Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Global Cooling
Options
Comments
-
The study decomposes observed fluctuations in global and local Chinese air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 120 years and argues that the fluctuations are made up of different patterns: an overall rising trend in air temperature (correlated to CO2 concentrations), a 60 year oscillation, a 20 year oscillation and some shorter period oscillations.
The quality of the English is quite poor so it is hard to read and confusing (to me) in places but it seems to predict a decrease in global average air temperature over the next 20 years, because we are coming down from the top of a 60-year oscillation. I'm not knowledgable enough to offer a full critique but I would feel that extracting a 60 year period oscillation from only 120 years of data is difficult, as it is at the limit determined by the Shannon sampling theory. Maybe this 60 year oscillation is visible further back, I don't know.
The overall conclusion is that temperature changes on a number of different timescales, and it will decrease over the next 20 years, but the long term (100 year) trend is upwards, correlated to CO2 concentration increase.
It has been cited 3 times according to google, none of which are in other scientific journals.0 -
Well, I was going to say that I don't agree with the conclusions that have been presented. The EMD method looks flaky, at best. For example, they have provided no scientific basis for presenting the temperature "signals" as a series consisting of a 3–4-year period wave, a 6–8-year period wave, a 20-year period wave and a 60-year cycle. With the exception of the 60-year oscillation (which was used in another study), they seem relatively arbitrary.
However, overlooking that for a second; looking at figure 1 in the paper, the function with the greatest amplitude is the "res" function, which represents the overall trend, which is quite clearly increasing. I imagine something similar to this function would be produced if the original signal was low-pass filtered. Now, if the overall trend is quite clearly increasing, how can it be deduced that the global average temperature is NOT increasing? Granted, if we look at figure 3, we appear to be approaching a LOCAL maximum, but the overall trend is most definitely increasing.
Yes, absolutely. Attempting to extract a 100-year period oscillation from 120 years of data is even less rigorous.lostinsuperfunk wrote: »I'm not knowledgable enough to offer a full critique but I would feel that extracting a 60 year period oscillation from only 120 years of data is difficult, as it is at the limit determined by the Shannon sampling theory.0 -
lostinsuperfunk wrote: »The study decomposes observed fluctuations in global and local Chinese air temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 120 years and argues that the fluctuations are made up of different patterns: an overall rising trend in air temperature (correlated to CO2 concentrations), a 60 year oscillation, a 20 year oscillation and some shorter period oscillations.
The quality of the English is quite poor so it is hard to read and confusing (to me) in places but it seems to predict a decrease in global average air temperature over the next 20 years, because we are coming down from the top of a 60-year oscillation.
What struck me when I read that was the following...
Lets assume they're correct. They agree that there's CO2-driven warming, but claim that this 60-year oscillation has been a greater influence in the historical data. So, they argue, as we pass over the peak of this 60-year oscillation, we will enter a 30-year period where there is "destructive interference" - where there's a 30-year cooling trend from this 60-year pattern, which will offset more than the global warming to date.
What happens then, in 30 years? Well, obviously the oscillation reverts to its uptrend and adds to global warming once more.
The thing to remember is that throughout their paper, the authors acknowledge that there is a general warming trend. Their main argument is that it has been overestimated - they do not claim that its not happening.
So, in a very real sense, these guys are confirming the existence of a CO2-driven warming trend, but then questioning whether or not we have accurately identified the scale of it. Also, if my reading of the document is correct, their predictions for the coming 20 years rely on CO2 concentrations remaing at current levels...which is not consistent with the existing trend, forecasts, or anything else. They may mean that if the increase in CO2 levels remains in line with the current trend....but even then, they're still only arguing that we've got a bit longer than the current IPCC forecasts say we have before disaster strikes.
Ironically, if global temperatures were to fall in the coming years, this paper could become key in explaining why global warming was still a very real threat, despite the drop in temperatures. It would tell us that we had 20-30 years, before there'd be another steep, sharp climb.
Yup.The overall conclusion is that temperature changes on a number of different timescales, and it will decrease over the next 20 years, but the long term (100 year) trend is upwards, correlated to CO2 concentration increase..
Ironically, at least one of the articles that cp251 posted tried to mock climatologists for exaplaining why drops in temperature wouldn't disprove global wearming....and yet here we have the same poster providing a paper that says just that!!!0 -
Well, I was going to say that I don't agree with the conclusions that have been presented. The EMD method looks flaky, at best. For example, they have provided no scientific basis for presenting the temperature "signals" as a series consisting of a 3–4-year period wave, a 6–8-year period wave, a 20-year period wave and a 60-year cycle. With the exception of the 60-year oscillation (which was used in another study), they seem relatively arbitrary.
However, overlooking that for a second; looking at figure 1 in the paper, the function with the greatest amplitude is the "res" function, which represents the overall trend, which is quite clearly increasing. I imagine something similar to this function would be produced if the original signal was low-pass filtered. Now, if the overall trend is quite clearly increasing, how can it be deduced that the global average temperature is NOT increasing? Granted, if we look at figure 3, we appear to be approaching a LOCAL maximum, but the overall trend is most definitely increasing.
Yes, absolutely. Attempting to extract a 100-year period oscillation from 120 years of data is even less rigorous.
Interesting. You should write up and submit a commentary to Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics. I’m sure the authors would like to read your critical observations.0 -
I doubt it.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
According to NASA, the global average for the year put 2007 as the second-warmest on record.
Its notable that the articles questioning the figures have relied on the argument that a portion of the year, in some places was colder than usual....ignoring the reality that in many of those places, the annual average was still up, as was the global average.
Its also notable these critics seem to be the only people who seem to fail to understand that global warming refers to an overall annual trend. It does not claim that for any given day, week, month, or even season, in some select part(s) of the world, that the temperature will be above the previous averages for that shorter period, in that/those select part(s).
What constitutes average "global" temperature, if the majority of the measurements are land based and predominately in the US.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711#more-27110 -
Advertisement
-
Say what you want, it moves.The problem though is that many want human caused climate to be real. They need it to be real, their careers depend on it now. The last thing the need are the skeptics buzzing in the ears.
Many ordinary people I speak to now are absolutely convinced that we humans are causing climate change. They have been brainwashed. When I tell them of my doubts. They look at me as the way the Pope would look if one of his Cardinals told him he didn't believe in God.
That's because your view opposes the mainstream view. I don't think that the debate should be declared over (this is science after all) but it's time to stop being cautious about policy change. You deniers have been holding back action on what is very likely to be a global emergency for too long.0 -
What constitutes average "global" temperature, if the majority of the measurements are land based and predominately in the US.
From the link I provided, and that was included in the portion of the post you quoted:
Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature
(emphasis mine)0 -
-
From the link I provided, and that was included in the portion of the post you quoted:
Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature
(emphasis mine)
Txs for pointing out sst records.
Considering the mistakes found last year in the calculation of temperature adjustments to the US temperature record. How can one be confident that the calculated global average temperature is correct?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Txs for pointing out sst records.
Considering the mistakes found last year in the calculation of temperature adjustments to the US temperature record. How can one be confident that the calculated global average temperature is correct?
Again...from the link I provided :
Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.
0 -
If I can ask a question in return, in the same vein....
