What Do We Think About Climate Change

[fasteddy106]

Many scientists are now trying to back out of the "concensus" without having their careers ruined like atmospheric scientist and meteorologist Dr. Joanna Simpson who said "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. " Dr. Simpson has authored more than 190 studies.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by fasteddy106

Dr. Joanna Simpson who said "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. "

So, a kind of conclusion is that, for this person at last, earlier; the truth was where the money came from....?

Maybe a valid question to ask, now, is; where does this newfound truth come from...?

Would rather have a loose cannon on the deck than one that piss you up your back...

[Jimbo1490]

go look up the glacier data or the ice data on a global scale

For the 500th time,

Glacial retreat is a 200+ year old phenomena while significant anthropogenic CO2 has only a ~60 year history.



Jimbo

[Guillermo]

For all of you able to understand spanish
(Sent for publishing)

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

Knut the conclusion is that often times that even in the world of science, one has to go along to get along. The gist of my post was that intimidation has no place in scientific reasearch, whether is be physical or mental or economic. Why would truth need intimidation in order to be accepted? Why should those who question be bullied into silence through ridicule? Those who question anthropogenic climate change are not the folks who want to the human race to devolve to a societal structure only slightly more sophisticated than a meerkat colony. It is up to those who present a theory to justify it and prove it, not those who question to prove it wrong.

[gonzo]

All that CO2 came from the atmosphere. We are putting it back and so are all plant eating animals.

[Boston]

Those who question anthropogenic climate change are not the folks who want to the human race to devolve to a societal structure only slightly more sophisticated than a meerkat colony. It is up to those who present a theory to justify it and prove it, not those who question to prove it wrong.

for me at least the frustration of deniers is basically not that they want to disagree with what is a well established and scientifically sound theory but that they do so by seemingly following the footsteps of agnotology and better yet attempting to rewrite things like the gas laws or the physical properties of various chemical compounds like co2.
its the blatant misunderstanding of various areas of the science that has left some few behind the times when it comes to the theory of rapid climate change, I say behind the times not in a derogatory sense but in a scientific sense because over time the more data is collected the more sound the theory gets with the vast majority of data agreeing with the theory and more and more scientists finding the it an unavoidable conclusion; time and the preponderance of data have lent the theory dramatic staying power in an era when most theories have a life span of less than a decade.

the numbers of scientists who find the theory sound is growing not shrinking and the number of deniers is shrinking not growing
at least thats what independent poles show
Im sure the industry analysts would like us to believe something different and run a vigorous advertising campaign to keep us guessing
but if you go back to the simple data from independent sources
the numbers become apparent

at which point it becomes important to realize how science works and that since science is not attempting to prove anything but instead remain open minded by looking at data in the light of what is most likely to be true and what is less likely to be true. When presented with the hard data the vast majority (97%) of scientist agree that it most likely represents a confirmation of the theory of rapid global climate change. Thats a huge consensus, typically a consensus of about 50% with the other 50% bickering over there own pet theories is normal, but in this case the consensus is overwhelming.

allegations of intimidation and gov intervention bla bla bla are always going to exist no mater what the theory. I think psychologist's call em conspiracist's or something like that but its more of a psychological condition than a valid argument when it comes to the sciences.

Now if you look at something like 9/11 were the preponderance of evidence screams "inside job" then ya there is some validity to the conspiracy argument, but in the hard sciences that type of data would be glaringly apparent. The possibility of perpetrating what amounts to a hoax over the 150 year span of research that has gone into the theory of rapid climate change is virtually nil, Thats not to say that some fool politician wont come along and say "**** we're warming better tax somebody fast" but that has nothing to do with the basic theory behind the science, which deniers are constantly and seemingly ( as in the case of G and Jim ) deliberately misrepresenting when they use industry sources to describe what amounts to industry spin designed to protect industries ability to continue in its destructively profitable practices. Practices that have proven themselves detrimental to the environment and are in direct opposition to the necessary changes that the theory proposes in order that a catastrophic rapid climate change be avoided.

the hole thing really boils down to industries resistance to change for the benefit of us all and some people willingness to defend them in that resistance. Reducing co2 really need not have been a huge issue since we have viable alternative energy sources available but industry has ignored developing them, the first cars were after all electric and Edisons power plants were nearly all hydroengineered and produced DC. Even Tesla proposed using the energy of the Shoeman gap to transfer energy from place to place rather than miles and miles of copper wire
there have been hundreds of inventions that went the way of the Dodo because industry couldn't be bothered
they had gas to burn and the infrastructure to burn it so
lets burn every drop and squeeze every dime out of the investment
is the logic
it benefits a rare few to exist in a state of industrial fossilization
a condition deniers seem to avidly defend

once upon a time deniers may have had some valid questions about the theory but as time has gone on those questions have by and large been answered
today it seems most deniers have some vested interest in there position
as its generally considered to be fare more attractive in the sciences to admit when one is wrong as fast as possible rather than cling to what amounts to
the past

B

[fasteddy106]

Boston has used the 97% number a few times, it's bogus, he can't back up that number. Science isn't decided by polls anyhow so even if he could back up that number, it's irrelevent. It only takes one scientist to disprove a theory. When you look at some of Bostons other positions on social issues, my statements of about social engineering by the AGW cult crowd are not hollow conspiracy charges. Boston also likes to use the authority argument,i.e. "I'm smart your not so shut up". Telltale sign of a bullly. But it is what he doesn't talk about that is even more interesting. By the theory of the AGW KoolAid Club, there should be a greenhouse signature or hotspot if you will, there is none. Something else is causing the warming if it is happening. CO2 follows warming, despite his unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, the ice cores are not the only evidence of this. Temperatures are not rising since 2001 and even the IPCC acknowledges that they may not again until 2030 or so. How many years of no warming will it take to disprove the AGW theory, is should be warming exponentially if the theory has any validity. Finally, CO2 additions don't add to effect in a normal mathematical sequence, 1+1+1+1 = 4. The addition of more CO2 has a lesser impact after a saturation point is reached. This is inverse to the no-growth nuts claims. The tipping point that our alarmists like to cry doom and gloom about cannot be reached through CO2 as it plays such a minor role in the atmosphere to start with. like I said earlier, like trying to measure the impact of a fart in a hurricane, unscientific analogy, but one that's easy to understand by us members of the "unwashed masses".

[Pericles]

Guillermo,

Oh yes! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/2...ea-ice-graphs/

BTW some light relief. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K68THqDqPKc

All the best,

Perry

[Boston]

I like how first we accuse the opposition of bullying

Knut the conclusion is that often times that even in the world of science, one has to go along to get along. The gist of my post was that intimidation has no place in scientific reasearch, whether is be physical or mental or economic. Why would truth need intimidation in order to be accepted? Why should those who question be bullied into silence through ridicule? Those who question anthropogenic climate change are not the folks who want to the human race to devolve to a societal structure only slightly more sophisticated than a meerkat colony. It is up to those who present a theory to justify it and prove it, not those who question to prove it wrong.

and then we bully the opposition
classic denier tactics

Boston has used the 97% number a few times, it's bogus, he can't back up that number. Science isn't decided by polls anyhow so even if he could back up that number, it's irrelevent. It only takes one scientist to disprove a theory. When you look at some of Bostons other positions on social issues, my statements of about social engineering by the AGW cult crowd are not hollow conspiracy charges. Boston also likes to use the authority argument,i.e. "I'm smart your not so shut up". Telltale sign of a bullly. But it is what he doesn't talk about that is even more interesting. By the theory of the AGW KoolAid Club, there should be a greenhouse signature or hotspot if you will, there is none. Something else is causing the warming if it is happening. CO2 follows warming, despite his unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, the ice cores are not the only evidence of this. Temperatures are not rising since 2001 and even the IPCC acknowledges that they may not again until 2030 or so. How many years of no warming will it take to disprove the AGW theory, is should be warming exponentially if the theory has any validity. Finally, CO2 additions don't add to effect in a normal mathematical sequence, 1+1+1+1 = 4. The addition of more CO2 has a lesser impact after a saturation point is reached. This is inverse to the no-growth nuts claims. The tipping point that our alarmists like to cry doom and gloom about cannot be reached through CO2 as it plays such a minor role in the atmosphere to start with. like I said earlier, like trying to measure the impact of a fart in a hurricane, unscientific analogy, but one that's easy to understand by us members of the "unwashed masses".

if you read back through the thread you will clearly see that 97% was not a number I pulled from the hat
it is the result of several well publicized polls conducted both worldwide and nationally
I know you havnt done your research if you are questioning that one
Ild recommend reading up a little before putting your foot in your mouth again

the rest is hardly worth my time as each and every false assertion has previously been exposed as exactly that

If you would prefer to embarrass yourself by clinging to uninformed positions or claiming to be being bullied and then proceeding to do exactly that your welcome to do so
but you might try reading this thread before you get in any deeper
frankly
it sounds like you have been reading the industry spin pages
cause your arguments are classic industry disinformation

the assertions of the industry pundits have been thoroughly dissected and shown to be the pr spin that it is intended to be

you might try looking up the term agnotology before you try it again

cheers
B

[gonzo]

You got to love how "greens" can put global warming and 9/11 in the same phrase. They call that science

[Jimbo1490]

Boston's book of tactics in this thread has consistently been to:

1. Discredit the person without addressing the scientific merit of the assertion,
   
   
2. Claim that a 'consensus of 97%' of scientists agrees with him, therefore he does not need to address the scientific merit of the assertion,
   
   
3. Claim that the issue has already been addressed in the thread by him (when it actually hasn't; he jut used one of the above tactics on it the first time it came up) and is therefore not worth his time to refute.

The good thing is that I think only one person is persuaded by these tactics, and it's Mr Boston himself.

In the most recent example of this, he brushes off the poster's allusion to the logarithmic nature of absorption by a gaseous media (Beer-Lambert), claiming that this is a "false assertion" that has already been addressed or refuted on this thread when quite the contrary is true. But his tactic #3 above makes it look like he (or someone else) has already successfully addressed it. The guy should run for office as his political machinations are impressive; god help us all if he stays in the sciences. We'll have to put quotes around the word 'science' every time we use it in a sentence where his name is also mentioned

Jimbo

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Boston's book of tactics in this thread has consistently been to:
[list=1][*]Discredit the person without addressing the scientific merit of the assertion,

Jimbooooooo, right there you seem, for a glimpse of a second and for an untrained eye; to work along some similar guidelines as you accuse Boston of....

[Jimbo1490]

Knut,

I've thoroughly addressed each scientific point on it's merit (or lack thereof) without attacking the scientific credentials of the poster as Mr. Boston has consistently done. I address merit without pointing to a consensus, which is nothing more than an "argument by authority"

Show me somewhere-ANYWHERE- where I've attacked the scientific credentials of Mann, Briffa , Hansen Schmidt or ANY of them. It's never happened. I've pointed out the errors in the assertions, but I never said that they were not qualified as scientists. This is the opposite of what Boston does.

Boston has consistently called into question the credentials of Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer and a host of others as a way to excuse himself from addressing the merits of their argument. So in fact, he never addresses the merits of the arguments! Yet when he looks back on these little battles, he counts them as victories! In a political sense, they are victories, I suppose, but not so in a scientific sense.

Jimbo

[Boston]

Boston's book of tactics in this thread has consistently been to:

1. Discredit the person without addressing the scientific merit of the assertion,

2. Claim that a 'consensus of 97%' of scientists agrees with him, therefore he does not need to address the scientific merit of the assertion,

3. Claim that the issue has already been addressed in the thread by him (when it actually hasn't; he jut used one of the above tactics on it the first time it came up) and is therefore not worth his time to refute.

I've thoroughly addressed each scientific point on it's merit (or lack thereof) without attacking the scientific credentials of the poster as Mr. Boston has consistently done. I address merit without pointing to a consensus, which is nothing more than an "argument by authority"

Show me somewhere-ANYWHERE- where I've attacked the scientific credentials of Mann, Briffa , Hansen Schmidt or ANY of them. It's never happened. I've pointed out the errors in the assertions, but I never said that they were not qualified as scientists. This is the opposite of what Boston does.

Boston has consistently called into question the credentials of Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer and a host of others as a way to excuse himself from addressing the merits of their argument. So in fact, he never addresses the merits of the arguments! Yet when he looks back on these little battles, he counts them as victories! In a political sense, they are victories, I suppose, but not so in a scientific sense.

hey Jim how are you doing these days
I wonder if you caught that vid I posted on supermarket secrets
as an avid meat eater you might want to check it out
Ill throw it in again
maybe you will like it maybe you wont



kinda off topic but I thought you might get a bang out of it

ok and were are off to the races on the climate thread again
point by point lets adress each of the claims made

1) Discredit the person without addressing the scientific merit of the assertion,

the first thing I do and any good scientist does when checking any presumed scientific information is determine if it was derived by following the scientific method. If its not then its not typically even considered by the scientific community as being viable evidence. If it fails the basic test of the scientific community then why would you insist it be considered scientifically valid worthy of our consideration or could it be that the information was biasedly derived and you just refuse to admit that

if it comes from industry sources who typically are involved in the industries public relations disinformation plan
then its probably going to be exposed as that and that should be the end of it as scientific evidence

but you Jim insist on its importance
why
if its a prejudiced study conducted by industry agnotists
what gives it validity

the IPCC has nothing to do with funding research by the way
its against its operating directive
it only accepts articles for consideration
collates that information
and presents it in a series of reports

2) Claim that a 'consensus of 97%' of scientists agrees with him, therefore he does not need to address the scientific merit of the assertion,

I have posted numerous times the exact polls showing these numbers to be entirely valid. What makes me think if I post em again that you suddenly notice that they were independent polls showing a clear and steady rise to what amount to a overwhelming majority of support buy the scientific community today. Do you just want me to post everything again so you could ignore it again. Seems like more of a stalling tactic or something than a request for proof

tell you what
if I post it again
will you believe it

an independent study conducted by a respected polster showing a steady increase in the consensus views

reason some of us gave up on this thread is cause nothing no mater how obvious was going to get through to some folks
not even the simple reality of a number of independent polls

the second part of that is a repeat of complaint #1 so please see previous

3. Claim that the issue has already been addressed in the thread by him (when it actually hasn't; he jut used one of the above tactics on it the first time it came up) and is therefore not worth his time to refute.[/quote]

now this one is ludicrous
the issues that had been mentioned had been previously addressed by a number of people
the issues being carefully explained by several knowledgeable folks attempting to show things like the existence of feed backs and the preponderance of fossil fuel co2 in the atmosphere
and of course those explanations were completely ignored buy deniers
even though the a lot of effort went into keeping it obvious and hard to deny
so you just ignore em and move on to a different subject
you really want or expect me to cut and paste a few pages for a newbe who wants to rehash the whole thread
sorry
not my job

Ill save the other stuff for my next maybe
but really
is anyone over hear going to suddenly see the light
hardly