Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
robinessex said:
LoonyTunes said:
robinessex said:
Some suspect entries on that list. Spotted two economists, so that list is now 89 !!! An awful lot look like passengers on the bandwagon as well.
Who are the two that are merely economists?Who are the "awful lot" that look like "passengers"? A list please and I'll have a look at their credentials.
robinessex said:
One of the ‘scientists’ in the list is: New School. New York.
No it's not 
Section 3, Entry No 13
The scientists name is Shagun Mehrotra and I've posted his credentials.
robinessex said:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.p...
Sections from the report
Chapter 1: Framing and Context
Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development
Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems
Chapter 4: Strengthening and implementing the global response to the threat of climate change
Chapter 5: Sustainable development, poverty eradication, and reducing inequalities
I don't see any indication from that lot that they actually confirm implicitly CC, just present reports to a forgone conclusion, or, putting it another way, toss reports off the bandwagon.
Jesus you lot will squirm any which way you can.Sections from the report
Chapter 1: Framing and Context
Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development
Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems
Chapter 4: Strengthening and implementing the global response to the threat of climate change
Chapter 5: Sustainable development, poverty eradication, and reducing inequalities
I don't see any indication from that lot that they actually confirm implicitly CC, just present reports to a forgone conclusion, or, putting it another way, toss reports off the bandwagon.
Yes, 91 scientists/professors have just "tossed reports off the bandwagon". Whilst you have seen right through this sham.
Now, that 'awful long list' of the scientists that look like passengers on the bandwagon - can you let me have it and your reasons for why you think that's true
Deniers keep saying that citing lists of scientists who agree with MMGW is an appeal to authority or a logical fallacy.
These people do not understand the difference between quoting a scientific consensus and a logical fallacy.
A simple google would educate them.
This is a fair explanation amongst hundreds of other examples:
If a consensus of scientists is reasonably taken as representing reliable testimony on whatever the subject matter is, then it's reasonable to appeal to this consensus as evidence in favor of the view it's reporting. So the questions you have to ask yourself are: (i) is there a scientific consensus in support of whatever the thesis is?, and (ii) is the scientific consensus reliable testimony on the subject matter of this thesis?
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Of course Deniers love this false argument as without it they are shorn of one of their many flimsy defences.
This explains it
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-t...
These people do not understand the difference between quoting a scientific consensus and a logical fallacy.
A simple google would educate them.
This is a fair explanation amongst hundreds of other examples:
If a consensus of scientists is reasonably taken as representing reliable testimony on whatever the subject matter is, then it's reasonable to appeal to this consensus as evidence in favor of the view it's reporting. So the questions you have to ask yourself are: (i) is there a scientific consensus in support of whatever the thesis is?, and (ii) is the scientific consensus reliable testimony on the subject matter of this thesis?
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Of course Deniers love this false argument as without it they are shorn of one of their many flimsy defences.
This explains it
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-t...
gadgetmac said:
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Climate science is not reliable. The last 50 years of failed predictions prove that. Climate scientists are clearly not in a position to reliably inform us about climate science. I think man is contributing to change on this planet. We have not got that many people but we do have a big footprint....
To me this sort of announcement does not help as it claims certain "statistics" or modelling when in real life that cannot be said it will happen, because it is a very complex problem. I do believe AGM is happening but this shock and awe statement does not help .. IPCC has done this constantly and just seems to alienate people rather than get them all on board.
IPCC seems dumb for driving the political base because it forgets scientific roots and instead goes Hollywoood.
To me this sort of announcement does not help as it claims certain "statistics" or modelling when in real life that cannot be said it will happen, because it is a very complex problem. I do believe AGM is happening but this shock and awe statement does not help .. IPCC has done this constantly and just seems to alienate people rather than get them all on board.
IPCC seems dumb for driving the political base because it forgets scientific roots and instead goes Hollywoood.
Kawasicki said:
Climate science is not reliable. The last 50 years of failed predictions prove that. Climate scientists are clearly not in a position to reliably inform us about climate science.
It's extreme hubris to substitute one’s frail non-expert assessment of a detailed scientific discipline for the consensus of opinion of scientific experts.Kawasicki said:
gadgetmac said:
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Climate science is not reliable. The last 50 years of failed predictions prove that. Climate scientists are clearly not in a position to reliably inform us about climate science. Turning that about, why do you care if it is just a scientific dead end?
gadgetmac said:
Deniers keep saying that citing lists of scientists who agree with MMGW is an appeal to authority or a logical fallacy.
These people do not understand the difference between quoting a scientific consensus and a logical fallacy.
A simple google would educate them.
This is a fair explanation amongst hundreds of other examples:
If a consensus of scientists is reasonably taken as representing reliable testimony on whatever the subject matter is, then it's reasonable to appeal to this consensus as evidence in favor of the view it's reporting. So the questions you have to ask yourself are: (i) is there a scientific consensus in support of whatever the thesis is?, and (ii) is the scientific consensus reliable testimony on the subject matter of this thesis?
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Of course Deniers love this false argument as without it they are shorn of one of their many flimsy defences.
This explains it
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-t...
The "Scientific consensus" about the Sun going round the Earth ? Galileo and Copernicus disagreedThese people do not understand the difference between quoting a scientific consensus and a logical fallacy.
A simple google would educate them.
This is a fair explanation amongst hundreds of other examples:
If a consensus of scientists is reasonably taken as representing reliable testimony on whatever the subject matter is, then it's reasonable to appeal to this consensus as evidence in favor of the view it's reporting. So the questions you have to ask yourself are: (i) is there a scientific consensus in support of whatever the thesis is?, and (ii) is the scientific consensus reliable testimony on the subject matter of this thesis?
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Of course Deniers love this false argument as without it they are shorn of one of their many flimsy defences.
This explains it
https://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/08/20/appeal-t...
The "Scientific consensus" about Cholera being caused through Miasma ? John Snow disagreed
The Scientific consensus about Gastric Acid and stress causing peptic ulcers? Dr John Robin Warren disagreed
The Scientific consensus against continental drift ? Alfred Wegener disagreed.
Guess what happened to the "Scientific consensus" in all of these cases ? It was WRONG.
Consensus is an anathema to Science. Science is the field of uncertainly, Religion is the field of certainty. Guess which one applies to the "climate warming change chaos wang" certainty.
Perhaps with your "consensus" enabled insight, can you explain this ? Temperature record that is corrupted with glaring inconsistencies.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-gl...
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 9th October 14:59
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The "Scientific consensus" about the Sun going round the Earth ? Galileo and Copernicus disagreed
The "Scientific consensus" about Cholera being caused through Miasma ? John Snow disagreed
The Scientific consensus about Gastric Acid and stress causing peptic ulcers? Dr John Robin Warren disagreed
The Scientific consensus against continental drift ? Alfred Wegener disagreed.
Guess what happened to the "Scientific consensus" in all of these cases ? It was wrong.
Consensus is an anathema to Science. Science is the field of uncertainly, Religion is the field of certainty. Guess which one applies to climate warming change chaos certainty.
Yes it shows how science works.The "Scientific consensus" about Cholera being caused through Miasma ? John Snow disagreed
The Scientific consensus about Gastric Acid and stress causing peptic ulcers? Dr John Robin Warren disagreed
The Scientific consensus against continental drift ? Alfred Wegener disagreed.
Guess what happened to the "Scientific consensus" in all of these cases ? It was wrong.
Consensus is an anathema to Science. Science is the field of uncertainly, Religion is the field of certainty. Guess which one applies to climate warming change chaos certainty.
There’s a consensus, a considered judgment, a general agreement in the scientific community. Someone else comes along as you’ve shown and proves it wrong, then that becomes the new scientific consensus.
So what hasn’t that happened here then?
Is it because,
A)The scientific institutions and majority of scientists are stopping it happening for personal gain and other nefarious reasons. They’re all part of a conspiracy lying for funding and wealth redistribution and enabling governments to tax us more.
Or
B)You’re wrong.
LoonyTunes said:
Kawasicki said:
Climate science is not reliable. The last 50 years of failed predictions prove that. Climate scientists are clearly not in a position to reliably inform us about climate science.
It's extreme hubris to substitute one’s frail non-expert assessment of a detailed scientific discipline for the consensus of opinion of scientific experts.We've never had it better, despite decades of truly apocalyptic scare stories.
Have you read "Chicken Licken"?
...quoting Wikepedia, it is an.. " idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent". Very apt, wouldn't you say?
Climate science is an embarrassing joke.
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
gadgetmac said:
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Climate science is not reliable. The last 50 years of failed predictions prove that. Climate scientists are clearly not in a position to reliably inform us about climate science. Turning that about, why do you care if it is just a scientific dead end?
I care if it is a scientific dead end because the I think the scientific method is the best chance we have of advancing the human race and climate science is corrupting it massively.
El stovey said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
The "Scientific consensus" about the Sun going round the Earth ? Galileo and Copernicus disagreed
The "Scientific consensus" about Cholera being caused through Miasma ? John Snow disagreed
The Scientific consensus about Gastric Acid and stress causing peptic ulcers? Dr John Robin Warren disagreed
The Scientific consensus against continental drift ? Alfred Wegener disagreed.
Guess what happened to the "Scientific consensus" in all of these cases ? It was wrong.
Consensus is an anathema to Science. Science is the field of uncertainly, Religion is the field of certainty. Guess which one applies to climate warming change chaos certainty.
Yes it shows how science works.The "Scientific consensus" about Cholera being caused through Miasma ? John Snow disagreed
The Scientific consensus about Gastric Acid and stress causing peptic ulcers? Dr John Robin Warren disagreed
The Scientific consensus against continental drift ? Alfred Wegener disagreed.
Guess what happened to the "Scientific consensus" in all of these cases ? It was wrong.
Consensus is an anathema to Science. Science is the field of uncertainly, Religion is the field of certainty. Guess which one applies to climate warming change chaos certainty.
There’s a consensus, a considered judgment, a general agreement in the scientific community. Someone else comes along as you’ve shown and proves it wrong, then that becomes the new scientific consensus.
So what hasn’t that happened here then?
Is it because,
A)The scientific institutions and majority of scientists are stopping it happening for personal gain and other nefarious reasons. They’re all part of a conspiracy lying for funding and wealth redistribution and enabling governments to tax us more.
Or
B)You’re wrong.
C) The consensus is incorrect. I reference my points above. This circular argument is tiresome.
How about answering my question on the dataset issues ?
Kawasicki said:
Climate science is an embarrassing joke.
And you are qualified to make this assessment because you yourself are a __ and you have done _ amount of hours of serious research into the subject far surpassing the many noted climate scientists study of the subject.Fill in the blanks please.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Or
C) The consensus is incorrect. I reference my points above. This circular argument is tiresome.
How about answering my question on the dataset issues ?
How about answering the questions I've been asking since way before your dataset question?C) The consensus is incorrect. I reference my points above. This circular argument is tiresome.
How about answering my question on the dataset issues ?
Can you name one or two Scientific Institutions or Government bodies from around the globe that don't adhere to the consensus on AGW? (The Big Oil funded Heartland Institute aside)
If not - why is that?
Kawasicki said:
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
gadgetmac said:
The idea of a fallacy of appealing to authority isn't meant to suggest that it's never reasonable to appeal to authorities, but only meant to describe cases when the appeal happens to be made unreasonably, for instance when the testimony being appealed to isn't coming from people who are in a position to reliably inform us about the subject matter.
Climate science is not reliable. The last 50 years of failed predictions prove that. Climate scientists are clearly not in a position to reliably inform us about climate science. Turning that about, why do you care if it is just a scientific dead end?
I care if it is a scientific dead end because the I think the scientific method is the best chance we have of advancing the human race and climate science is corrupting it massively.
A climatologist with some thoughts on what to do about it:
Prof Lindzen said:
C P Snow said:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
I would like to begin this lecture with an attempt to force the scientists in the audience to come to grips with the actual nature of the climate system, and to help the motivated non-scientists in this audience who may be in Snow’s ‘one in ten’ to move beyond the trivial oversimplifications.I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had.
Click to a pdf file
The very definition of an appeal to authority might be to quote one or two (flawed/suspect * ) individual scientists who claim to know better than the whole of the scientific climate consensus.
(*) Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US.”
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
(*) Fossil Fuel Funding
As part of a March 2018 legal case between the cities of San Francisco and Oakland and fossil fuel companies, Lindzen was asked by the judge to disclose any connections he had to connected parties.
In response, Lindzen reported that he had received $25,000 per year for his position at the Cato Institute since 2013. He also disclosed $1,500 from the Texas Public Policy Foundation for a “climate science lecture” in 2017, and approximately $30,000 from Peabody Coal in connection to testimony Lindzen gave at a proceeding of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commissions in September 2015.
The Cato Institute, a conservative think tank where Lindzen has also published numerous articles and studies, has received at least $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. In his 1995 article, “The Heat Is On,” Ross Gelbspan reported Lindzen charged oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.
Lindzen has described ExxonMobil as “the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US.”
In addition to his position at Cato, Lindzen is listed as an “Expert” with the Heartland Institute, a member of the “Academic Advisory Council” of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and an advisor to the CO2 Coalition, a group promoting the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
durbster said:
jet_noise said:
So do you or do you not agree that those corals survived substantially warmer and CO2 richer (than today) environments in the past?
Yes or no.
What's the point of this question? What do you think it proves? Yes or no.
Are you rejecting the extensive evidence from all over the world that says the reefs are suffering now?
And a team effort too
The question now changes to:
Why is this simple yes/no query being evaded/avoided?
Answers on a postcard please to:
Address withheld due to GDPR
I guess that's how this stuff is presented on the propaganda sites.
Basically, you've just said something that everyone already knew and expected us to be stunned.
The old "move along, nothing to see here" ploy
But I'm still fascinated why Team Alarmist found it so difficult to acknowledge.
Just trolls being trolls - no, don't usually hunt in teams, are not usually so, er, persistent.
Ignoring a question that is known to be damaging to their position; hoping it goes away - possibly.
Cannot be seen to agree with a statement from a realist supported by a realist website, evah! - bingo, for that way enlightenment lies.
robinessex said:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.p...
Sections from the report
Chapter 1: Framing and Context
Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development
Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems
Chapter 4: Strengthening and implementing the global response to the threat of climate change
Chapter 5: Sustainable development, poverty eradication, and reducing inequalities
I don't see any indication from that lot that they actually confirm implicitly CC, just present reports to a forgone conclusion, or, putting it another way, toss reports off the bandwagon.
Did you just copy/paste each of the chapter titles and make an assumption about their contents without actually reading the content?Sections from the report
Chapter 1: Framing and Context
Chapter 2: Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development
Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C global warming on natural and human systems
Chapter 4: Strengthening and implementing the global response to the threat of climate change
Chapter 5: Sustainable development, poverty eradication, and reducing inequalities
I don't see any indication from that lot that they actually confirm implicitly CC, just present reports to a forgone conclusion, or, putting it another way, toss reports off the bandwagon.
This is gold!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff