AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
I believe the list had been purged of errant entries and is now available again.
And that's not "the cycle" because that list isn't about the consensus. It's simply a warning.
But I acknowledge your straw man.
So, back to the real cycle, the 97% or more eh?
Have a look at the links to surveys/studies and point out if any papers reviewed were by Mickey mouse.
Try the Cook one mentioned on NASA's site.
And that's not "the cycle" because that list isn't about the consensus. It's simply a warning.
But I acknowledge your straw man.
So, back to the real cycle, the 97% or more eh?
Have a look at the links to surveys/studies and point out if any papers reviewed were by Mickey mouse.
Try the Cook one mentioned on NASA's site.
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
You may think this is funny, but it's not: you are not an expert on climate science, and more than the pub bore talking about WTO trade post-Brexit is an expert on trade agreements, or even knows the basics.
When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
I think you're funny. But humour is in the eye of the beholder. I don't need to be an expert to point out flaws in climate science where those flaws fall into specialisations (e.g. mathematics and data collection) other than climate science (check out https://climateaudit.org/ for an example of this maxim). To sugggest that the hallowed halls of Climate science (tm) even approach the rigor of Astrophysics is to have little understanding of the nascent state of climate science as a discipline.When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:20
So climate science is so complicated only a climate scientist can understand it? That is not how science works - as Einstein may have said:
possibly Einstein said:
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
I have been reading much around climate science since 2001 - 18 years of listening to "their reasoining" and checking their logic - hence my "god of gaps" assessment earlier. One thing stands out still - without amplification from water vapour there is no catastrophic global warming (that is the science). As yet there is no evidence of any amplification. Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
stew-STR160 said:
As per the other posts, it would be that you can't argue against CAGW as you're not qualified to, but you can agree with it. How does that even make any sense?
It makes sense because I'm simply backing the expert consensus. You're making a statement that goes against the overwhelming majority of experts.Gadgetmac said:
They'd agree with the expert opinion in a flash if 97 cardiologists said they needed a heart bypass or they'll die soon and 3 said they didn't.
Quite! I have every reason to wish man-made climate change wasn't happening; I race a V8 car and my favourite type of holiday is road trips, which currently are in my 1800kg barge with a straight six engine, which I also commute for two hours a day in (because my skill set, as described earlier, is really niche, and I probably won't ever find a local job). I also spent last weekend gauping at WWII aircraft engines that spit fire when you start them up. Perhaps hypocritically, I'm also passionate about the natural world and am a keen diver and hiker. There you go though, that's just who I am and obviously I wish this whole man-made climate change thing wasn't true, or that it was the 1950s and we were living in blissful ignorance (with pristine reefs to dive on and empty mountains to climb). I trust the experts though, amongst whom there is an overwhelming consensus. It's sad, but true.RobM77 said:
Once more in case it sticks: You are not an expert on climate science. Reading around a subject in your spare time doesn't make you an expert, or even a pro, it just makes you an interested layman, like I am with racing car engineering, genetics, human evolution etc. There's an enormous difference between pop science and the actual science. Why do you think completing a BSc, MSc and PhD to a decent level takes about 7-8 years of 40-50 hours a week? Even if you read the same text books, doing four hours a week on the sofa would require 90 years of solid reading to get the same contact time, and even then you wouldn't have the tutorials, access to experts and review of your own work.
Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
Not out of context but in a different context than you assumed. I was referring to your insistence that I could not understand climate science (tm) and hence should never be critical of it - yet if climate scientists (tm) understood the subject they should have made it easy enough for a six year old to understand.Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
Climate science is a nascent multidiscipline branch closer to geography/meteorology than physics and relies heavily on general circulation models that are not mathematically complex enough for the "experiments" they are being used for. It will also cover a broad spectrum of the subject of which I have no interest (impacts/politics/gobal outreach). 4 hours a week over 18 years (using your figures) is more than enough time to review the history of the IPCC, the root causes, the basic theory, the poor data standards, weak proxies and lack of credible catastrophic threat.
But enough about me (though it might blow your head off to know I have contact with the CCC on a regular professional basis) I am not going to change your closed mind anytime soon - just try to remember what are scientific facts today are tomorrow's jokes and cat memes.
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
Once more in case it sticks: You are not an expert on climate science. Reading around a subject in your spare time doesn't make you an expert, or even a pro, it just makes you an interested layman, like I am with racing car engineering, genetics, human evolution etc. There's an enormous difference between pop science and the actual science. Why do you think completing a BSc, MSc and PhD to a decent level takes about 7-8 years of 40-50 hours a week? Even if you read the same text books, doing four hours a week on the sofa would require 90 years of solid reading to get the same contact time, and even then you wouldn't have the tutorials, access to experts and review of your own work.
Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
Not out of context but in a different context than you assumed. I was referring to your insistence that I could not understand climate science (tm) and hence should never be critical of it - yet if climate scientists (tm) understood the subject they should have made it easy enough for a six year old to understand.Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
Climate science is a nascent multidiscipline branch closer to geography/meteorology than physics and relies heavily on general circulation models that are not mathematically complex enough for the "experiments" they are being used for. It will also cover a broad spectrum of the subject of which I have no interest (impacts/politics/gobal outreach). 4 hours a week over 18 years (using your figures) is more than enough time to review the history of the IPCC, the root causes, the basic theory, the poor data standards, weak proxies and lack of credible catastrophic threat.
But enough about me (though it might blow your head off to know I have contact with the CCC on a regular professional basis) I am not going to change your closed mind anytime soon - just try to remember what are scientific facts today are tomorrow's jokes and cat memes.
I have no opinion on AGW; I just go with the expert consensus, because I don't pretend to know better than them. My mind is therefore completely open - it'll change when the evidence changes. However, I will not decide I know better than these people; I guess you could say my mind is closed in that regard? I know I'm not a climate scientist and not qualified to judge.You are using Einstein's quote out of context. Einstein could explain GR to a six year old, as can I; however that six year old couldn't then complete an degree level exam question on it could they? Einstein was talking about a simplistic conceptual understanding, not a deep understanding. If you're going to pick holes in something, then you need to understand it, and the foundations it stands on, to a much deeper level.
RobM77 said:
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
Once more in case it sticks: You are not an expert on climate science. Reading around a subject in your spare time doesn't make you an expert, or even a pro, it just makes you an interested layman, like I am with racing car engineering, genetics, human evolution etc. There's an enormous difference between pop science and the actual science. Why do you think completing a BSc, MSc and PhD to a decent level takes about 7-8 years of 40-50 hours a week? Even if you read the same text books, doing four hours a week on the sofa would require 90 years of solid reading to get the same contact time, and even then you wouldn't have the tutorials, access to experts and review of your own work.
Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
Not out of context but in a different context than you assumed. I was referring to your insistence that I could not understand climate science (tm) and hence should never be critical of it - yet if climate scientists (tm) understood the subject they should have made it easy enough for a six year old to understand.Of course I agree with Einstein's quote, but you're using it out of context. I can explain General Relativity to a six year old, but that doesn't mean they will then fully understand general relativity and could solve problems based on it.
Climate science is a nascent multidiscipline branch closer to geography/meteorology than physics and relies heavily on general circulation models that are not mathematically complex enough for the "experiments" they are being used for. It will also cover a broad spectrum of the subject of which I have no interest (impacts/politics/gobal outreach). 4 hours a week over 18 years (using your figures) is more than enough time to review the history of the IPCC, the root causes, the basic theory, the poor data standards, weak proxies and lack of credible catastrophic threat.
But enough about me (though it might blow your head off to know I have contact with the CCC on a regular professional basis) I am not going to change your closed mind anytime soon - just try to remember what are scientific facts today are tomorrow's jokes and cat memes.
I have no opinion on AGW; I just go with the expert consensus, because I don't pretend to know better than them. My mind is therefore completely open - it'll change when the evidence changes. However, I will not decide I know better than these people; I guess you could say my mind is closed in that regard? I know I'm not a climate scientist and not qualified to judge.You are using Einstein's quote out of context. Einstein could explain GR to a six year old, as can I; however that six year old couldn't then complete an degree level exam question on it could they? Einstein was talking about a simplistic conceptual understanding, not a deep understanding. If you're going to pick holes in something, then you need to understand it, and the foundations it stands on, to a much deeper level.
DocJock said:
These cardiologists would have been accorded expert status through a track record of CPD and successful outcomes.
I very much doubt the same can be said of your climate change 'experts'.
I'd say with their experience researching in the field and with global temps on the rise in-line with the rise in CO2 they've earned their badge of distinction.I very much doubt the same can be said of your climate change 'experts'.
Even so...
Newly qualified cardiologist or random bloke with zero quals on the internet, tough call.
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
You may think this is funny, but it's not: you are not an expert on climate science, and more than the pub bore talking about WTO trade post-Brexit is an expert on trade agreements, or even knows the basics.
When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
I think you're funny. But humour is in the eye of the beholder. I don't need to be an expert to point out flaws in climate science where those flaws fall into specialisations (e.g. mathematics and data collection) other than climate science (check out https://climateaudit.org/ for an example of this maxim). To sugggest that the hallowed halls of Climate science (tm) even approach the rigor of Astrophysics is to have little understanding of the nascent state of climate science as a discipline.When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:20
So climate science is so complicated only a climate scientist can understand it? That is not how science works - as Einstein may have said:
possibly Einstein said:
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
I have been reading much around climate science since 2001 - 18 years of listening to "their reasoining" and checking their logic - hence my "god of gaps" assessment earlier. One thing stands out still - without amplification from water vapour there is no catastrophic global warming (that is the science). As yet there is no evidence of any amplification. Esceptico said:
Jinx said:
RobM77 said:
You may think this is funny, but it's not: you are not an expert on climate science, and more than the pub bore talking about WTO trade post-Brexit is an expert on trade agreements, or even knows the basics.
When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
I think you're funny. But humour is in the eye of the beholder. I don't need to be an expert to point out flaws in climate science where those flaws fall into specialisations (e.g. mathematics and data collection) other than climate science (check out https://climateaudit.org/ for an example of this maxim). To sugggest that the hallowed halls of Climate science (tm) even approach the rigor of Astrophysics is to have little understanding of the nascent state of climate science as a discipline.When you want to know about climate science, reading the source material (as you have done) is not the way to go about it, because you're going to make all sorts of incorrect assumptions and the whole process will snowball to give you a screwy understanding. You are not the intended audience for that document. Even experts in Quantum Physics do not try and do this with Astrophysics and vice versa - they're totally different areas. The correct process is to listen to the expert consensus, and then if you're interested, listen to their reasoning and check it's logical and makes sense. Humility is the first step to understanding.
Edited by RobM77 on Tuesday 3rd December 12:20
So climate science is so complicated only a climate scientist can understand it? That is not how science works - as Einstein may have said:
possibly Einstein said:
If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.
I have been reading much around climate science since 2001 - 18 years of listening to "their reasoining" and checking their logic - hence my "god of gaps" assessment earlier. One thing stands out still - without amplification from water vapour there is no catastrophic global warming (that is the science). As yet there is no evidence of any amplification. Evolution by natural selection is real. There is far, far more evidence to support it than the alternative faith based option your side of the debate follow. HA, it's funny, you call us flat earthers and try with evolution deniers, yet we're the ones that question the science and practices, want clear cut proof of the claims made, and ask for best practices as per the scientific method.
So to that, I say you are the evolution denier and flat earther, as you simply 'believe' what you're told. If that's not faith...
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
As per the other posts, it would be that you can't argue against CAGW as you're not qualified to, but you can agree with it. How does that even make any sense?
It makes sense because I'm simply backing the expert consensus. You're making a statement that goes against the overwhelming majority of experts.stew-STR160 said:
RobM77 said:
stew-STR160 said:
As per the other posts, it would be that you can't argue against CAGW as you're not qualified to, but you can agree with it. How does that even make any sense?
It makes sense because I'm simply backing the expert consensus. You're making a statement that goes against the overwhelming majority of experts.This reminds of Brexit discussions. Because financial experts have been wrong a few times, let's say 1% of the time, that makes people assume they're going to be wrong about something in the future, purely because they want them to be. It's highly selective hindsight applied to the future with a bias.
stew-STR160 said:
RobM- as a trained astrophysicist, surely you should know all about consensus in science and how it doesn't work like that.
It does work like that actually. Science works by people creating papers (and 'letters') and publishing these in journals via a peer review process. Much of this research is wrong, either dropping out at the peer review stage, or proved wrong later by other papers. That's not a problem, it's just how the system works. As such, you can't figure out how something works by reading a single, or even a few, papers; especially not if it's not an area you're familiar with. You need to understand the topic to a very high level and be familiar with most of the research in that area - that is called expert consensus and it's how 'textbook' scientific knowledge is gained.One common problem with how the public interact with science is that because many papers are misleading or wrong, it's possible to read into a subject with an inherent bias and choose papers that support one's view; almost any view in fact. This is how creationists peddle their nonsense. This is why expert consensus is the only sensible way for laymen (as we all are on this thread) to figure out where the balance of evidence lies. As has been posted earlier, the overwhelming expert consensus on AGW is that it is true.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff