AGW denial is anti-science

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

You are not countering his argument. Yo have created a straw man argument about energy equilibrium...whereas JuniorD seems to be stating that the changes due to mankind are insignificant compared to natural variability.

He didn’t provide an argument to refute unless you think “I don’t believe it” counts as an argument. There are thousand of papers by climate scientists that support the position that humans are influencing the climate.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

Kawasicki said:

You are not countering his argument. Yo have created a straw man argument about energy equilibrium...whereas JuniorD seems to be stating that the changes due to mankind are insignificant compared to natural variability.

He didn’t provide an argument to refute unless you think “I don’t believe it” counts as an argument. There are thousand of papers by climate scientists that support the position that humans are influencing the climate.

When I read his post I interpreted it as a statement that natural variability dwarfs human influence, and that seeing a correlation as causation is unscientific.

Sounds reasonable to me.

I’m sure climate scientists are devastated that rather than dedicating their lives to understanding how the climate works they could have just come to you for your opinion, because what seems reasonable to you must be right.

I’m sure all the counterintuitive science like relativity or quantum physics must be wrong too because that would definitely fail your “reasonableness” test.

Clue: it only seems reasonable to you because it agrees with what you already believe.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

So you believe natural variability doesn’t dwarf man made influences?

Here is a definition of science...

...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Relativity and quantum physics theories fit the definition well.

On the other hand catastrophic man made climate change hasn’t happened, except in climate models, and therefore hasn’t been observed, even though the experiment has been underway for centuries already.

So really CAGW belief is anti science.

Staggeringly silly comment.

Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.

The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Observations do not support CAGW science.

Nothing catastrophic has occurred... and the increasing CO2 experiment has been run for hundreds of years.

For me to change my mind would take a series of otherwise unexplainable catastrophic climatic events well outside what humans have experienced in the past few thousand years.

Science is the best!

You keep repeating that claim but catastrophic impacts have not been predicted to happen.

[Esceptico]

Jinx said:

Sambucket said:

So unless a poster can back up why they don't trust the IPCC, then I'm not sure it's worth finishing reading the post.

Then go back to IPCC AR5 (ignore the summary for policy makers as that is all politics and not science) and read up on the probable impacts and likely timelines. Nothing bad until 2100 at the earliest - that is the science (and most of that in the possible category).
The IPCC also only reviews the papers (and grey material unfortunately) that look at manmade impacts - no review of the natural climate change papers so isn't a proper meta-study but irrespective of that, the CAGW isn't proven and is barely supported outside of medium to low confidence levels.

Yes nothing bad until the end of the century - please can you get Kawasiki to read it so he doesn’t keep telling us that AGW is not real because nothing has happened yet!

The point is that to prevent something bad happening at the end of the century we would need to change now. Of course that isn’t happening.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The predictions for severe negative consequences are for the future. Which is why Greta and young people are pissed off as deniers like Trump will be long dead before the st hits the fan. And because any hope of avoiding it requires action today. If we wait until the effects are severe it would be too late to do anything about it.

[Esceptico]

JuniorD said:

I don’t know people sleep at night with this Chicken Little Syndrome

I can sleep knowing that I am definitely going to die sometime in the next few decades. Climate change seems like a minor worry in comparison.

[Esceptico]

V10leptoquark said:

Esceptico said:

...... repeating that claim but catastrophic impacts have not been predicted to happen.

You sir, are not a fully signed up member of your religion. In this religion you can not cherry pick what you want to believe and what you want to discard. Its either the full shebang or you are a denier !

10 years is what we've got left. And that's 10 years until the planet is uninhabitable according to the politics and those 'climate scientists' who wish to remain complicit in project fear for the means of further funding.
Where is the IPCC's voice in discrediting the hysterics, where is their voice of 'reason' to alleviate the tremendous fear that the youngsters seem to be indoctrinated with?

In this religion you are either on the same page or you are a denier - just as your opening post suggests.

Edited by V10leptoquark on Friday 1st November 09:06

Perhaps you can reference some reputable source for the nonsense above?

I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...

Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.

The ten years you are quoting is bullst you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.

I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.

[Esceptico]

Toltec said:

Esceptico said:

Perhaps you can reference some reputable source for the nonsense above?

I know you won’t read it but here is a recent(ish) statement from the IPCC:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/20...

Compare the measured, rather cautious use of language by the IPCC to the hyperbole you write.

The ten years you are quoting is bullst you have invented. The IPCC talks of us reaching 1.5 degrees (which is forecast to have manageable levels of climate impacts - that is why it was the target at the Paris conference) somewhere between 2030 and 2052. So likely decades away. The more problematic 2 degree rise would be decades after that unless the rate of temperature rise accelerates.

I’m sure there some eco warriors spouting crap just like deniers and yes some in the green movement are just as blinded by their “religion” as the deniers on the right but they are not representative of climate science.

You are quite correct, most of the sources in the news say twelve years, although as far as climate change goes the difference is small. It is also amusing that you ask for reputable sources then point at the IPCC which is a political body not scientific.

It just seems you are falling into the same trap as drivers that think anyone driving slower than you is a useless duffer and anyone faster a dangerous idiot. Do you not see that to someone you call a denier applying the same logic will see you as a manic eco warrior.

The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Esceptico said:

The IPCC doesn’t undertake science but the reports are drafted by scientists, drawing on peer reviewed papers. Each report is a reasonable summary of our understanding of climate change at that point with a range of predictions for the future. I am well aware that Deniers dismiss the IPCC by pointing out some weaknesses. I am well used to those tactics from anti-evolutionists who leap on any minor inconsistency and try to claim that all of evolution is bunk.

I don’t dismiss the IPCC reports because of some minor inconsistencies. I dismiss the reports because they’re junk.

Yes, climate scientists peer reviewed papers are junk whilst your own insights are a revelation.

Likely?

The thing is only the peer reviewed papers at the doom end of the scale are included or considered relevant. The IPCC reports are not scientifically rigorous and they are getting worse as they struggle to keep up the “worse than previously thought” alarmism.

The IPCC doesn’t write the reports. The coordinate the writing. If you bothered to look you would see that for each chapter of the report there are different climate experts. Below the link for just one chapter:

https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/mauthors.php?q=...

Just look at the lists. They are truly global drawing from climate scientists from not just major countries but developing countries too.

For each chapter is seems they have two coordinating experts, about a dozen lead authors and three reviewing editors. So each IPCC report will involve hundreds of experts.

Where is your evidence that they don’t review all peer reviewed papers? That they deliberately ignore evidence? You think that academics are willing to lie and hide evidence? Yes there have been cases of individual academics doing that but it beggars believe that you think hundreds of independent academics working together would do so. And it isn’t other reputable climate scientists that pick this up...just angry blokes on the internet?

Why don’t you write a proper expose? There are huge vested interests that work against climate science and would lap up your report (Fox News, Sky News, the US president). But of course you won’t respond because every time I’ve asked you to put up or shut up you don’t answer the question. Normally you raise an unrelated point to deflect it.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

Each IPCC report involves hundreds of climate scientists. How many of them are sceptical of CAGW? How many of them think that increasing CO2 has advantages?

I don’t need to write an expose, it would be as pointless as writing an expose that the sun rises in the morning. The IPCC was founded on the premise that significant human induced climate change exists. Do you think they are objective? Do you think a “Department of Climate Change” at a university will be objective? Do you think that science requires an objective outlook?

Have I answered your question?

All scientists are sceptical. Lots of scientific areas contain academics pushing different theories. The way to make your mark in academia is to find something new. As repeated ad nauseum, any decent climate scientist that could show AGW is bunk would be showered with money and attention. Of course I wasn’t expecting you personally to write the expose but there must be climate scientists that could. In fact I’m sure there are some that have tried but over time the evidence for AGW has increased and that is why the number of climate scientists that don’t accept AGW is falling.

I suspect that although you may have studied at a university you don’t appreciate how research departments or academia works.

[Esceptico]

Sambucket said:

This cartoon, in my opinion, neatly visualises natural variation in global temperature.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Thanks for that.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

My evidence that the earth’s climate is not particularly sensitive to CO2 is the pleasant climate we now have.

It’s currently so pleasant and conducive to human success that we are positively thriving.

And that’s after centuries of rocketing CO2 level.

What do you have?..an average of multiple runs of a model based on circular reasoning and a load of alarmist threats about “the future”...that are always just in the future...never actually now.

It made you look stupid the first time you said that, it doesn’t get better on repeating.

You deliberately ignore the point that the IPCC predictions are that negative consequences are generally going to take effect and get worse in the future. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

If you jump out of an aircraft nothing bad happens at first. Does that mean it is going to end well? The point of the IPCC reports is to point out that we are rushing towards the ground and that perhaps we might like to pull the parachute cord? Of course you could leave it until the last moment when you can see you are about to hit the ground but below a certain height pulling the cord won’t save you.

PS the above is an analogy and not a literal description - for those seemingly unable to grasp the concept of an analogy.

[Esceptico]

Kawasicki said:

The climatic response to increasing CO2 level gets weaker at higher concentrations.

That’s the science.

I answered your question. Maybe you missed mine.

What’s you evidence for alarmism? Consensus isn’t evidence.

You state that the climatic response to CO2 decreases with higher concentrations. Can you link to some evidence supporting that claim?

The evidence for us to be concerned is climate models. The climate models give a range of future temperature increases. There is more uncertainty about the impact of the temperature rises because the rate of change in temperature is much more extreme than the planet has experienced in the past, plus humans have such a big impact on the environment in other ways that predicting the outcome is difficult.

You can see from history that relatively small temperature differences can have a massive impact. If today’s temperature is only 4 degrees higher than the last ice age where there was ice covering North America down to New York, then I suspect 4 degrees warmer will have rather catastrophic impacts for the majority of humanity that live not that far from the equator.

[Esceptico]

Terminator X said:

#climateemergency

IPCC original predictions vs actual observations since then:



Don't be too scared by the spikes folks, try to contain those anxious thoughts.

TX.

I tried to check the above. According to the 1990/92 report the IPCC were predicting temperature growth of 0.2-0.5 degrees per decade.


I then checked to see what has happened so far:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temper...

Reality has been around 0.2 degrees per decade, so in line with projections (albeit at the bottom of the range).

So what is your point?

[Esceptico]

Oilchange said:

Let me give you an example of my scepticism.

Recently there was a news report about a huge glacier melting, over a very short period of time.
Shocking! The report went on and on about climate change and one could reasonably conclude it was to blame.

Right up until they mentioned that the glacier was in Iceland.

You know, that Island in the N. Atlantic that has a massive amount of subsurface volcanic activity, it being smack back on the line of two tectonic plates. Indeed , the Island was probably created by volcanic activity.
Now the slant changes from a credible story to a pack of lies.
I mean, why would you report disinformation such as this if you didn’t have an agenda?

Wow just think how all those geologists and volcano experts who totally missed that “possible” explanation. Your a genius! You’ve won the Noble prize. If you just send me your bank account details I will have the £1 million pound prize sent straight away.

[Esceptico]

Oilchange said:

You are as patronising as the news editor who pulled that stunt.

Did you not think you were patronising towards real experts (geologists, etc) by thinking you had spotted an “obvious” solution they had all apparently missed?

[Esceptico]

Oilchange said:

So why did they run the story then. I mean, who did they honestly think they were fooling. Apart from millions of disinterested viewers perhaps.
It all becomes insidious background noise after a while...

Me, patronising?
Hilarious.

I am struggling to understand you. Are you claiming that the glaciers disappearing in Iceland are due to volcanic activity rather than climate change?

Here is a link from Iceland:

https://now.guidetoiceland.is/2018/08/16/news/icel...

No mention of volcanoes.

[Esceptico]

Oilchange said:

So why did they run the story then. I mean, who did they honestly think they were fooling. Apart from millions of disinterested viewers perhaps.
It all becomes insidious background noise after a while...

Me, patronising?
Hilarious.

Perhaps the Swiss are living on a volcano and didn’t know it.

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/climate-chang...

[Esceptico]

Oilchange said:

No, what I’m saying is it’s the people who blame the disappearance of glaciers, in a very short space of time, geologically, on ‘climate change’. Like how could a massive chunk of ice (50 odd metres thick) melt in such a short space of time?
They run it as a quick hit story in the news and people go away without all the facts.
It makes me sceptical. So much so that in my opinion, they have an agenda.
I am only drawing my own conclusions but I am so far convinced that it’s a ‘movement’ that is socially and financially motivated to cultivate this nonsense.

I don’t pretend to have all the facts. They, however, do. But I don’t believe them. And its healthy to contradict scientists as they are often wrong.

Do I get a Nobel prize now?

Edited by Oilchange on Sunday 3rd November 07:45

So you don’t believe that the glaciers are disappearing? Even though there are photos of them disappearing over the past 100 years?