Given that you've now asked two questions about an article which contained the answers to those questions, what basis do you have for believing that your perusal of any article pro- or contra- the question of AGM has been sufficiently comprehensive to give you faith in your understanding of said article, or in own overall knowledge on the subject?0 -
That's not what I said. I said there were aspects that did not SEEM to have a basis - that does not mean that there IS no basis. It is possible that the authors either (a) did not see fit to include certain rationale (perhaps it is common knowledge in the field, I don't know), or (b) the reviewers advised them to review certain details. It's impossible to include EVERYTHING in a paper.If they are using flaky methods and are presenting no scientific basis for their work...
No, I would clarify the issues with the authors first - it's common courtesy....one would have thought that a commentary would more appropiate than an email.0 -
If I can ask a question in return, in the same vein....
Given that you've now asked two questions about an article which contained the answers to those questions, what basis do you have for believing that your perusal of any article pro- or contra- the question of AGM has been sufficiently comprehensive to give you faith in your understanding of said article, or in own overall knowledge on the subject?
I am not a scientist and I bow to your superior scientific knowledge.
There was huge reluctance by scientists to release the US temperature data, which led to the discovery of the error. The data and algorithms for the global record have not been released despite numerous requests, hence should one not be concerned on the accuracy of the global average temperature.0 -
Glib, but it doesn't answer my question, nor address the point I was making which is that you seem to apply differing standards of what's good enough to put your faith in, depending on the message.I am not a scientist and I bow to your superior scientific knowledge.
For example, earlier when someone questioned the lack of detail in a report questioning aspects of global warming, you suggested that rather than post on an internet forum, they should contact the peer-reviewed publishers with their concerns. Then you almost-immediately follow up with a comment that's basically saying "there's a lack of detail here, so should we really trust it" with regards to something supporting aspects of global warming.
Now...lest I be accused of hypocracy, I won't do the same. I've discussed the issues I see with anti-GW stuff posted here, so it would be remiss of me to brush off your question...There was huge reluctance by scientists to release the US temperature data, which led to the discovery of the error. The data and algorithms for the global record have not been released despite numerous requests, hence should one not be concerned on the accuracy of the global average temperature.
I think you may be getting some of your stories mixed up.
Under the first "further information" link on the page I've linked to above, you'll see that NASA not only make available the data which they base their calculations on, but also the programs that they use for the calculations...supplied in source-code so you can see what they're doing and how they do it. They also supply documentation on the methodology.
In fact, their global temp calculations are a model of transparency. Its hard to find any information that they're not providing on the issue.
If you think about it, the fact that someone spotted the error in the raw data that you referred to previously should have been a hint that the information wasn't as hard to come by as you are suggesting. That someone found the error is actually a reason why we should have the trust that you seem to be trying to suggest we shouldn't. People don't just take the NASA data and say "well, they're NASA. Their calculations must be good. Rather, they take the raw data and verify it. We can also reasonably assume that people have similarly checked over the source code of the calculation, either to re-implement the methodology elsewhere, to learn it, or simply to verify that its right.
Science doesn't always get everything right...there's no question about that. However, the case in question - the error in the data - is a prime example of how the global scientific community acts in a self-correcting manner. It should also give us pause when considering the (ridiculous) allegations we hear from time to time about there being some global conspiracy amongst scientists to hide the truth. I've seen it said more than once that the only thing a scientist prefers to discovering something new, is showing something already-accepted to be wrong. That the best they've managed so far is to find a .00-whatever-it-was degree difference in global average temps should be a good indication that we can have faith in the NASA data.
Getting back to the point you raised about lack of transparency...
Where I think the confusion came from is that in some cases, scientists have been reluctant to provide details of the data and/or exact statistical models that they have used. If memory serves, the most notable case of this was the early days of the so-called Hockey-Stick debate. In such cases, I would guess that you and I would be in complete agreement that such a lack of transparency should and does lead to a lack of faith in the results.
However, in the case of the Hockey Stick, its worth noting that its methods have been revealed, have been found to be flawed but not significantly so and that its conclusions have been supported and agreed with by numerous independantly run studies, based on a variety of different techniques.
In this case however - the global temp data - there is neither obfuscation nor confusion. The raw data is there. The methodology is there. Documentation is provided. All it takes is a few seconds with google or the willingness to follow the sources/links from a provided starting point.0 -
There is no conspiracy among scientists. What we do have is a consensus. Any consensus feeds itself. We also have the very human tendency to reach a conclusion and then make the data fit the conclusion. That goes for any discipline and scientists are not immune to it either. The conclusion is that excessive CO2 causes a warming of the general climate. Since then a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money attempting to prove it.
I'm not going to try and argue the science any more. I'm not a scientist or a climatologist. But neither is the puplic at large. Right now we are all subjected to alarmist predictions from all directions but not usually from the scientists. Indeed many scientists dispute the 'consensus'. But are often classified as 'deniers' despite the fact that they to use the same methods of research. There is also the problem of getting money for research. If you want to investigate the bearded snail of the south Pacific you'd better damm well tack on a reference to it's future with regard to climate change. This is not dishonesty on the part of scientists but mere pragmatism.
As it happens I used to believe in man made climate change caused by excessive CO2 in the athmosphere. The greenhouse effect. The type that I am I read up on the subject. But I soon ran into problems and inconsistencies. One of my favourites is the Gulf Stream theory. The Earth warms up, melts the arctic ice, dilutes the Gulf Stream and we in this part of the world loses it's warming effect. Thus we become as cold as Canada on the same latitude. Plausible yes? But wait if the Earth is warming and the arctic ice melts surely Canada become warmer too. Anyone care to explain this contradiction? There are plenty of others like that.
Very gradually I changed my mind. This is reinforced when I see scientists pilloried and scorned not because their research is poor or invalid but because their conclusions don't fit the 'consensus' or because of who funded their research.
There is also this huge tendency among the mass media and environmental groups to dramatise the whole issue. To predict disaster, floods, storms etc. Science goes out the window at this point and it all become about emotions. When you hear children say they lie in bed at night and worry about the future. You have think that is wrong. Climate change is nothing new. What is new is the hubris of man's belief that we caused it this time and only we can stop it. Once the Gods controlled the weather. Now apparently it's us. Humans are a mere blip in the history of this planet. I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.
But at the end of the day, the issue for me is no longer whether or not there is actual climate change but how our lives will be changed not by the climate but by often well meaning people in positions of power. I believe we are in more danger of losing basic freedoms than of being flooded or burnt to a crisp. What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our civilisation to a more romantic fuzzy time that never existed by an unholy alliance of greens, environmentalists, career driven scientists, ambitious politicians and as ever the sheep like docility of the public at large. No conspiracy, just a dumb consensus.
That's what I fear most. Climate change we can cope with. But the scariest thing of all is when the mob have an idea.0 -
There is no conspiracy among scientists. What we do have is a consensus. Any consensus feeds itself.
This still begs the question : how was a consensus reached??? Its convenient that you don't want to aruge the science because thats what was used to reach consensus.
So basically, after saying there isn't a conspiracy, you more-or-less say that what has happened is that subconsciously, enough scientists decided to go and "prove" this by cooking the books.We also have the very human tendency to reach a conclusion and then make the data fit the conclusion. That goes for any discipline and scientists are not immune to it either. The conclusion is that excessive CO2 causes a warming of the general climate. Since then a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money attempting to prove it.Right now we are all subjected to alarmist predictions from all directions but not usually from the scientists. Indeed many scientists dispute the 'consensus'.
Many scientists dispute the alarmist predictions. Comparatively few scientsts dispute the consensus, because that - by definition - is what a consensus is.
Who is classifying them as deniers? I doubt its the other scientists.But are often classified as 'deniers' despite the fact that they to use the same methods of research.
From what I can tell, the origins of this myth were one student who said that he believed he would not have gotten funding had he not included a reference to climate. He didn't omit it, get rejected, then add it in and get accepted. There isn't any widespread study. There is (to my knowledge) one anecdote, and a hell of a lot of people making the claim as though it were fact.There is also the problem of getting money for research. If you want to investigate the bearded snail of the south Pacific you'd better damm well tack on a reference to it's future with regard to climate change.
Today, we are warmer than Canada currently is. If the Fulf shifts north, we will become as cold as Canada currently is. Canada will become warmer. Canada could end up warmer than Europe. There is no contradiction there....only the mistaken belief that the comparison with Canada was based on a potential future climate rather than the current, known one.One of my favourites is the Gulf Stream theory. The Earth warms up, melts the arctic ice, dilutes the Gulf Stream and we in this part of the world loses it's warming effect. Thus we become as cold as Canada on the same latitude. Plausible yes? But wait if the Earth is warming and the arctic ice melts surely Canada become warmer too. Anyone care to explain this contradiction?
Maybe wherever you read didn't make their point properly, or maybe they made the error, but either which way, there's no contradiction. I'd also be pretty certain that whereever you read this is at best a lay-man's science source (like SciAm, or one of those) rather than a peer-reviewed publication of real science.
I find it amazing that you can distinguish who is making the cries of doom (i.e. predominantly not the scientists), but when it comes to the pillorying, you fail to make that distinction.Very gradually I changed my mind. This is reinforced when I see scientists pilloried and scorned not because their research is poor or invalid but because their conclusions don't fit the 'consensus' or because of who funded their research.
If you look at the scientific handling of those who dispute the consensus, you'll find that it only descends into scorn when you have the same scientist repeatedly trying to "prove" the same point, repeatedly with flawed methodology to the point where it is clear the person is either iredeemably incompetent or simply dishonest.
Whenever anyone here links to an actual scientific paper (as opposed to some opinion piece) questioning the established consesnsus, the first thing I do is search to see what the response has been from the scientific community. I see little - if any - pillorying or scornful rejection, other than for the grounds I've already mentioned. Where I do see it (from both sides) is where laypeople start discussing the science, but still put their faith in their abilities to "win the argument" rather than simply letting the science speak for itself.
For someone who alleges to have read up on the issue, this shows a massive failing in what you've been reading. What is new is the rate of change, absent any clearly-identifiable trigger.Climate change is nothing new. What is new is the hubris of man's belief that we caused it this time and only we can stop it.
Once the Gods kept us from falling into the sky. Now apparently its gravity.Once the Gods controlled the weather. Now apparently it's us.
Are you saying we should be equally skeptical of that finding (and all others) of modern science, or is it ok as long as we don't hold ourselves to be the cause?
So are asteroid impacts, such as the one believed to have impacted Chicxulub.Humans are a mere blip in the history of this planet.
Then your conclusion should be that you cannot decide whether or not humans are responsible, because you cannot understand how we could possibly come to such conclusions. This, however, isn't your conclusion...you are arguing that the process you cannot understand is wrong.I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.
This belief is based - at best on the scientific research that you admit to not understanding.I believe we are in more danger of losing basic freedoms than of being flooded or burnt to a crisp.
You're entitled to your beliefs. At least you admit that yours is based on a lack of understanding.
The only people making the "roll back" claim are those who are trying to resist change. Those who embrace it see it as moving forward, to a cleaner, more sustainable form of living, with a better quality of life than we've ever had before.What is happening is nothing less than an attempt to roll back our civilisation to a more romantic fuzzy time that never existed by an unholy alliance of greens, environmentalists, career driven scientists, ambitious politicians and as ever the sheep like docility of the public at large. No conspiracy, just a dumb consensus.
Surely you mean the scariest thing is when the mob have an idea that you don't share.That's what I fear most. Climate change we can cope with. But the scariest thing of all is when the mob have an idea.
After all, here you are on a public bulletin board, trying to convince people that your idea is what they should listen to and believe in.0 -
Who’s “we”? I thought you weren’t a scientist?We also have the very human tendency to reach a conclusion and then make the data fit the conclusion.
No, the CONCENSUS is that anthropogenic greenhouse gases very likely CONTRIBUTE to climate change.The conclusion is that excessive CO2 causes a warming of the general climate.
Give me one example of such a scientist.Indeed many scientists dispute the 'consensus'. But are often classified as 'deniers' despite the fact that they to use the same methods of research. There is also the problem of getting money for research.
Just because the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature is increasing, it doesn't mean that EVERY locality is experiencing an increase in average temperature.But I soon ran into problems and inconsistencies. One of my favourites is the Gulf Stream theory. The Earth warms up, melts the arctic ice, dilutes the Gulf Stream and we in this part of the world loses it's warming effect. Thus we become as cold as Canada on the same latitude. Plausible yes? But wait if the Earth is warming and the arctic ice melts surely Canada become warmer too. Anyone care to explain this contradiction?
Again, give me one example of such a scientist.This is reinforced when I see scientists pilloried and scorned not because their research is poor or invalid but because their conclusions don't fit the 'consensus' or because of who funded their research.
Well, yes, this can happen, but it's up to people to educate themselves on the issue. Besides, anyone who believes everything they see on Sky News (for example) is an idiot.There is also this huge tendency among the mass media and environmental groups to dramatise the whole issue. To predict disaster, floods, storms etc.
You don't think that humans (all 6 billion of us) are having an impact on our environment?Humans are a mere blip in the history of this planet. I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.
How do expect to influence policy/contingency with respect to climate change if you dismiss the fundamental arguments being made?But at the end of the day, the issue for me is no longer whether or not there is actual climate change but how our lives will be changed not by the climate but by often well meaning people in positions of power.0 -
Well of course you can easily defeat me in any scientific argument both of you. Not least with subtle put downs and an element of sophistry. It's a pity that was resorted to. So go ahead and slap me down. My opinion if of course worthless due to my lack of expertise in the subject. :rolleyes: A mere layman. My expertise lies elsewhere, if you want to take me on in my specialisation I will defeat you easily. I could answer point by point with references. But I have neither the time or the enthusiasm for it.
In any case my main issue is not with climatologists per se but with how the information gleaned from these studies is used. Right now that is what I find most disturbing. Because not for the first time, science is being used, no misused as a vehicle of social change. Even for you that should be disturbing. The people who want to introduce these changes and those who have the power to do so, will have a similar level of knowledge of the subject as me. Armed with this they will attempt to modify our lives based largely on climate models which may or may not be accurate or complete. My big fear is that any misguided attempt at solving the 'problem' may in fact have worse economic and social consequences than any caused by climate change.
What perhaps you gentlemen? need to consider is why someone like me is skeptical of the whole business. I flatter myself that I'm educated, intelligent and capable of rational thought. Yet, I have seemingly failed to grasp the subject, indeed I tend to reject it. Despite all the information out there. If true this is the single most important issue affecting our lives this century. Yet I'm not convinced, nor are many other people and increasingly so.
That issue needs to be addressed.
