Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
29-01-2013, 23:36   #46
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings...
You thought wrong.
djpbarry is offline  
Advertisement
29-01-2013, 23:38   #47
AngryHippie
Registered User
 
AngryHippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macha View Post
Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures.
I am aware of the difference between Weather as being observed conditions and climate being the trend.

I'm in Queensland at the moment, and in the past 2 years. we've had 1 in 100 year rain, wind and temperature conditions and records have been broken all the way up & down the coast.
It seems that the "normal" tropical storms are bringing more moisture, more energy and are traveling further than has ever been previously recorded.
Statistically this may be an anomaly, but a worst case scenario would be for this pattern to repeat.
The Bureau of Meteorology here in Oz have had to re-design their temperature charts to cater for higher average temperatures. Hydrographers have had to revise all of their flood risk analyses and flood flag maps, and it seems as though they may have to revise their frequency intervals for some flood events in consideration of the recent events.
I know that there was one recorded precedent for consecutive or 2 out of 3 years being record flood years back in the 1890's which may pan out in the years to come.

They had Al Gore on the box this morning speaking about how the energy in these systems and the frequency of the occurrence may indicate a climatic shift......but then he started talking about the book of revelations and I switched it off due to credibility.

It's an interesting time for sure.
I think food & water supply pressures are going to be the most pressing issues regardless of whether the climate is changing or we are just going through an intense period of storm activity.
AngryHippie is offline  
30-01-2013, 00:18   #48
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
You thought wrong.

Well it made the headlines on BBC World News,ITV News and also Sky News.

You should look into that,before telling me that Im wrong.



Oh and maybe quote my entire post too aswell please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.




Thanks.

Last edited by paddy147; 30-01-2013 at 00:25.
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
30-01-2013, 07:39   #49
SiegfriedsMum
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.
There is a difference between "findings" and "predictions".

The former are observable and recordable facts, and are not in dispute.

You are right that some tried to muddle their findings to make the theory fit (such as the notorious and widely discredited hockey stick graph), and others in what became known as "climategate" conspired together concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. Then we had the IPCC making claims it said were based on scientific evidence which turned out to be lies when all they had, in one case, was a pamphlet produced by an activist with no scientific evidence of any kind.

The latter, predictions, were where some scientists decided to try to predict the future and, for example in the example I gave of David Viner above, they simply got it wrong.

We all have to make up our own minds as to whether these sorts of people are trustworthy, use proper scientific methods, and whether their other predictions are likely to be true.
SiegfriedsMum is offline  
30-01-2013, 09:42   #50
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
Well it made the headlines on BBC World News,ITV News and also Sky News.
Maybe you could provide a link to at least one article in which it demonstrates that all the scientists "made up their findings"?
djpbarry is offline  
Advertisement
30-01-2013, 09:44   #51
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
You are right that some tried to muddle their findings to make the theory fit (such as the notorious and widely discredited hockey stick graph)...
This is the same “hockey stick” graph that has been reproduced by several independent studies? That hardly counts as “widely discredited”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
...and others in what became known as "climategate" conspired together concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
So you’re just ignoring the fact that eight separate inquiries into the “climategate” affair found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
Then we had the IPCC making claims it said were based on scientific evidence which turned out to be lies...
I think you’ll find it was one single claim, which was quickly corrected. There then followed a concerted media campaign to find further errors in the report, which turned up nothing.

So you’re saying the entire report should be binned because it contained one error?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
The latter, predictions, were where some scientists decided to try to predict the future and, for example in the example I gave of David Viner above, they simply got it wrong.
Ignoring for a moment that what you’re referring to is an off-the-cuff comment in a newspaper article, maybe you could highlight what exactly is so wildly inaccurate in said article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
We all have to make up our own minds as to whether these sorts of people are trustworthy, use proper scientific methods, and whether their other predictions are likely to be true.
So in other words, you’ve made up your mind that climate science is nonsense and nothing is going to convince you otherwise?

Answer me this: why would scientists falsify data to give the impression that the planet is slowly warming?
djpbarry is offline  
30-01-2013, 12:10   #52
SiegfriedsMum
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
This is the same “hockey stick” graph that has been reproduced by several independent studies? That hardly counts as “widely discredited”.
If you judge that the hockey stick graph represents a true and accurate picture of what's happening, then that's your conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
T
So you’re just ignoring the fact that eight separate inquiries into the “climategate” affair found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?
I actually read the emails and never claimed there was "fraud or scientific misconduct". If its your claim that the evidence didn't show attempts to conceal the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based, that's your conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post

So you’re saying the entire report should be binned because it contained one error?
No, that's not what I said. I never even mentioned any report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Ignoring for a moment that what you’re referring to is an off-the-cuff comment in a newspaper article, maybe you could highlight what exactly is so wildly inaccurate in said article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...st-724017.html
I’ve already made a post about it and will repeat the relevant part again here;

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
As the now seemingly annual chaos caused by snowfalls in the south of England is upon us, I turn to my scrap book where I find a headline from 2000's Independent, headlining "“Snowfall now just a thing of the past”, quoting David Viner, of East Anglia’s celebrated Climatic Research Unit, predicting that falls of snow would, within a few years, become “a very rare and exciting event”.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
So in other words, you’ve made up your mind that climate science is nonsense and nothing is going to convince you otherwise?
Where did anyone say “climate science” is nonsense? Climate science is interesting and worthwhile, and your apparent conclusion that I have made up my mind and think it nonsense simply demonstrates your ability to ignore what I have said, and make things up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Answer me this: why would scientists falsify data to give the impression that the planet is slowly warming?
Again, you are asking me to speculate which is not something I am comfortable with, and again highlights your approach where you think speculation without evidence is useful. I don’t.
SiegfriedsMum is offline  
30-01-2013, 12:37   #53
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
If you judge that the hockey stick graph represents a true and accurate picture of what's happening, then that's your conclusion.
It is the consensus position of paleoclimatologists everywhere, based on the available evidence – my opinion isn’t really important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
I actually read the emails and never claimed there was "fraud or scientific misconduct".
Yes, you did. You claimed that individuals conspired to conceal raw data – that is an accusation of scientific misconduct.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have absolutely no evidence to support your accusation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
No, that's not what I said. I never even mentioned any report.
You referred to claims made by the IPCC, which obviously means you were referring to the IPCC’s most recent assessment report.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
I’ve already made a post about it and will repeat the relevant part again here;...
Ok – what’s your point? Do you have one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
Where did anyone say “climate science” is nonsense?
Eh, you just questioned whether individuals involved are “trustworthy” and whether they use “proper scientific methods”.

Whether individuals are trustworthy is irrelevant – scientific papers are not published on the basis of trust. Whether or not the appropriate methods were used in any given study can be verified by consulting said study.

Would you like to draw our attention to any particular study in the field of climate science that employed improper methodology? Didn’t think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiegfriedsMum View Post
Again, you are asking me to speculate...
No, I’m asking you to support your argument. You have stated quite categorically, without providing any evidence, that climate scientists have acted inappropriately and are concealing data from the public. You must have some cause for believing this to be the case? Have you stumbled open the concealed data in question? Has anyone?
djpbarry is offline  
30-01-2013, 14:19   #54
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
Maybe you could provide a link to at least one article in which it demonstrates that all the scientists "made up their findings"?

Maybe you could actually research/investigate the matter a bit more before telling me that Im wrong.


Oh for the the joys of google,the BBC world service and Sky News..

Last edited by paddy147; 30-01-2013 at 14:24. Reason: spelling correction
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
30-01-2013, 14:24   #55
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
Maybe you could actually research/investigate the matter a bit more before telling me that Im wrong.
The onus is on you to back up your own claims.

The fact that you are unable to do so indicates to me that your original claim is nonsense.
djpbarry is offline  
30-01-2013, 14:26   #56
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
The onus is on you to back up your own claims.

The fact that you are unable to do so indicates to me that your original claim is nonsense.

GOOGLE IT.....you might even learn something
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
30-01-2013, 16:02   #57
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
GOOGLE IT....
I'm still not entirely sure what "IT" is, but I suspect I've already addressed it in one of the above posts.
djpbarry is offline  
30-01-2013, 16:36   #58
Macha
Moderator
 
Macha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
GOOGLE IT.....you might even learn something
I'm not sure of any decent debating forum (other than maybe inside Google), where "Google it" is considered an adequate or even polite response to someone's request for evidence to back up a point or claim.

Have you read this forum's charter? My advice would be to read it: you might even learn something.
Macha is offline  
30-01-2013, 18:41   #59
paddy147
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by djpbarry View Post
I'm still not entirely sure what "IT" is, but I suspect I've already addressed it in one of the above posts.

You could have quickly and easily googled climate change data falsified and also looked it up on the various news broadcasting websites/stations too.

Last edited by paddy147; 30-01-2013 at 20:12. Reason: spelling correction
paddy147 is offline  
Thanks from:
30-01-2013, 20:51   #60
djpbarry
Registered User
 
djpbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy147 View Post
You could have quickly and easily googled climate change data falsified and also looked it up on the various news broadcasting websites/stations too.
Ok, let's see what I can find:

'No malpractice' by climate unit
djpbarry is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet