Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
XM5ER said:
durbster said:
If the planet was warming, it stands to reason that plants and animals would adapt accordingly e.g. birds that migrate are heading further north:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/fu...
Use this for your papers as most are available to view in full here https://www.researchgate.net/http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/fu...
Both of those papers use data of less than 40 years and therefore the movement of species correlates to the warming period of early seventies to circa 2000. Jolly good, and?
dub16v said:
Re Researchgate - it doesn't have everything, it's up to the authors to make their papers available. You can click the 'request full text' though (not always successful in my experience).
That aside, the length of the sample record does matter of course. However, taking this one paper in isolation is foolish. There is ample evidence (yes, evidence) that many species (not limited to birds) are moving north in the UK as the climate changes changes (see any earlier post by me in this thread for lots of refs), this is one example. Most ecologists agree with this trend. The causation of course is difficult to separate, for example, there is a lag in species' response to climate change (those able, and more sensitive to change, tend to move and adapt quicker). The difficulty now is that for those species that are at the edge of their ranges (see my earlier post) with little adaptive capacity, they will cease to exist. I suppose it doesn't matter though, our climate has changed in the past, many species have become extinct, it's nature doing its thing. Sure. What's a PITA is the rate of change, which is leaving many species unable to adapt quick enough and at such a scale.
That aside, the length of the sample record does matter of course. However, taking this one paper in isolation is foolish. There is ample evidence (yes, evidence) that many species (not limited to birds) are moving north in the UK as the climate changes changes (see any earlier post by me in this thread for lots of refs), this is one example. Most ecologists agree with this trend. The causation of course is difficult to separate, for example, there is a lag in species' response to climate change (those able, and more sensitive to change, tend to move and adapt quicker). The difficulty now is that for those species that are at the edge of their ranges (see my earlier post) with little adaptive capacity, they will cease to exist. I suppose it doesn't matter though, our climate has changed in the past, many species have become extinct, it's nature doing its thing. Sure. What's a PITA is the rate of change, which is leaving many species unable to adapt quick enough and at such a scale.
durbster said:
And fish stocks are moving as would be expected in response to climate change, according to NOAA (and fishermen):
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/10/butterfis...
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2014/sci...
That said, I can't find any information on whether these fish, birds and plants are really just gullible left-wing morons who only get their news from the BBC.
This one is built on models and assumptions, it says so in the article. Lets face it, fish stocks do directly respond to human interference as it depends almost directly on how much we eat and current regulatory regimes. So plenty of human fingerprint but not of warming.http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/10/butterfis...
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/press_release/pr2014/sci...
That said, I can't find any information on whether these fish, birds and plants are really just gullible left-wing morons who only get their news from the BBC.
dub16v said:
Why are people so skeptical of models and assumptions? That's fine, science is about challenge. Can you provide a scientific response (e.g. papers, alternative models that meet your assumption requirements) that accurately reflects the science?
[quote]
So once again your confirmation bias means you don't ask critical questions of the papers where as my confirmation bias means that I do.
By the way, I'm posting this for other people Durbster as I know you are a trolling loon. Maybe if you trolled for butter fish you may catch a few.
[quote]
So once again your confirmation bias means you don't ask critical questions of the papers where as my confirmation bias means that I do.
By the way, I'm posting this for other people Durbster as I know you are a trolling loon. Maybe if you trolled for butter fish you may catch a few.
dub16v said:
Why are people so skeptical of models and assumptions? That's fine, science is about challenge. Can you provide a scientific response (e.g. papers, alternative models that meet your assumption requirements) that accurately reflects the science?
I assume this is your bit.Models are fine so long as their predictions are testable, such as General Relativity, which is a model that's been tested.
Just signing in.
And to add that anyone interested can re-visit Roger Harridan's radio 4 appeal to put Trump back in his box here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
And to add that anyone interested can re-visit Roger Harridan's radio 4 appeal to put Trump back in his box here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
The Don of Croy said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
BBC used to allow comments, didn't it? - a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
XM5ER said:
dub16v said:
Why are people so skeptical of models and assumptions? That's fine, science is about challenge. Can you provide a scientific response (e.g. papers, alternative models that meet your assumption requirements) that accurately reflects the science?
I assume this is your bit.Models are fine so long as their predictions are testable, such as General Relativity, which is a model that's been tested.
As for alternative models, we've had one of sorts - reality for the past 500, 5000, etc years where there was no anthropogenic tax gas, yet there was climate change to greater degrees and at greater rates than now.
The post also suggests a couple of misunderstandings, one being that the many and indeed almost total failings of agw models only count if there's another model somewhere which 'works'. This is clearly not so, agw gigo models fail from their own inadequacy and nothing external is needed for that. Also the only reason there's any role for carbon dioxide in current agw models is because a space is deliberately left for it by omitting solar irradiance amplification and solar eruptivity forcing.
Nothing about the climate change observed over the last 150 to 200 years is in any way remarkable, it doesn't need anything to explain it (tax gas non-effects) given that it's not unprecedented in any way in terms of rate or extent of change in energy and temperature, and these are the variables of climate change not carbon dioxide level or ice or bears.
Finally the simple principle of causality needs to be exercised, when it is, there's nothing left of agw to debate as there is still no visible causal human signal in any global climate data.
AGW junkscience doesn't reflect the data, that's most important despite disciples stating in desperation "the data don't matter".
It's politics - good thread, this.
The Don of Croy said:
Just signing in.
And to add that anyone interested can re-visit Roger Harridan's radio 4 appeal to put Trump back in his box here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
It's a disgrace to allow the Beeb to broadcast such a biased broadcast.And to add that anyone interested can re-visit Roger Harridan's radio 4 appeal to put Trump back in his box here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
XM5ER said:
I assume this is your bit.
Models are fine so long as their predictions are testable, such as General Relativity, which is a model that's been tested.
Good point. Therefore, if a model doesn't make a testable prediction then it's not science or we should discount it? I think you need to speak to the guys over yonder working in astrophysics (case in point: large particle colliders). Evolutionary theorists might also be worth a prod too (clue: the evolutionary and adaptive changes described by Darwinism, which results in marked changes in different species, almost certainly makes future predictions untestable and therefore, by your own logic, invalid). Models are fine so long as their predictions are testable, such as General Relativity, which is a model that's been tested.
robinessex said:
The Don of Croy said:
Just signing in.
And to add that anyone interested can re-visit Roger Harridan's radio 4 appeal to put Trump back in his box here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
It's a disgrace to allow the Beeb to broadcast such a biased broadcast.And to add that anyone interested can re-visit Roger Harridan's radio 4 appeal to put Trump back in his box here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086s95f
- a programme I heard yesterday afternoon and just loved his appeals to authority (name-checking every contributor and their organisation, as if some of the them were actually real).
As per the earlier version of this thread, Trump's daughter is determined to fight climate change so the planet is safe and disappointed left-liberals can relax after Trump's win, and after Brexit, and after anything really as they've lost the plot and the argument.
The data won, just as it's winning in dismissing agw junkscience.
dub16v said:
XM5ER said:
I assume this is your bit.
Models are fine so long as their predictions are testable, such as General Relativity, which is a model that's been tested.
Good point. Therefore, if a model doesn't make a testable prediction then it's not science or we should discount it? I think you need to speak to the guys over yonder working in astrophysics (case in point: large particle colliders). Evolutionary theorists might also be worth a prod too (clue: the evolutionary and adaptive changes described by Darwinism, which results in marked changes in different species, almost certainly makes future predictions untestable and therefore, by your own logic, invalid). Models are fine so long as their predictions are testable, such as General Relativity, which is a model that's been tested.
Coming back to question of "if a model doesn't make a testable prediction then it's not science or we should discount it?" Good question and one that deserves more examination. If a model has no testable prediction then it's fair to say then it is not anything at all certainly not science. Should it be discounted? Well that depends on whether it could be considered art and then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
durbster said:
I don't recall being taught about global warming at all at school.
When I did Geography at school in the early nineties it(CAGW) was uncritically included in the curriculum as science fact and a matter for concern, along with CFCs poking a hole in the ozone layer, rainforest depletion, etc.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff