bjack on 26/3/2015 at 04:57
Quote Posted by faetal
... Seriously. Three clickbait articles, none of which are referenced or reviewed. I'm not sure I can hold back after reading this from just saying that you're a fucking idiot.
You are the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect - you have no idea about how the scientific method works and you seem to have no idea how the media works and no idea about the basics of climate science or even the basic principles underlying it. You also have some very childish notions of the motivations behind the science.
Until you can be bothered to educate yourself in the subject you are making over-confident assertions about, then any further character of text I write is a complete waste of my time. It's like you've ignored or not understood almost everything I've already written.
No need to get nasty and call me "a fucking idiot". I understand that you fully trust the AGW conclusions, but it seems a bit stubborn to outright ignore the cute email games in England, telling researchers to ignore conflicting data, the data adjustments to make things fit, actual conflicting data being reported and denied as insignificant, and the recent 15 years of "pause". Include political "making hay" of simple social research (Cook's 97%) can be included here too. I am sure the climate scientists are concerned about at least some of these things, but you seem to think they do not exist, or if they do they are to be denied as significant in any way. Politicians and now you resort to name calling when they cannot refute dissent. You don't want to take the time, I know. I understand:cool:
I have a BS degree in Chemistry and Biology. I understand how the scientific method works. In this case I see science being warped and corrupted by politics and corporate manipulation. Both sides are making this topic into a religion. There is now talk about making it illegal to speak of anything anti-AGW if you hold office. Outlawing dissent concerns me. I am starting to think you agree with that type of censorship.
I don't deny that CO2 emissions have an affect on climate. I said something like that before. What I question is the extent at which increased CO2 is affecting climate. Drastic climate change is being predicted by models, but these models are not predicting current trends, such as the 15 year pause. I think that is pretty significant. If they are not accurate as of yet, then why are they being used to scare the shit out of the populace? That is not science. That is politics.
You must know of Roy Spencer Ph.D. I can just hear the grown... :D The pro crowd call him the "darling of the deniers", so he must be a kook (or worse) to you. I think some of his ideas are also very kooky (intelligent design is one), but that does not make him 100% wrong on everything. He has published accepted peer reviewed climate papers. While there are all sorts of hit pieces out there against him, most use ad hominem attacks, but at least one says he cheated in the case below by using the wrong starting baseline ('83 instead of '79). That could be construed as "throwing out data points" if it truly skews the outcome to fit is premise, but since you seem fine with the same sort of manipulation on the pro-side, I fail to see how it matters at this point :joke:
(
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/)
Is he outright wrong in this case of the pause and failed predictions? If so, why were the models still wrong then? His main point in the article is that if they are wrong, they should not be used as scare tactics for an agenda. I hear and read reports from the media that modelers are scrambling to try to fix their models by adding ocean heating and whatnot - things they missed. Yet, we still cling to predictions from past false models as proof of drastic future catastrophe! :eek:
As for consensus (such as Cook's 97%), it alone does not prove anything other than that in this one small sample of scientist, that about 97% agree with a premise and about 3% do not. It does not prove the roughly 3% dissenters are wrong though. If 3% of all studies on BPA showed terrible toxicity in fetuses, but 97% did not, should it be approved anyway? When peer reviewed research shows 3% dissent, the 97% have ask why does it conflict with their assumptions and conclusions? Is it significant and can that be shown? It cannot simply be ignored as a minority opinion and swept away. Exceptions do not prove the rule. They contradict the premise and need to be addressed. Scientists know this and I am sure the moral ones (most) perform additional research to try to find out why they did not come to similar conclusions, or how to show the dissent is actually wrong somehow. What I object to is the political side saying it is completely settled and the 3% can shut the fuck up.
One long standing dissent was about the Antarctic ice cores and CO2 vs. temp lags. You are likely to be familiar with it. For those that do not know, ice cores going back 10's of thousands of years were analyzed for CO2 levels and corresponding temps through time. A funny thing was found. Temps shot up 1400 years BEFORE the CO2 went up. Cooling started at peak CO2 levels and continued downward while CO2 remained high. Not good news for AWG. This was CO2 to temp lag. It took a long time to sort this out, but some dudes in France rethought how bubbles travel in ice over time and how ice compacts. The measurements of time to bubbles in ice were off. It's all in the article link below. Good stuff. They showed that instead of a 1400 year lag, it was only 200 years. This new find is supposed to be enough to discredit the lag? 200 years is still a long time for a lag. Sure, Earth orbital changes can explain some of it, as can Earth tilt, but really? The higher temps always preceded CO2 rise and CO2 fall always lagged behind temp fall. Some claim this while this held true in the past, our current additional CO2 reverses this trend. OK, show that in models that actually work and you may get some more converts. Please do not compare temp rise from tiny town from 100 years ago to huge cities today.
(
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/)
Look, we are not going to solve this here. This AGW side line devolves this thread into yet another AGW thread and it is supposed to be about free/open minded thinking in general. No matter what I say about that matter, or former NASA scientist I reference, you will say it is all shit. OK, I get it. I am not going to make it a career to change your mind. You should not expect me to accept your dogma as truth either. I see holes in models and think, "Hum, this is not settled." You hear descent of any kind and rant, "You are a fucking idiot!" OK, nice. Well :p to you too :ebil::joke: Have a nice day! :cheeky:
zombe on 26/3/2015 at 05:27
Quote Posted by bjack
No need to get nasty and call me "a fucking idiot". I understand that you fully trust the AGW conclusions, but it seems a bit stubborn to outright ignore the cute email games in England, telling researchers to ignore conflicting data, the data adjustments to make things fit, actual conflicting data being reported and denied as insignificant, and the recent 15 years of "pause". /.../
Holy ...
Inline Image:
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/062010/1275389857_naked-gun-facepalm.giffaetal on 26/3/2015 at 13:20
Sorry bjack, you have officially jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned. At least Tony moves along on a trajectory, you've just dumped everything I've previously said and erected a brand new conversation filed under.....I have to say stupidity, because I can't find another word. The fact that you are having to use loaded language (Tony doesn't get a pass here either, since he insists is putting the words peer reviewed in inverted commas, like there's still some doubt as to what it means) and leading prose is very telling. You don't have a point and I'm sorry, but if you have a degree in the sciences, then please tell me which institution so I can potentially avoid any of their research output, because they seem to have dropped the ball a bit by awarding you your degree. Unless you got a 3rd class degree or lower, then I might let them off. Because you seriously do not understand how science works, and I say that sincerely, rather than to make a cheap point. You seem to value hear say and social issues magazine articles over actual data and iteratively reviewed research.
None of that matters though, because you believe that there is a coordinated Left Wing Conspiracy which is manufacturing evidence about a recent climate change being human-made in order to force wealth distribution. If that wasn't enough to make me coat my monitor in half chewed shortbread, then the corollary that the right-wing fossil fuel industry are somehow the ones who are onto the truth, almost has me laughing my bones clean out of my body.
Your reams of very obvious (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) confirmation bias (made fairly suspiciously obvious by the lack of any journal articles - another reason why your "I get how science works" assertion is risible), ought not to convince anyone, other than people who don't understand how science works. Presumably, you'd be better off sticking to the remedial sections of the internet if you prefer to hold your debate at that level. Don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone who actually understands the science.
I honestly, genuinely don't know where to start to reason with you, because your train of thought is so absurd, I fully expect to see PeeWee Herman laughing away in the boiler room, shovelling clown wigs into its furnace.
heywood on 26/3/2015 at 14:37
I thought it was common knowledge that some of the most prominent AGW skeptics e.g. Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, and Joe D'Aleo are funded by the Heartland Institute, a non-profit right wing lobby. That hardly makes them free thinkers, bjack.
However, in an earlier career arc, I worked with Joe D'Aleo when he was Chief Meteorologist at WSI. I didn't have a lot of interaction with him since I was on the engineering side, but he seemed to be plenty knowledgeable and genuine. Definitely not a quack.
So I wonder where these people are really coming from, and it seems like there are three possibilities:
1. They are free thinking independent subject matter experts who have reviewed the data and come to alternative interpretations
2. They have "sold their soul" to make a living producing propaganda for right wing political donors
3. They are deeply political and view the policy implications to be far more important than the scientific conclusions
My money is on #3. I think that debating the science of AGW is just a proxy for debating the role of government and the impact of carbon reduction policies. The science has gotten muddied up by the politics, and not just on the right. Some on the left are just drooling at the thought of spending carbon tax money.
faetal on 26/3/2015 at 14:39
I'd go for a blend of 2 and 3. Never underestimate the allure of them monies.
Thirith on 26/3/2015 at 14:42
Joseph D'Aleo being a signatory to a declaration that says "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception." doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't have any fundamental issues with religion or religious people.
faetal on 26/3/2015 at 14:55
Even if I hadn't read a few dozen large-scale studies, reviews and meta-analyses, I'd probably still err on the side of AGW being real by way of simple logical calculus:
1) No one
wants it to be real
2) The financial and existential motivation for disbelief in AGW is vastly greater than for belief in it. This shifts the equation for where cognitive dissonance is likely to kick in
way to one side.
3) There is vastly more money in the fossil industry than there is the relevant sciences research budgets, yet despite this, the research still greatly supports AGW more than any of the purported alternatives.
4) If one group of people are saying X is a thing and another are saying X is not a thing, only one group can be correct. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the one whose iterative findings keep re-affirming X to a large degree are looking at actual phenomena, whereas the opposing camp are fishing through the debris for tenuous and unsupported opposition which are then (via the appropriate media, which doesn't have to undergo the troublesome process of "peer review" - see how I make it seem spurious with speech marks!) baselessly amplified to look as though they are of equal standing to the people who are actually just working.
Luckily for the industry seeking to protect its share value by keeping everyone happily burning as much fuel as they can, there are (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) useful idiots who are happy to ignore both logic and data to shout loudly about the conclusion which they find most emotionally appealing being the correct one.
heywood on 26/3/2015 at 15:13
Thirith, I think he may get some of his funding from the Cornwall Alliance. Cornwall Alliance/James Partnership is another political lobby with the same funding sources as the Heartland Institute, which funds some of the same skeptics. The difference is that the Heartland Institute output is spun to appeal to the libertarian conservatives while the Cornwall Alliance is spun to appeal to the Christian conservatives. They are part of a larger web of interconnected conservative political groups involved in the climate change debate, including CFACT, AFP, AEI, Donors Trust, etc.
Nicker on 26/3/2015 at 16:19
Quote Posted by Thirith
Joseph D'Aleo being a signatory to a declaration that says "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception." doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't have any fundamental issues with religion or religious people.
And since this comes from a crowd who see the earth as a temporary stopover on the way to eternity, their interest in preserving our planet seems questionable.
Gryzemuis on 26/3/2015 at 16:33
As I've said before, I don't care much about global warming. Because I believe that if it is man-made, there is nothing that humanity can do about it.
But one issue that made me a bit skeptical was that (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) controversy over hacked emails in 2009. I understand that the whole thing was blown out of proportions by both sides. At the time I've read a few articles about it. Some of them showed in-depth how some statistics were being manipulated. Without proper documentation about what they exactly did with the numbers.
Now my concern was (and still is): if human-made global warming is so obvious, then why did scientists feel the need to mess with those statistics ?
My other concern is with some of the solutions that have been implemented or are being proposed. Example: people are supposed to bleed through their noses to drive a car. Example: taxes (including VAT) are 200% of the base price of gas in my country (source: wiki.nl). But the tax on kerosine is zero ! Airlines (nor oil companies) don't even pay VAT over the kerosine they use. If find this not fair. And actually it is bad for the environment. Flying is hardly necessary. Remote vacations are the first thing I'd abolish. While people need a car e.g. to get to work. Also, this is a tax-break for the rich (who fly far more often).
The EU forbids me to use an old-fashioned electrical light-bulb. While in the US, nobody cares that half the country drives in 3L V8 trucks and SUVs. I don't mind sacrificing some stuff for the planet. But I hate the inconsistency, hypocrisy and inefficiency of some of the measurements being taken.
And then there is emission (carbon credit) trading. I find the whole concept ludicrous. This will not help against global warming at all. All it does, is add extra overhead (cost) on everything. Nobody will emit less carbondioxide in the end. The only thing that will change is prices. And those extra prices will be paid by the average man in the street. Emission trading is just a useless scam invented to make some people (the people trading in emission rights) richer.
