hurricanes, it's to apply what's already known about hurricanes.

Honestly, you would have to be grasping at straws if you read an article like the above and think it provides some proof against the science of AGW.

If only that were true though Durbs. The models are used so often as absolute proof of damage caused and being done by humans. Media, polticians... OK, scientists would generally hold back on saying such things, but not all. Some are happy to let the models do the talking.

And when the IPCC openly state the models don't factor in every known possible forcing, it leaves an imcomplete picture with large margins. And within those margins one can spin almost any story they wish.

Reading the article says to me that the supposed settled science of AGW is settled on policy, not science itself. Science has a lot to learn still.

[grumbledoak]

Halb said:

are the climate models the main evidence connecting climate change to human's behaviour?

Yes. The measured data is far too weak to draw the conclusions that are claimed. "The data don't matter" is a phrase worth a google.

Unfortunately science needs funding, and there are some huge "opportunities" in a perceived global threat - the UN would love to become a true World Government, for example. Cap And Trade didn't die with Enron, either - there are private sector billions at stake too. All contribute to the information war.