I came across this and found it interesting. You may be aware of the site but this is a quote in Dr Joanne's Simpson's weblog on Roger Pielke SR's website.
http://climatesci.org/However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts. However, a vocal minority of scientists so mistrusts the models and the complex fragmentary data, that some claim that global warming is a hoax. They have made public statements accusing other scientists of deliberate fraud in aid of their research funding. Both sides are now hurling personal epithets at each other, a very bad development in Earth sciences. The claim that hurricanes are being modified by the impacts of rising greenhouse gases is the most inflammatory frontline of this battle and the aspect that journalists enjoy the most. The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.
Distinguished scientists having at each other.:o The rest of what she says is equally interesting particularly in relation to the TRMM project and her suggeston that:
That would be most interesting.These patterns can be compared over the past ten years with the patterns predicted ten years ago by the climate models.
I've only just come across the site, Roger Pielke is not a skeptic but has been described as having a 'nuanced' view of the subject. I won't attempt to summarise anything because as mere layman I will of course misrepresent the subject.
But so far, I have found it most informative so far and will continue to study it. I suspect truth of this business is, somewhat lost in the middle.0 -
More emotive appeals? I thought you didn't approve of that stuff.Well of course you can easily defeat me in any scientific argument both of you. Not least with subtle put downs and an element of sophistry. It's a pity that was resorted to.
You have complained that people are being led astray by emotive arguments, hyperbole, and the like. If you don't want people to be led astray, then encourage them to look at the science. Encourage them to discuss the science. Encourage them to base their standpoint on their understanding of the science, and be willing to defend it in terms of the science.
But we don't see that encouragement from you. We see a refusal to engage in the science, accompanied by one appeal to emotion after the next.
Your opinion was challenged, based on the material you presented. Rather than defend it, you've chosen this approach of making yourself to be some picked-on victim. More emotive appeals.My opinion if of course worthless due to my lack of expertise in the subject.
What do you base this fear on? Science? Gut feeling?My big fear is that any misguided attempt at solving the 'problem' may in fact have worse economic and social consequences than any caused by climate change.
You've told us why you're skeptical - you don't accept the science because you see inconsistencies.What perhaps you gentlemen? need to consider is why someone like me is skeptical of the whole business.
At the same time, you admitted to not understanding the science and also made claims about the untrustworthiness of science or scientists (with your claims about fitting data to conclusions).
I know why you're skeptical, and I know why the grounds you gave for your skepticism are largely misplaced. You have additionally stated that you've neither time nor inclination to discuss those topics.
More emotive appeals.I flatter myself that I'm educated, intelligent and capable of rational thought. Yet, I have seemingly failed to grasp the subject, indeed I tend to reject it. Despite all the information out there. If true this is the single most important issue affecting our lives this century. Yet I'm not convinced, nor are many other people and increasingly so.
It does indeed....That issue needs to be addressed.
Here's my take on it.
People are being swayed by the emotive arguments. But I ask you...who is making the emotive appeal here? You're refusing to discuss the science. You're refusing to discuss the responses to the points you've already made. Meanwhile, you're basically trying to make yourself out to be some sort of unfairly picked-on victim because you happen to disagree on topics you refuse to discuss.
When this stuff is pointed out for what it is...the very type of emotive side-issues that you complain are being used to sway people...you launch into what I can only describe as a cry for pity about about how you're a smart guy, well qualified in other fields, and so forth.
If you have a problem with emotive appeals, then stop using them and encourage people to limit themselves to discussing the science. Better yet, stop using them yourself, and discuss either the science, or at least the responses to the points you've already made about why you distrust the science.
That's all I'm doing here...pointing out that you are engaging in the very tactics that you are trying to decry and refusing point-blank to engage in the type of discussion which should be what is used instead.0 -
Advertisement
-
Very well, Let's see. We can both play this game. To answer your original reply:This still begs the question : how was a consensus reached??? Its convenient that you don't want to aruge the science because thats what was used to reach consensus.
Science was used to reach the consensus. It's not that I don't want to argue the science. I simply question the conclusions reached based on the science.So basically, after saying there isn't a conspiracy, you more-or-less say that what has happened is that subconsciously, enough scientists decided to go and "prove" this by cooking the books.
I didn't say that. I pointed out the possibility that you cannot always divorce the human factor from the science.Many scientists dispute the alarmist predictions. Comparatively few scientsts dispute the consensus, because that - by definition - is what a consensus is.
A consensus is merely that. a consensus. They might be wrong. They might be right.Who is classifying them as deniers? I doubt its the other scientists.
Perhaps:The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.
Perhaps not.From what I can tell, the origins of this myth were one student who said that he believed he would not have gotten funding had he not included a reference to climate. He didn't omit it, get rejected, then add it in and get accepted. There isn't any widespread study. There is (to my knowledge) one anecdote, and a hell of a lot of people making the claim as though it were fact.
That wasn't my point. Climate change is the current cause celebre. Why wouldn't a student or a scientist use this to help his or her work? I would be most surprised if it never happened.Today, we are warmer than Canada currently is. If the Fulf shifts north, we will become as cold as Canada currently is. Canada will become warmer. Canada could end up warmer than Europe. There is no contradiction there....only the mistaken belief that the comparison with Canada was based on a potential future climate rather than the current, known one.
Maybe wherever you read didn't make their point properly, or maybe they made the error, but either which way, there's no contradiction. I'd also be pretty certain that whereever you read this is at best a lay-man's science source (like SciAm, or one of those) rather than a peer-reviewed publication of real science.
Ok, but surely the shift north will be as a result of the melting ice pack caused by warmer conditions in the arctic? If it's warmer in the arctic, won't it be warmer in Canada and in Europe? Or is warming a strictly regional phenomenon limited to the arctic?
You are indeed correct, I didn't read it in a peer-reviewed publication of real science. :rolleyes: I let my subcription lapse. There were several sources including a ridiculous TV programme. But I will bet money the sourse was indeed a peer-reviewed publication.I find it amazing that you can distinguish who is making the cries of doom (i.e. predominantly not the scientists), but when it comes to the pillorying, you fail to make that distinction.
If you look at the scientific handling of those who dispute the consensus, you'll find that it only descends into scorn when you have the same scientist repeatedly trying to "prove" the same point, repeatedly with flawed methodology to the point where it is clear the person is either iredeemably incompetent or simply dishonest.
Whenever anyone here links to an actual scientific paper (as opposed to some opinion piece) questioning the established consesnsus, the first thing I do is search to see what the response has been from the scientific community. I see little - if any - pillorying or scornful rejection, other than for the grounds I've already mentioned. Where I do see it (from both sides) is where laypeople start discussing the science, but still put their faith in their abilities to "win the argument" rather than simply letting the science speak for itself.
You seem to believe that scientists are immune from human failings. Scientists are not robots. They suffer all the same failings as mere 'laymen' like me. They have egos, fears and insecurities. You also forget that science is not simply practised in glorious isolation. It is for the benefit of the layman. I would also point out that my main problem is not with scientists and their conclusions but the use it is put by those laymen you despise so much.For someone who alleges to have read up on the issue, this shows a massive failing in what you've been reading. What is new is the rate of change, absent any clearly-identifiable trigger.
Isn't this crux of the whole argument? The absence of a clearly identifiable trigger? Or at least an agreed trigger.Once the Gods kept us from falling into the sky. Now apparently its gravity.
Are you saying we should be equally skeptical of that finding (and all others) of modern science, or is it ok as long as we don't hold ourselves to be the cause?
Clearly I'm not saying that. You are just making a ridiculous and implausible extrapolationSo are asteroid impacts, such as the one believed to have impacted Chicxulub.
It had a bigger impact than us. The next one, (due 2012 apparently according to the other doomsayers) might very well have a similar impact. The dinosaurs might argue they were no mere blip.Then your conclusion should be that you cannot decide whether or not humans are responsible, because you cannot understand how we could possibly come to such conclusions. This, however, isn't your conclusion...you are arguing that the process you cannot understand is wrong.
No read it again. I said: I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years. Simple as that. The rest is you going off on a tangentThis belief is based - at best on the scientific research that you admit to not understanding.
You're entitled to your beliefs. At least you admit that yours is based on a lack of understanding.
Yawn, I already made it clear in my emotionally overwrought way that I am not in fact a scientist. That belief is based on the actions and intentions of people, not scientists for the most part, who have made it quite clear where they want this society and culture to go. I see a danger in that even if you don't.The only people making the "roll back" claim are those who are trying to resist change. Those who embrace it see it as moving forward, to a cleaner, more sustainable form of living, with a better quality of life than we've ever had before.
No would object to that. We would all like a better quality of life. I could be the poster boy for recycling, reducing pollution etc. The problem as I see it is this. The only real way to zero emissions is a reversion to a pre industrial age. This is quite seriously put forward as a possibility in some circles. The fact of the matter is the our quality of life right now largely depends on an emission rich culture. The risk is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Worse still is the possibility that this happens based on faulty data. What if C02 is not the villain of the piece? What then?Surely you mean the scariest thing is when the mob have an idea that you don't share.
Everyone needs to scared of a mob.After all, here you are on a public bulletin board, trying to convince people that your idea is what they should listen to and believe in.
In fact no, my main intention is to tell people to question what they hear and read. You don't have to agree with me. I only ask you to think for yourself. I'm open to be convinced about human caused climate change. I believed in it wholeheartedly at one stage. Now I don't.
Perhaps you see no flaws or inconsistencies in the science and perhaps you believe the unpleasant social changes we must undergo to reduce carbon emissions are a neccessary evil. Indeed like some, you may believe that it's not really important whether or not the science is correct but the social changes are the real driving force in this issue.
You said
That strikes me as an emotional and aspirational comment divorced from the science. HmmmThose who embrace it see it as moving forward, to a cleaner, more sustainable form of living, with a better quality of life than we've ever had before.0 -
More emotive appeals? I thought you didn't approve of that stuff.
You have complained that people are being led astray by emotive arguments, hyperbole, and the like. If you don't want people to be led astray, then encourage them to look at the science. Encourage them to discuss the science. Encourage them to base their standpoint on their understanding of the science, and be willing to defend it in terms of the science.
But we don't see that encouragement from you. We see a refusal to engage in the science, accompanied by one appeal to emotion after the next.
That is aspirational in world where 'The inconvenient truth' wins an Oscar and Al Gore gets a Nobel prize. Emotionalism moi?Your opinion was challenged, based on the material you presented. Rather than defend it, you've chosen this approach of making yourself to be some picked-on victim. More emotive appeals.
I don't consider myself picked on. Are you picking on me? Merely I was commenting on your apparent attitude to me (worthless) opinion.What do you base this fear on? Science? Gut feeling?
Based on the knowledge of the appaling gaffes humans have made over the centuries. Communism, Nazism, environmentalism. Sorry that's emotional tsk tsk!You've told us why you're skeptical - you don't accept the science because you see inconsistencies.
At the same time, you admitted to not understanding the science and also made claims about the untrustworthiness of science or scientists (with your claims about fitting data to conclusions).
I know why you're skeptical, and I know why the grounds you gave for your skepticism are largely misplaced. You have additionally stated that you've neither time nor inclination to discuss those topics.
You saying I wouldn't be skeptical if I understood the science. How do you explain skeptical scientists?
Again you extrapolate, in fact I trust science per se. But scientists are people. Are you saying trust me I'm a scientist?
If I'm wrong convince me why!More emotive appeals.
You accuse me of excessive emotionalism, fine. But you don't assuage my fears. You merely dismiss them.
[/QUOTE]It does indeed....
Here's my take on it.
People are being swayed by the emotive arguments. But I ask you...who is making the emotive appeal here? You're refusing to discuss the science. You're refusing to discuss the responses to the points you've already made. Meanwhile, you're basically trying to make yourself out to be some sort of unfairly picked-on victim because you happen to disagree on topics you refuse to discuss.
When this stuff is pointed out for what it is...the very type of emotive side-issues that you complain are being used to sway people...you launch into what I can only describe as a cry for pity about about how you're a smart guy, well qualified in other fields, and so forth.
If you have a problem with emotive appeals, then stop using them and encourage people to limit themselves to discussing the science. Better yet, stop using them yourself, and discuss either the science, or at least the responses to the points you've already made about why you distrust the science.
That's all I'm doing here...pointing out that you are engaging in the very tactics that you are trying to decry and refusing point-blank to engage in the type of discussion which should be what is used instead.
You are right, maybe my tactics are wrong here on this forum. I'm guilty as charged. The problem is that whole subject is emotionally charged and people actually become angry when you try to discuss the subject with any kind of objectivity. Have you read the papers or watched TV lately? It's full of stories of meltdowns, tipping points and extinguishing polar bears.
Plenty of emotion there.0 -
What game? The game where I gave you a hard time for refusing to do anything except engage in the tactics you were decrying?Very well, Let's see. We can both play this game.
There is only one meaningful way to question the conclusions, and thats to show the flaws in teh science used to reach them. You haven't done this. You've given one case (the reference to Canadian temperatures) where a simple difference of understanding what was being said led to your confusion. Other than that, though, every reason you've offered is removed from the science and is effectively nothing more but an appeal to emotion - the type of thing you also complain about being used.Science was used to reach the consensus. It's not that I don't want to argue the science. I simply question the conclusions reached based on the science.
You didn't provide evidence that they are doing this...you just raised the possibility that scientists could cook data to meet conclusions, and then made a flat statement that the conclusion is global warming, and a lot of money is being spent to prove it.I didn't say that. I pointed out the possibility that you cannot always divorce the human factor from the science.
Let me take your tactic for a moment, and show you what I can do with it....
We know that people aren't immune to lying to support things they care about. One thing that cp251 cares about is opposition to global warming. A lot of money has been spent in opposition to global warming.
Now...is that a reasonable thing for me to say? I've neither accused you of lying, nor of being a paid shill...I have - as you said - pointed out teh possibility that you could be either. I have no evidence, but because I'm not saying you are a liar or a shill, I presumably don't need any.
Now...given that you were so quick to decry sophistry and subtle word-play earlier...would you feel perfectly OK with me making claims like that?
I know I wouldn't....which is why I've also taken exception to your using this tactic with regard to scientists. Either you can show that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that fitting data to a pre-formed conclusion is a widespread occurrence in the scientific field, or you should at least have the honesty to admit that you don't have any evidence to support the possibilities that you're putting forward.
So we have some scientists on both sides of the debate calling each other names. Surprisingly, you didn't start by complaining that both sides are calling each other names...you complained that one side called the other names. Bit of a difference, don't you think?Perhaps:
Quote:
The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.
[quote
]
That wasn't my point. Climate change is the current cause celebre. Why wouldn't a student or a scientist use this to help his or her work? I would be most surprised if it never happened. [/quote]
Why wouldn't some anonymous posters accept money to oppose global warming on an internet forum. I would be most surprised if it never happened.
See? I've done it again...I've taken your type of argument and used it to make a suggestion that could be referring to you, with the same amount of evidence as you supply (i.e. what I claim to be my belief). Still a reasonable way to form an argument....or would you not agree that both of us should limit ourselves to making claims about what we can show happens, as opposed to what we want people to believe could be happening?
I'm not asking you to bet money. I'm pointing out that you've received what is - at best - a second-hand account, made more accessible to the public, and based on omissions or flaws in that second-hand account which led to confusion, you have concluded that the underlying study is flawed. Don't you think that a reasonable step before reaching that conclusion would have been to search out the original work that the material you saw was based on, see whehter or not it made the same mistake (i.e. rule out that it ws something 'lost in translation') before conclusing that it was this original material which was flawed?You are indeed correct, I didn't read it in a peer-reviewed publication of real science. There were several sources including a ridiculous TV programme. But I will bet money the sourse was indeed a peer-reviewed publication.
No, I don't. Thats part of why - as I said - I track down the scientific discussions on papers presented, so that I can find out whether or not mistakes were spotted, or whether disputes have arisen on key points.You seem to believe that scientists are immune from human failings. Scientists are not robots.
I'm forgetting nothing of the sort. What I'm remembering is that if a doctor tells me I need brain surgery, I don't go to a bricklayer for a second opinion, because the science was carried out as much for his benefit as anyone else's.You also forget that science is not simply practised in glorious isolation. It is for the benefit of the layman.
Just as I'd caution anyone who was being told to listen to their local florist when it came to specialised medical issues like brain-surgery, I'm cautioning people to bear in mind that they're being asked to disregard the best that science has to offer when it comes to climatology, in favour of the equivalent. And yes...I'm well aware that the florist might just be right and the brain-surgeon wrong....but when it comes to actually making a decision, I know which the smart money will back.
I've offered the same glib argument, with the same amount of evidence. If you want to make that out to be ridiculous and implausible, I will merely point out to the interested reader that the only difference is in information you choose not to supply, not in the argument presented.Once the Gods controlled the weather. Now apparently it's us.
...Once the Gods kept us from falling into the sky. Now apparently its gravity.
Are you saying we should be equally skeptical of that finding (and all others) of modern science, or is it ok as long as we don't hold ourselves to be the cause?
Clearly I'm not saying that. You are just making a ridiculous and implausible extrapolation
That was my point. You'll see I've done it a few times in this post too...taken your method of argument and used it in an almost-identical manner, but in one which you will almost certainly refuse to accept.
But it only effected the earth for one of these "blips" that you refer to. The point you're apparently missing is that duration and effect are not necessarily linked. That we've only been around for a comparatively tiny amount of time does not imply that we cannot have a large influence...but that is exactly what you were suggesting.So are asteroid impacts, such as the one believed to have impacted Chicxulub.
It had a bigger impact than us.
Its not me going off on a tangent. Just because you don't understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions is not a failing of the science in question. A more useful argument would be that you understand how we reach such conclusions and can explain why such conclusions are consequently flawed....but professing to not understand only means that you're not in a position to offer a meaningful critique of the work.No read it again. I said: I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years. Simple as that. The rest is you going off on a tangent
I don't understand how many athletes do what they do. That doesn't mean that I should conclude that they're cheating...it means I don't understand and therefore cannot meaningfully comment.
Do you think that this might be a reason why I consistently tell people to look at the science, rather than listening to those who are trying to push an agenda (pro or contra) based on what they tell you the science says.No that belief is based on the actions and intentions of people, not scientists for the most part, who have made it quite clear where they want this society and culture to go. I see a danger in that even if you don't.
What appears to be the difference is that I've no time for anyone pro- or contra- who engages in such tactics....where you seem to limit yourself only to criticising one side for engaging in this practice, whilst at the same time using many of the techniques that you're complaining about.
Maybe...but I'm not aware of anyone who is talking about zero emissions, beyond the occasional "radical" that you find on public bulletin-board systems.The problem as I see it is this. The only real way to zero emissions is a reversion to a pre industrial age. This is quite seriously put forward as a possibility in some circle
I know the latest the Swiss are talking about is reaching one ton of CO2 per person per year (current average is four tons) by the end of the century.
What if you're a paid shill and we believe you? What then?Worse still is the possibility that this happens based on faulty data. What if C02 is not the villain of the piece? What then?
What if *I'm* a paid shill, and people believe me. What then?
What if its aliens, faking the whole thing as a precursor to invasion! What then?
We can play "what if" games all day. The simple truth is that we have to make a decision. Choosing not to change is a decision. Choosing to wait until we've got more/better/different data is a decision. At no point, other than after things have happened, can we be 100% certain that our predictions are correct. At no point can we be certain that our decision is the right one.
What is notable, though, is that you're only advocating the "what if we're wrong" option be considered with one answer. What if you are wrong, and the vast majority of qualified experts in the relevant field are right? What if we listen to you instead of htem, and you turn out to have led us down the wrong path?
Why aren't you asking that question as well?
The best information we have, right now, says that we are over 90% certain that our future lies within a certain range. It says that with over 90% certainty, we have been a major contributing factor to this trend. As I've already pointed out, discussing what is the right thing to do has to wait until we decide whether or not we accept this.
If your doctor told you he was 90% certain that you needed treatment for a rare disease, and that any delay - even to make more certain - would make things far, far worse....would you seriously be agonising over the possibility of "what if the doctor is wrong, and the treatment makes me worse off than I would be if I did nothing"??? Would you continue this through the point where it would be too late to prevent massive long-lasting damage from a lack of treatment, even as symptom after symptom appeared consistent with the condition?
...but of course, from your perspective, the only mob here is the one pushing teh AGW argument. Those opposing it...they're not a mob at all. They're a rational group of concerned, honest people.Surely you mean the scariest thing is when the mob have an idea that you don't share.
Everyone needs to scared of a mob.
Like I said...its only the mob you disagree with thats scary.
So far, I haven't seen you once to tell people to do that regardless of whether they are reading something pro- or contra- the argument. All you've done is attack one side, suggesting that we can't rule out that its wrong. You've accused one side of engaging in appeals to emotion. Everything you've done has been one-sided and when people responded to you, your first comments were to claim that they were being nasty to you, albeit subtly.my main intention is to tell people to question what they hear and read.
All I've tried to do is point out that if you want people to question what they hear and read, then you should stop pushing a point of view on the issue at the same time....particularly when your point of view has insinuated that scientists on the side of the issue you disagree with may not be trustworthy. So how do you suggest people question what they read? I've recommended they do what you've admitted to not doing....go look at the science, rather than reading what others claim it says. You recommend that people consider that the scientists may be cooking the books.
The only options you've left without insinuation of dishonesty are those opinions (scientific and other) which oppose global warming....but you say that what you want are for people to think for themselves!
I've never made any such claim. I've often stated that no-one honest and informed on the pro-AGW side would claim that the science was not imperfect, nor incomplete.Perhaps you see no flaws or inconsistencies in the science
I'm more of the opinion that we currently have no idea of what changes we must undergo. Most of the changes we already see are nothing but feel-good measures. The effective ones, oddly enough, are the ones that are generally the least unpleasant.and perhaps you believe the unpleasant social changes we must undergo to reduce carbon emissions are a neccessary evil.
I believe its incredibly important whether or not the science is correct. Its even more important that it be accepted as correct, for only then can we - the public - start insisting that imposed social change be backed by meaningful science.Indeed like some, you may believe that it's not really important whether or not the science is correct but the social changes are the real driving force in this issue.0 -
The consensus is based on the available scientific evidence, in the same way that a jury bases their verdict on the evidence presented to them. As the evidence strengthens, the likelihood of the jury returning an accurate verdict increases.A consensus is merely that. a consensus. They might be wrong. They might be right.
So who are these "distinguished scientists".The situation is so bad that the front page of the Wall Street Journal printed an article in which one distinguished scientist said another distinguished scientist has a fossilized brain. He, in turn, refers to his critics as “the Gang of Five”.
My application for funding didn't contain a single reference to climate change, yet my funding was still approved. Including such a reference would most likely have been detrimental to my chances of securing funding, as the likely response from the funding body would have been; "what the hell has any of this got to do with climate change?" How strange...Climate change is the current cause celebre. Why wouldn't a student or a scientist use this to help his or her work?
Actually, a lot of research is.You also forget that science is not simply practised in glorious isolation.
Not really. I would say reaching a consensus (among the general populace) on what IS happening or what HAS happened is essential before any consensus can be reached on what WILL happen.Isn't this crux of the whole argument? The absence of a clearly identifiable trigger? Or at least an agreed trigger.
Why not?I cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years.
Considering that the overwhelming majority of people do not want this to happen, it seems unlikely that it will take place. Besides, I don't think there has ever been a time in recent history when man had absolutely no carbon footprint.The only real way to zero emissions is a reversion to a pre industrial age.
We could play "what if's" all day; it's not going to get us anywhere. The rational course of action would be to base our policies on what we know, or at least what is most probable, based on solid scientific evidence.Worse still is the possibility that this happens based on faulty data. What if C02 is not the villain of the piece?Everyone needs to scared of a mob.
Why?
Considering that the evidence FOR AGW has strengthened with time, I find your stance a curious one.I believed in it wholeheartedly at one stage. Now I don't.
Do you? Where are they?Perhaps you see no flaws or inconsistencies in the science...
:rolleyes:Indeed like some, you may believe that it's not really important whether or not the science is correct ...
So it's a gut feeling then? I'm curious; how is environmentalism comparable to Nazism?Based on the knowledge of the appaling gaffes humans have made over the centuries. Communism, Nazism, environmentalism.
Are these the sceptical scientists who you continually fail to identify?You saying I wouldn't be skeptical if I understood the science. How do you explain skeptical scientists?
Really? In your previous post, you said that you "cannot really understand how we can come to such momentous conclusions based on the observations of a few years"....in fact I trust science per se.
Well, if a polar bear were on fire, I would sincerely hope that anyone in the vicinity would have the compassion to extinguish him.It's full of stories of meltdowns, tipping points and extinguishing polar bears.0 -
I don't consider myself picked on. Are you picking on me?
You complained about "subtle put downs and an element of sophistry" saying that "It's a pity that was resorted to.".
If you didn't think you were being picked on, then presumably you'd feel you deserved the put-downs, at which point I'd be at a loss as to why you felt it was a pity it was resorted to.
I'd like to point out that I've never called your opinion worthless. You have.Merely I was commenting on your apparent attitude to me (worthless) opinion.
You're portraying yourself as the victim of an attack that never happened...which is ironic when you consider that your last point in the post I'm responding to is that there's too many attacks actually being made on the issue. If there's so many being made, how are you helping things by making up additional ones?
Yes...you do deserve a "tsk" for just lumping communism, nazism and environmentalism together without explaining why....just as I would if I put climate-denial in the same basket as the denial that tobacco causes cancer, and creationism, if I didn't offer reasons as to why I felt those comparisons were valid.Based on the knowledge of the appaling gaffes humans have made over the centuries. Communism, Nazism, environmentalism. Sorry that's emotional tsk tsk!
I would also point out that knowing that humans have ****ed up doesn't tell us anything about how to avoid it in the future. Replace environmentalism with climate-change-denial in your sentence, and its just as valid...in the sense that its still meaningless.
I said your reasons for skepticism, as you have presented them, are badly flawed. I did not say that skepticism cannot be valid.You saying I wouldn't be skeptical if I understood the science. How do you explain skeptical scientists?
You admitted that the whole Canada/Europe temperature thing - the only example you've supplied for the reasoning behind your rejection of the theory - isn't something you got from scientists work directly, but rather from somewhere else. Also, you were only willing to bet that there was real science behind it somewhere...showing that you haven't researched back to find what it was, and verify that it is in fact where the problem lies.Again you extrapolate, in fact I trust science per se. But scientists are people.
Having admitted to all of this lack of invesigation, you want to argue that it is the science that you didn't track down that we should be suspicious of...on the grounds that we can't rule out the possibility that its wrong, because hey...scientists are human.
Need I point out that everyone else in the chain which took that information from some unknown scientific work and brought it to you are also all human? It would seem that you've arbitrarily decided who you can't trust. You don't know where the material came from, but you've trusted that it was brought to you correctly and that its the source thats flawed. You haven't even checked what that sourve is, going by what you've posted here.Are you saying trust me I'm a scientist?
I'm saying that given the choice between a consensus on one of the most intently studied areas in modern science, and an anonymous boards poster who rejects something that has passed through unknown number of hands and decides to assign the doubts regarding the quality on the humanity of the (unknown) source, rather than actually resarching the thing.....I'll take the consensus of scientists any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
When you tell me you're willing to discuss the science, and you stop raising non-falsifiable claims as objections, I'm more than willing to try.If I'm wrong convince me why!
Non-falsifiability (as everyone reading hopefully knows) is central to scientific analysis.
I'm not dismissing them. I'm dismissing the notion that we should listen to your fears, when your basic complaint is that people are being driven by listening to fears instead of becoming informed.You accuse me of excessive emotionalism, fine. But you don't assuage my fears. You merely dismiss them.
I'm advocating an informed approach as an alterantive. I'm showing why your arguments are mostly the very thing you complain about, the only difference being the cause you're advocating/opposing.
[/QUOTE]
Have you read the papers or watched TV lately?
[/QUOTE]
The sources you advocate that we not be swayed by? Sure...I've read them. I'm no more swayed by them, though, then I am by the equivalent claims from the other side that its all some con/hoax/mistake or that we can't really be sure of anything so we should do nothing.0 -
Congratulations on the fast replies, both of you. Enjoyable though it is I feel I must bow out of the game. For a game it has become.What game? The game where I gave you a hard time for refusing to do anything except engage in the tactics you were decrying?
The game I refer to is the quote followed by a rebuttal game. An internet staple which becomes rather pointless eventually as all we do is extract a line, attack it with a pithy comment and move onto the next . Eventually the whole thing becomes rather circular and never moves on. This being an example. In fact both my replies deliberately intended to illustrate that tactic.
For the sake of completeness I will answer a few of your rebuttals.We know that people aren't immune to lying to support things they care about. One thing that cp251 cares about is opposition to global warming. A lot of money has been spent in opposition to global warming.
That in fact is a reasonable thing to say. The first and last sentences are indeed correct. The second line is used in this context to imply I might be lying. But in fact you have misunderstood me again. I do not imply that scientists are lying consciously or subconsciously. That is your interpetation of what I said. I mentioned the 'human factor'. I'm a pilot and one of things we are trained against is seeing what we expect to see rather than what is actually there. Somehow you seem to believe scientists are immune to the problem.Why wouldn't some anonymous posters accept money to oppose global warming on an internet forum. I would be most surprised if it never happened.
So would I, but are you naive enough to think it never happened!
As for the rest, you would expect me to research everything I hear on a subject before reaching a conclusion. Yet when the Doctor tells me I need brain surgery you expect me to take his word for it because he's Doctor. Replace the word Doctor with Scientist. You see what I mean.Like I said...its only the mob you disagree with thats scary
No all mobs are scary, even if you completely agree with them. Terrifying if you don't. That's why djpbarry!I believe its incredibly important whether or not the science is correct. Its even more important that it be accepted as correct, for only then can we - the public - start insisting that imposed social change be backed by meaningful science.
I concur, except to say the science must be correct not just accepted as correct. What mustn't happen is that social be imposed without meaningful science. Which in my opinion is happening right now. That is not the fault of the scientists.
djpbarry
As for lumping nazism with environtalism. It's the 'ism' part that is important. It implies certainty in a cause or religion.
Juries hung the wrong people all the time.
The distinguished scientists were mentioned in the Joanna Simpson quote in a previous post.
Good for you on your application for a grant. I'm guessing it wasn't relevant to climate change?
Coming to a conclusion based on a few years research is the equivalent of looking out the window today and deciding it's always rainy and windy here. Ok there is a grain of truth in that;)Considering that the evidence FOR AGW has strengthened with time, I find your stance a curious one.
I think otherwise.Are these the sceptical scientists who you continually fail to identify?
You mean you are not aware of any skeptical scientists?Well, if a polar bear were on fire, I would sincerely hope that anyone in the vicinity would have the compassion to extinguish him.
That would be stupid. He's bound to be quite cross about the whole thing. Nasty animals those Polar bears:D
You might interested in ths thread on a pilots forum. Perhaps you will find a more worthy adversary. But be warned not everyone there is actually a pilot. Some are even scientists. You don't have to read it all, it is rather long.
Edit just saw Bonkeys new post. I have to say it's more of the same quote/rebuttal. We need to move away from that.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=258830
In response to your complaints about my lack of scientific back up. Here is a link to the Intenational Climate Science Coalition. Plenty of science there with a hint of skepticism. They have plenty of links to others.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=10 -
I do trust the science behind the current global warming warnings. There are many good reasons to, from the Laptop I'm typing on to the web its posted on, they are both built on the back of the scientific method. At the same time, there are always reasons to question the methodology and assumptions made in the process. Climate is a particularly hot potato, due largely to its complexity. We still have a very limited understanding of our oceans and global water systems, which would reduce my stock in the drastic sea level rise and cold snap ideas. Temperature rise is evident at this early stage, as is increased wind and storm activity, But there is evidence to suggest that they are peaking in their own natural cycle anyway, So again, the devil in the detail, means we can only see a little of the puzzle at any time, and we can never tell exactly how to criteria interact with each other, SO while the general trend may be accurate and correct, the trigger points and tipping points that are spoken about will only be pinpointed after the fact.
My major concern over the issue is the fact that it is being used by our governments to enforce further limitations and restrictions on our civil liberties, instead of offering alternatives. This is the incorrect plan to achieve the stated goals, incentives instead of taxes. ON the other hand, the global struggle to secure the last of the easily exploitable resources is probably exhausting as much greenhouse gas as civic activity anyway, so why should we bother if the yanks are still flyin round with B52's and all manner of other military gas guzzlers. Are they doing that to secure my future ? or yours ?
Resolution of the C02 issue has to occur on a personal, local, national and global scale, on a level that has never been witnessed before, While this is possible in theory, the fact that most people will not notice any change in their day to day experiences of their environment for quiet some time, would leave question marks over the feasability of depending on personal contribution to addressing the problem. Personally I doubt the commitment of the many and the motivations of the few. sad though it may be.0 -
I'm sorry, but I could have sworn this was an internet forum, designed for precisely that purpose.The game I refer to is the quote followed by a rebuttal...
That statement means absolutely nothing. You are assuming something happens because, in your mind, it seems reasonable and quite probable. It proves nothing.So would I, but are you naive enough to think it never happened!
Given that it will likely take you a considerably longer time to familiarise yourself with the intricacies of the human brain than it will to grasp the fundamentals of climate change, I think bonkey's statements are reasonable.As for the rest, you would expect me to research everything I hear on a subject before reaching a conclusion. Yet when the Doctor tells me I need brain surgery you expect me to take his word for it because he's Doctor.
What social changes are being imposed right now (with respect to climate change; imposed being the key word)?What mustn't happen is that social be imposed without meaningful science. Which in my opinion is happening right now.
:rolleyes:As for lumping nazism with environtalism. It's the 'ism' part that is important. It implies certainty in a cause or religion.
Has the game changed to "Let's make the most general, meaningless statements we can think of"?
The '-ism' suffix can be used to denote a whole range of things; religion or belief system, doctrine or philosophy, theory developed by an individual, political movement, artistic movement, action, process or practice, characteristic, quality or origin, state or condition, excess or disease, prejudice or bias or characteristic speech patterns.
Did they? Juries hung the WRONG people ALL THE TIME? Are you sure about that? Besides, did I say I was referring exclusively to courts that exercise capital punishment? How many people have been hung in the EU lately?Juries hung the wrong people all the time.
They were mentioned alright, but no names were given.The distinguished scientists were mentioned in the Joanna Simpson quote in a previous post.
As for what Dr. Simpson tells us:
Now, granted, she claims to be sceptical of climate models. But, it should be pointed out that the latest IPCC report includes comparisons between climate predictions made in earlier IPCC reports and the actual data measured since then.There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring.
...
What should we as a nation do? Decisions have to be made on incomplete information. In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable.
:rolleyes: That was sort of my point. As you've probably guessed from my signature, I work in research in DIT, but I have yet to see anyone in my department (or neighbouring departments) do any work in the area of climate change. You can have a browse on the website and see for yourself. Why not check out the other universities too? This myth that research grants are being handed out left, right and centre for anyone wanting to do anything in the area of climate change is precisely that; a myth.I'm guessing it wasn't relevant to climate change?
... a PhD thesis? In your opinion, how many years should research encompass before a valid conclusion can be reached?Coming to a conclusion based on a few years research is the equivalent of...
You think the case FOR AGW is weakening? Why?I think otherwise.
I am not aware of a single researcher working in the area of meteorology, oceanography, climatology, etc. that does not accept that man-made CO2 emissions are very likely contributing to climate change. Are you? Yes or no? If you are, then name them.You mean you are not aware of any skeptical scientists?0 -
Again the selective quote and rebuttal djpbarry? I'm not playing that game anymore. It's pointlessly circular.
I was much more interested in angryhippie's response which is in fact closer to my point of view in many ways even though we might differ whether or not we believe in AGW.My major concern over the issue is the fact that it is being used by our governments to enforce further limitations and restrictions on our civil liberties, instead of offering alternatives.
That is a serious concern of mine and many others. Climate change or no. These actions will impact our lives in some way. Even scientists need to be concerned about that. They after all live in the same world as the rest of us.
This is not the first time science has been used to justify the actions of people who think they know what's best for us. That's almost as dangerous as anything nature can throw at us.0 -
Advertisement
-
cp251 & AngryHippie, what limitations are being imposed by governments on our civil liberties in response to climate change? I'm not aware of any.
However, I am aware of anti-terrorism being used to justify such impositions, some of which are a bit onerous.0
Advertisement