The Great Global Warming Swindle

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

They aspire to our wasteful lifestyle.

This raises an interesting point, though, and its one of the primary reasons why the developed nations should take the lead, despite all these arguments that any savings we make will just be offset by the emerging giant economies.

They want our lifestyle.

They don't want our Victorian-era lifestyle, or what we had 50 years ago. They're not interested in what we had in the 80s. They want what we have today.

If we move on...its a pretty good bet that they aren't going to just say "hey...lets aspire to be like the developed nations used to be", but are instead going to continue to aspire to our lifestyle.

So while we move on, contining to be wasteful...what are we saying? We're saying "aspire to be wasteful, just like us".

What if the message we were sending was "Wasteful is sooo last decade. Its as out of style as the Model T Ford and the black-and-white TV"?

Akrasia

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Which means that their increasing carbon footprint will soon not be there to fuel the wests wasteful consumerism, which was what you were saying.

Whats NIMBYISN? Excuse my ignorance.

NIMBY =not in my back yard, ISN = typo (should have been ism)

Re consumerism, well, we'll need to sort that failed ideology out somehow.

it's just a frame of mind, Marketing and Advertising plays a massive role in social engineering. It's all negative in my opinion (I'm with Bill Hicks on this one)

If people are convinced that each new gadget is necessary to improve their lives, they're never going to find contentment. (They always promise more than they deliver, and they are always out of date as soon as you take them home from the shops.)

We can make things far too cheaply today, which is fine, accessible technology is good, but we can also throw them away far too cheaply.

A few laws could be introduced to combat disposable consumption.

one I can think of off the top of my head would be to Impose minimum standards and increase the minimum warranty for all new consumer items. eg: All electronic goods sold must include a 3 year unlimited parts and labour warranty. If your IPOD breaks in 6 months, that's because Apple didn't make it properly and they ought to repair it for free. (same for televisions white goods etc)

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

It might, but the point is such indicators are highly subjective – how does one quantify “cold”, for example? In the context of scientific analysis, they are of little value in isolation.

and I agree, they only are pointer/indicators ...... but they still indicate a certain climate at the time of the work...

djpbarry wrote: »

Based on the available evidence, variations in solar activity are not responsible for the warming of the last few decades. As for ‘natural’ warming/cooling cycles, something must drive them (such as Milankovitch cycles). The planet cannot spontaneously warm - there must be a physical explanation. Dismissing it as ‘natural variation’ is a cop-out.

your first sentence sums it up for me "based on the available evidence" exactly, there is not enough evidence to tell concluively what the cause of global warming is..

bonkey

robtri wrote: »

your first sentence sums it up for me "based on the available evidence" exactly, there is not enough evidence to tell concluively what the cause of global warming is..

Isn't that exactly why the stance, as enunciated by the IPCC is expressed in terms of a confidence range?

Mozart1986

bonkey wrote: »

This raises an interesting point, though, and its one of the primary reasons why the developed nations should take the lead, despite all these arguments that any savings we make will just be offset by the emerging giant economies.

They want our lifestyle.

They don't want our Victorian-era lifestyle, or what we had 50 years ago. They're not interested in what we had in the 80s. They want what we have today.

If we move on...its a pretty good bet that they aren't going to just say "hey...lets aspire to be like the developed nations used to be", but are instead going to continue to aspire to our lifestyle.

So while we move on, contining to be wasteful...what are we saying? We're saying "aspire to be wasteful, just like us".

What if the message we were sending was "Wasteful is sooo last decade. Its as out of style as the Model T Ford and the black-and-white TV"?

Sorry, in my humble opinion that argument won't float. They won't curb their growth because, as your argument goes, "they think we're cool!" Economic growth is more important to China than us. (If I'm wrong about that incredibly general statement then fine, but if you respond to this then respond to my reason, not my conclusion as the conclusion follows from & is apparent based upon the reason.) People idealise the Chinese method of governance, but as always, they forget that this governance is dynamic and revolves around people, not simple systems defined by code and legislature. When you view it on the human level you realise, like all societies and beaurocracies the system contains a lot of corruption and favour-begging. In growth this is all fine. The communist party control everything within and nothing outside their own boarders, but nobody minds and they accept the single party system/central executive and all of its members cast into society like a web. Basically, you could liken it to Fianna Fail, its central executive and its councilors down to the lowest rungs - except with much more power.

Everybody is content with this in growth. China has a massive consumer/middle-class population now and they are all - every last one of them - invested in the state. Look at it like this: what is the biggest trigger for Irish people to start voting? The answer has little to do with age and everything to do with their investments in the state. Sometimes they will invest themselves emotionally, as university students that become activists. Thats a complicated issue, which has a lot of relevance to the Chinese, but I'll only mention it in passing. The biggest trigger to vote is a mortgage. A mortgage means that people are invested in the system and the economy.

In recession, peoples investment suddenly looks a little less secure, and they start to compete a little for favour. So what does that mean for communist party members? It means they are culpible. Suddenly, a large amount of people want them to do this/that/d'other and those interests - in a recession far more than in growth - conflict.

So what happens? Democracy! Conflict is the birth of democracy. People think democracy is a weak system these days, but it only becomes apparent how powerful an idea it is under stress, recession and conflict. Thats why China didn't go into recession. It was a few weeks more prepared than we were because it happened here first and so they shifted their whole economy inwards to the burgeoning consumer classes of its cities. The communist party couldn't afford to go into recession lest a competing hegemony gain ground.

So that is why China will not curb its emissions. They will not risk going into recession proper, not at this moment. Maybe things will change and democracy will collapse and the alternate hegemonies will be too far behind the communist party to cause them an issue. But not now.

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Sorry, in my humble opinion that argument won't float. They won't curb their growth because, as your argument goes, "they think we're cool!"

I didn't suggest that they would. I suggested that if our lifestyle changes, why would they not want our new lifestyle?

So that is why China will not curb its emissions. They will not risk going into recession proper, not at this moment. Maybe things will change and democracy will collapse and the alternate hegemonies will be too far behind the communist party to cause them an issue. But not now.

China will curb its emissions. It has no choice. It already has a myriad of environmental problems which are (literally) crippling it economically. If it continues to scale up, these problems will grow and grow...and ultimately it will be the one to suffer. Global warming is, frankly, the least of its problems right now.

The real question is when China will do this, not if.

Its not an overnight solution. The developed world can't just change its entire structure overnight, and wave a magic wand, and by 2011 have China becoming the cleanest of the clean....but we do have to give them a lead to follow, because otherwise it will take them longer to get where we all know they have to go.

Mahatma coat

thank you for answering one of my Questions DjpBarry

want to hazzard a guess at the other two??

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

3 Simple but relevant Questions

Did the Vikings Colonise Greenland?

No, htey didn't. They established a colony on Greenland, which is signficantly different.

This colony consisted of two settlements (three, if you consider Middle Settlement to be seperate from Eastern Settlement) which were relatively close to each other.

Is it possible to Colonise Greenland today?

Given that Greenland is currently populated to a significantly higher extent then the Norse ever managed, this seems like a pointless question, to be honest.

To answer it though...No, although it would be possible to establish colonies on Greenland...as proven by the existence of colonies on Greenland.

With Medieval Technology?

It would be (theoretically) possible to establish colonies on Greenland using Medieval technology.Skillsets might be a problem. Similarly the environmental damage caused by hundreds of years of colonies on the island would make it tougher...but there is no reason why it couldn't be done.

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

... greenhouse gasses are forcing climate change, this is very well supported by the evidence and the experts in the field...

The problem is that the evidence and the conclusions are also questioned by other "experts in the field".

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

The problem is that the evidence and the conclusions are also questioned by other "experts in the field".

To go back to the doctor analogy, if you visit 100 physicians and 99 of them tell you that you are at extreme risk of a heart attack, while the 100th recommends full Irish breakfasts three times a day for the rest of your life, whose advice are you going to follow?

bladespin

djpbarry wrote: »

To go back to the doctor analogy, if you visit 100 physicians and 99 of them tell you that you are at extreme risk of a heart attack, while the 100th recommends full Irish breakfasts three times a day for the rest of your life, whose advice are you going to follow?

Personally I'd be hoping the last guy was right and knew something about it, but then again if the other 99 were dental doctors I wouldn't put much weight on their advice either.

bonkey

djpbarry wrote: »

To go back to the doctor analogy, if you visit 100 physicians and 99 of them tell you that you are at extreme risk of a heart attack, while the 100th recommends full Irish breakfasts three times a day for the rest of your life, whose advice are you going to follow?

I see it more as a question of recognising that "absolute unanimity of opinion" and "overwhelming consensus" are not the same thing.

Currently, those supporting AGW say "there is consensus". Those opposing or skeptical say "not everyone agrees". They are, in effect, both saying the same thing, but with a different emphasis.

Sonderval

Guys, seriously, your arguing semantics here now. Half a dozen of one, six of the other.

As a scientist myself, its terribly disheartening to see these kind of threads.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

To go back to the doctor analogy, if you visit 100 physicians and 99 of them tell you that you are at extreme risk of a heart attack, while the 100th recommends full Irish breakfasts three times a day for the rest of your life, whose advice are you going to follow?

A consensus of 99% is overwhelming, the consensus for manmade climate change is not as clearcut.

I remember an incident a few years ago when trees were being killed by a mysterious disease, one of the symptoms was a white "froth" on the branches, when examined the "froth" was found to contain nematodes.

So an insectacide was rapidly developed to eliminate the nematodes, this was successful and then sprayed over the affected areas, the following year the trees were still dying but this time they just had the "froth" on the branches, it turns out that the nematodes were living off the froth and had nothing to do with the desease, the scientists then looked at what was causing the froth.

Scientists are human as well!

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

A consensus of 99% is overwhelming, the consensus for manmade climate change is not as clearcut.

I remember an incident a few years ago when trees were being killed by a mysterious disease, one of the symptoms was a white "froth" on the branches, when examined the "froth" was found to contain nematodes.

So an insectacide was rapidly developed to eliminate the nematodes, this was successful and then sprayed over the affected areas, the following year the trees were still dying but this time they just had the "froth" on the branches, it turns out that the nematodes were living off the froth and had nothing to do with the desease, the scientists then looked at what was causing the froth.

Scientists are human as well!

Yes they are, but with respect, this is not the same as Global warming theory. It's not a case of a few scientists looking at one aspect of a problem and missing everything else, It's thousands of scientists from all over the world, from different diciplines, looking at different datasets and analysing them independently and coming to the same conclusion.

In science, the double blind test is the benchmark for checking for cause and effect. in Climate science, there are triple and quintuple and duodecuple blind testing going on, where loads of independent datasets are compared and crossreferenced and combined to produce as accurate a picture of the worlds climate as current technology allows.

There is always the possibility of error, but the consensus is within the evidence, as well as amongst the scientists, that we are experiencing warming that is not explained by normal climate patterns.

What is not helpful is to look for outliers and claim that the fact that we can not fully explain every single outlier is proof that the majority of data collected is wrong. This is a denialist strategy which is saying in effect "we can not draw conclusions from the vast weight of evidence, but at the same time declaring that this little piece of information taken in isolation in fact proves that AGW isn't real"

What the genuine skeptics ought to be doing is looking at those outliers and trying to find explanations for those pieces of data and then seeing if they can advance scientific knowledge that way, maybe even discover new mechanisms that might be affecting wider climate shifts.

bonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

A consensus of 99% is overwhelming, the consensus for manmade climate change is not as clearcut.

Taken from here

In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).

So...82% isn't 90%, to be sure, but I'd still consider better then 4:1 ratio to be pretty overwhelming. Limiting the field to only climatologists, the figures rise to roughtly 39:1 (far better then the 10:1 that you would put as overwhelming).

Admittedly, science shouldn't be based (purely) on consensus, but surely at this point we should be beyond arguing whether or not same exists...and (at least) move on to discussing our opinions on whether or not they are correct.

Scientists are human as well!

Yes, they are.

We aren't in the habit, however, of disregarding just any scientific position on that basis. This line of reasoning only seems to be valid for certain fields...particularly those where there is a parallel non-scientific debate.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote: »

Taken from here

In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).

So...82% isn't 90%, to be sure, but I'd still consider better then 4:1 ratio to be pretty overwhelming. Limiting the field to only climatologists, the figures rise to roughtly 39:1 (far better then the 10:1 that you would put as overwhelming).

Admittedly, science shouldn't be based (purely) on consensus, but surely at this point we should be beyond arguing whether or not same exists...and (at least) move on to discussing our opinions on whether or not they are correct.


Yes, they are.

We aren't in the habit, however, of disregarding just any scientific position on that basis. This line of reasoning only seems to be valid for certain fields...particularly those where there is a parallel non-scientific debate.

Just to pre-empt the 'skeptics'. Someone is probably going to come along with the figure of 31000 'scientists' who don't believe in AGW and claim that 31k beats 3k.

Just to make it perfectly clear, that Oregon petition is a fraud. Anyone who calls himself a 'skeptic/sceptic' ought to have so many reasons to not trust that petition that it should never be quoted as supporting evidence by anyone claiming to be approaching this debate from a neutral or sceptical position.

http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

Yes they are, but with respect, this is not the same as Global warming theory. It's not a case of a few scientists looking at one aspect of a problem and missing everything else, It's thousands of scientists from all over the world, from different diciplines, looking at different datasets and analysing them independently and coming to the same conclusion.

You obviously disagree ,then, with Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

or Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists"

or Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: ..."And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree…"

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

You obviously disagree ,then, with Professor John Curistie, lead author , IPCC; “I’ve often heard it said in the past that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue,and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that that is simply not true”…”we have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science”

Note what is written...the Prof. Curistie disagrees that humans are causing a catastrophic change. Note also that he's one scientist making a claim that there are an unspecified "many" like him. How many is many? What, exactly, do they not agree with? Change, or catastrophic change?

or Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; This claim that the IPSS is the worlds top 1500 or 2500 scientists, you look at the bibliographies of the people and it simply isn’t true. There are quite a few non scientists"

I think you'll find that Akrasia didn't mention the IPCC. He mentioned the scientists doing the science. Its nothing short of disingenuous to tke a comment referring to the scientists, imply that what was meant was the IPCC, and that the IPCC is not solely made up of scientists.

or Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T: ..."And to build the number up to 2000 or 2500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on, anyone who ever came close to that, and none of them are asked to agree, and many of them disagree…"

Who did what, now?

I referenced a study from early 2009, cimplete with links, which gives detail on who was surveyed, by whom, what was asked, and what the response was. In case you haven't read the link, here it is again.

I've no idea who Professor Lindzen is referring to, but he seems to be referring to something completely different. I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that he was referring to some position taken by the IPCC, which is not the only measure by which people have arrived at the position that there is a consensus.

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

Note what is written...the Prof. Curistie disagrees that humans are causing a catastrophic change. Note also that he's one scientist making a claim that there are an unspecified "many" like him. How many is many? What, exactly, do they not agree with? Change, or catastrophic change?

I see.

The point I was attempting to highlight is that time and time again we hear that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is man made. Even if that were true, (which is denied), there are still significant numbers of serious scientists who don't agree.

I have no interest in trying to answer your rhetorical questions. Sorry.

bonkey wrote: »

I think you'll find that Akrasia didn't mention the IPCC. He mentioned the scientists doing the science. Its nothing short of disingenuous to tke a comment referring to the scientists, imply that what was meant was the IPCC, and that the IPCC is not solely made up of scientists.


.

While I am not a spokesman for Prof Christie, you seem to have appointed yourself as spokesman for Akrasia, and have decided to translate what he said. I am really not getting into silly arguments where you misinterpret what I say. If you have read an implication into what i have said, than thats whats it is, you reading an implication into something I have said which I didn't mean.

bonkey wrote: »

I've no idea who Professor Lindzen is referring to, but he seems to be referring to something completely different. I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that he was referring to some position taken by the IPCC, which is not the only measure by which people have arrived at the position that there is a consensus.

You are free to guess, and lets hope your guess is correct!

john12

|in the bible it said the word is going to end by fire and storms is this climate change.

Akrasia

auerillo wrote: »

While I am not a spokesman for Prof Christie, you seem to have appointed yourself as spokesman for Akrasia, and have decided to translate what he said. I am really not getting into silly arguments where you misinterpret what I say. If you have read an implication into what i have said, than thats whats it is, you reading an implication into something I have said which I didn't mean.

When I said thousands of scientists, I was referring to the people out there on the ground collecting data, measuring temperatures, cataloguing the changes to glaciers and animal migrations, analysing tree ring data, ice cores, geologists, people collecting co2 readings etc.
The IPCC referenced 6000 peer reviewed publications in its last report, these are authored by scientists actively working in the field. This is the primary evidence for Global Warming. The IPCC is merely a review agency, their reports are reviews of the existing evidence. The vast majority of the peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject accepts that global warming is real, the vast majority of the physical evidence supports the theory of AGW.

There is constant debate about the specifics of the theory within each field of study and there is plenty of uncertainty about many of the details, but the overall picture is clear, that AGW is real and if we don't reduce emissions, the probability is very high that we will suffer severe consequences.

Akrasia

bonkey wrote: »

I've no idea who Professor Lindzen is referring to, but he seems to be referring to something completely different. I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that he was referring to some position taken by the IPCC, which is not the only measure by which people have arrived at the position that there is a consensus.

B Prof Lindzen was on the BBC debating climate change last night and I have to say, he came across very poorly. he appeared dismissive and contrarian.

It is worth noting that Prof Lindzen is associated with think tanks like the George C Marshall institute, a group funded heavily by Exxon mobil that is clearly just an extention of their PR department.
Prof Lindsen also hires himself out as a 'Consultant' to the likes of Shell and Exxon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

Turtwig

Akrasia wrote: »

B Prof Lindzen was on the BBC debating climate change last night and I have to say, he came across very poorly. he appeared dismissive and contrarian.

It is worth noting that Prof Lindzen is associated with think tanks like the George C Marshall institute, a group funded heavily by Exxon mobil that is clearly just an extention of their PR department.
Prof Lindsen also hires himself out as a 'Consultant' to the likes of Shell and Exxon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute

He also recently debated Mark Maslin on the subject on Timesonline. Prof Linzen came across as very dismissive too.

bonkey

auerillo wrote: »

The point I was attempting to highlight is that time and time again we hear that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is man made. Even if that were true, (which is denied), there are still significant numbers of serious scientists who don't agree.

To which, you supply a hand-picked selection of quotes, from a tiny number of individuals, who make claims which may or may not be relevant, and which themselves lack quantification.

If you're trying to establish taht there is a sizeable body of dissenters, who's dissent is with the underlying science, then I would submit that you need a better set of quotes.

I have no interest in trying to answer your rhetorical questions. Sorry.

The questions highlight that its not clear at all what it is that is being disagreed with, nor by how many.

It is, of course, your perogative to choose not to clarify the detail behind the quotes that you've been repeating time and time again. If you're happy to base your argument on unclear comments, and are not interested in showing that there is reason to interpret them the way you feel they shoudl be....far be it from me to stop you undermining your own argument.

While I am not a spokesman for Prof Christie, you seem to have appointed yourself as spokesman for Akrasia, and have decided to translate what he said.

Akrasia didn't mention the IPCC. You responded with a quote which explicitly refers to the IPCC, and which seems to do little more then clarify that it is not entirely comprised of scientists.

Again, its your choice not to bolster your arguments, to show why they are relevant to the discussion at hand.

I am really not getting into silly arguments where you misinterpret what I say.

I pointed out how the comment you supplied is not something that Akrasia's stated claims (which you also supplied) is necessarily in disagreement with...which is what you claimed.

If I'm misinterpreting your position, then why not clarify how you see the two as being incompatible positions?

You are free to guess, and lets hope your guess is correct!

I was showing that his comment is without proper context. Again, if you'd prefer to not supply the context to show that your argument is valid, that's your choice.

Mozart1986

bonkey wrote: »

We aren't in the habit, however, of disregarding just any scientific position on that basis. This line of reasoning only seems to be valid for certain fields...particularly those where there is a parallel non-scientific debate.

[...]

I've no idea who Professor Lindzen is referring to, but he seems to be referring to something completely different. I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that he was referring to some position taken by the IPCC, which is not the only measure by which people have arrived at the position that there is a consensus.

Science has nothing to do with consensus. You think to much of these polls. Science has everything to do with empirically verifiable assertions. In the M.I.T forum on 'climategate' that was posted here a few days ago (or maybe on the 'climategate' thread) Ronald G. Prinn [http://web.mit.edu/rprinn/ (my link worked:D) was a very reasonable proponent of AGW. He made it very clear that he, after initial scepticism ten years ago, had converted to the view that carbon dioxide and other green-house gases were the cause of global warming. He also comfirmed some of the assertions made in the documentary we are discussing. Carbon dioxide is a relatively minor green-house gas for instance. That doesn't mean that this minor green-house gas can't push the climate out of equilibrium in some way though. Some "sceptics" here misrepresented Prinn's view to twist the argument in their favour. That only serves to convolute the discussion and to discredit the sceptical position. There are many proponents that discredit their position also. But this is my main point, and its clear if you'll think about it.

Prinn said that the main reason for the consensus among many climatologists and scientists is to do with risk. If they are wrong then all is well and good. But if the science is correct then we don't have another planet to fall back on should we screw this one up. But the actual science is extremely complex and it is still a very credible position to dispute the magnitude of AGW. Some might say that the earth is a big planet and she can look after herself. But then the argument is: "would you drive around a bend at 90mps or 20mps if you can't see clearly ahead of you?"

And then becomes the issue of peoples sovereignty and the fact that only local government can properly utilise it's resources and look after its population. I don't mean "local", as in county councils, I just mean a representative government that is connected in an actual dialogue with its constituents. Governments are losing that quality and AGW is being used to get rid of it. Thats the crux of the issue. People don't want to accept the judgement of others, they want to see for themselves. If you believe that the discourse is too technical and complex for these people you still have to produce the data to give them that opportunity. Research funded publically should be open to the public.

Watch the video. You'll find it very easilly but I don't know how to do links on the thing.

Your gut feeling about Lindzen is totally wrong. He was discussing the IPCC process and saying that they put people's names on the list to bolster its credibility and to bring them into the process. They don't necessarily ask them and they also bring in people from many backgrounds and expertise outside academia. The latter is actually quite reasonable. There are many aspects to the issues, social and infrastructural issues in the developing world for instance, that might need other forms of expertise to understand. But the quote is transparent and in context.

I could write an essay, but safe to say, the consensus is not relevant. For society to be moral and rational there must be a universal discourse. If people then put their faith in institutions then fine. But most people can't force some people to have faith in those institutions. That is not morally acceptable.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

I have no interest in trying to answer your rhetorical questions.

It seems you have little interest in answering any questions.

This is not a blog where you can simply post your views and then walk away unchallenged, it’s a discussion forum. If you’re not prepared to discuss what you post and engage with others, then kindly refrain from posting.

djpbarry

john12 wrote: »

|in the bible it said the word is going to end by fire and storms is this climate change.

Wrong forum john12 – I suggest you try this one.

auerillo

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

Of course thats true, and the reason why when someone makes the claim that thousands of scientists agree that global warming is man made, it's not really an argument either way. Since many other scientists think there is good evidence to question that, too, it seems a hollow point.

bonkey

Mozart1986 wrote: »

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

Indirectly it does.

The absolute best that science can offer us is when the experts in the particular field agree that what they have is currently the best they can offer us....that it is something they can say is good science.

You think to much of these polls.

if people weren't constantly arguing that there were swathes of respectable scientists who disagree with the science, none of this would be necessary.

While there are such people, I can only ask why it is that you're not telling them the same thing...that the numbers who dissent are meaningless. As Einstein said...one would suffice, were he correct.

Your gut feeling about Lindzen is totally wrong. He was discussing the IPCC process and saying that they put people's names on the list to bolster its credibility and to bring them into the process.

My gut feeling about Lindzen was that he was referring to something related to the IPCC...and not to the study that I had mentioned, or the groups of scientists that Akrasia was referring to.

In that respect, what you're saying is that my gut feeling was totally correct.

I could write an essay, but safe to say, the consensus is not relevant.

For acceptance of science, it is absolutely relevant. For correctness of science...again, I'll defer to the patent clerk. One would suffice.

auerillo

bonkey wrote: »

Indirectly it does.

We'll have to disagree. Gallilleo was right, and he was one scientist against the whole consensus of scientists of his day.

Sure, we may think that a whole bunch of scientists might be right, but is this case there are two different bunches of scientists, one lot saying they are right and know the truth, and another lot saying they are no so sure.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

We'll have to disagree. Gallilleo was right, and he was one scientist against the whole consensus of scientists of his day.

Sure, we may think that a whole bunch of scientists might be right, but is this case there are two different bunches of scientists, one lot saying they are right and know the truth, and another lot saying they are no so sure.

Em Galileo invented the scientific method before then it was assumed that everything could be understood via logical reasoning and deduction.
Galileo gave rise to empiricism.

The issue with the debate on AGW is whether those opposed (or for) have vested interests. The consensus among the scientific community is that AGW is most plausible theory at the moment and that the majority evidence supports it. It is up to the "skeptics" to show evidence that refutes the theory of AGW via good science, not by politics or conspiracy theories.
As citizens we have no choice but to either accept the consensus, or disprove it in the peer reviewed process. (As many qualified scientists are trying to do).
If we apply the logic that all scientists have to agree on everything then we'd be in really sticky water.

• Many scientists deny the theory of evolution.
• Many scientists deny HIV causes aids.
• Many scientists claim Mobile Phones cause cancer.
• Many scientists claim vaccines cause autism.

The thing to watch though is how many of these "deniers" are denying their own respective field.

Mozart1986

bonkey wrote: »

While there are such people, I can only ask why it is that you're not telling them the same thing...that the numbers who dissent are meaningless. As Einstein said...one would suffice, were he correct.

Are you accusing me of being partial? Thats ridiculous, you mustn't have read my post at all. I've been criticising "sceptics" throughout and I make note everytime I've seen them step outside of reason and humility. I actually haven't heard many people use the argument that there actually are of "swathes" of scientists that dispute AGW. If I had I'd have commented on it, or maybe I'd have been too lazy. I'd definitely have taken note of who said and read the rest of their assertions with more scepticism. Often I do comment though. Do you ever criticise the bad arguments for AGW? I can't remember a single occasion and I've read a lot of your comments in the last few days.

To clarify, the credible argument against the consensus is not that there are lots of scientists in some alternative consensus that disagree with the main consensus. Thats just stupid. The credible argument is that the consensus is irrelevant as it is unscientific. As you said, the poll shows that 18% of scientists don't believe in AGW, or are "sceptical" After all, thats a scientists duty. Now, the methods in climatologists are dubious. A geologist may contend that the use of computer models is unscientific. If the peer review process is dominated, within climatology, by people who trust implicitly in the outputs of computer models then that can reasonably be considered as a mediator between reality and the scientific field that is artificial. That is a credible position, even if most scientists don't hold it. So the 97% poll is not a good argument if the consensus is based on implicitly relying upon the methods that produce the results, which are considered questionable by other fields of science.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

Em Galileo invented the scientific method before then it was assumed that everything could be understood via logical reasoning and deduction.
Galileo gave rise to empiricism.

The issue with the debate on AGW is whether those opposed (or for) have vested interests. The consensus among the scientific community is that AGW is most plausible theory at the moment and that the majority evidence supports it. It is up to the "skeptics" to show evidence that refutes the theory of AGW via good science, not by politics or conspiracy theories.
As citizens we have no choice but to either accept the consensus, or disprove it in the peer reviewed process. (As many qualified scientists are trying to do).
If we apply the logic that all scientists have to agree on everything then we'd be in really sticky water.

• Many scientists deny the theory of evolution.
• Many scientists deny HIV causes aids.
• Many scientists claim Mobile Phones cause cancer.
• Many scientists claim vaccines cause autism.

The thing to watch though is how many of these "deniers" are denying their own respective field.

I have to say I find it unusual that many "scientists", who are qualified and have an interest in the topic have, for example, denied that HIV causes AIDS. Or that vaccines cause autism.

In any case, it's not really relevant here to the fact that many scientists, who are highly qualified and who are highly thought of, question the assertion, based on the evidence they have seen, that global warming is caused by mankind.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I have to say I find it unusual that many "scientists", who are qualified and have an interest in the topic have, for example, denied that HIV causes AIDS. Or that vaccines cause autism.

In any case, it's not really relevant here to the fact that many scientists, who are highly qualified and who are highly thought of, question the assertion, based on the evidence they have seen, that global warming is caused by mankind.

Oh but it wholly relevant the pattern is almost identical.
Scientists against vaccines.
Scientists against evolution.
Scientists against HIV causing AIDs.

Are all highly qualified and well thought of by some people
Personally, I think they're crackpots.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

Oh but it wholly relevant the pattern is almost identical.
Scientists against vaccines.
Scientists against evolution.
Scientists against HIV causing AIDs.

Are all highly qualified and well thought of by some people
Personally, I think they're crackpots.

Great. What it's got to do with a thread called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" seems uncertain, but thanks for sharing your exciting views on unnamed scientists who you think are crackpots.

djpbarry

auerillo wrote: »

What it's got to do with a thread called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" seems uncertain, but thanks for sharing your exciting views on unnamed scientists...

The words "pot" and "kettle" spring to mind.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

Great. What it's got to do with a thread called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" seems uncertain, but thanks for sharing your exciting views on unnamed scientists who you think are crackpots.

The pattern used by people pushing an anti scientific agenda is nearly always the same.
So it's every bit relevant.

Firstly though, you wanted names.
Anti Vax - Andrew Wakefield
Anti Evolution - Michael J Behe
Anti HIV - Peter_Duesberg
All of the above folks are crackpots in my view.

Now the pattern.
Publish a paper in a lesser known far from reputable Journal. Usually, an online one that allows anything to be published for the right fee.
Later publish a literary review in a more prestigious journal referencing lesser known paper.
Publicise the sh1t out of said paper in the media trying to make is sound like there is a genuine debate and Big Science is actively quashing it.
Even when said paper has been actively debunked by subsequent reputable journal papers, continue referencing it and publicising the sh1t out it in an attempt to exaggerate the debate and spread confusion among the general population.

I write this as someone who was almost whisked into the anti evolution movement.
Don't get me wrong there are genuine skeptics who are actively following the rules and trying to refute scientific theories the proper way. Others are just using it as some sort of anti science agenda.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

The pattern used by people pushing an anti scientific agenda is nearly always the same.
So it's every bit relevant.

Firstly though, you wanted names.
Anti Vax - Andrew Wakefield
Anti Evolution - Michael J Behe
Anti HIV - Peter_Duesberg
All of the above folks are crackpots in my view.

Now the pattern.
Publish a paper in a lesser known far from reputable Journal. Usually, an online one that allows anything to be published for the right fee.
Later publish a literary review in a more prestigious journal referencing lesser known paper.
Publicise the sh1t out of said paper in the media trying to make is sound like there is a genuine debate and Big Science is actively quashing it.
Even when said paper has been actively debunked by subsequent reputable journal papers, continue referencing it and publicising the sh1t out it in an attempt to exaggerate the debate and spread confusion among the general population.

I write this as someone who was almost whisked into the anti evolution movement.
Don't get me wrong there are genuine skeptics who are actively following the rules and trying to refute scientific theories the proper way. Others are just using it as some sort of anti science agenda.

I recognise something in what you say. I remember Jean Beanaviste (not spelled correctly) tricked Nature to publish what he claimed were his results for water memory as a reason why homoeopathy works. When his results were peer reviewed ( after the publication) they were found to be bogus, and non repeatable. But the claim lives on that water has a memory.

While there may be those who look to use this as part of some sort of anti-science aganda, the people I quote earlier are all respected scientists who have questions about the science behind the claims that global warming is man made. Some are even on the IPCC, and I think its foolhardy to dismiss such people as "anti science".

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I recognise something in what you say. I remember Jean Beanaviste (not spelled correctly) tricked Nature to publish what he claimed were his results for water memory as a reason why homoeopathy works. When his results were peer reviewed ( after the publication) they were found to be bogus, and non repeatable. But the claim lives on that water has a memory.

While there may be those who look to use this as part of some sort of anti-science aganda, the people I quote earlier are all respected scientists who have questions about the science behind the claims that global warming is man made. Some are even on the IPCC, and I think its foolhardy to dismiss such people as "anti science".

I'm not disputing some of those people you mentioned (having only glanced through this thread). I'm just warning you of how often the Galileo reference and lack of consensus is falsely used.:)
If no scientist was questioning man-made global warming then I would be very worried indeed. However, we must go on what present day evidence we have and that is strong support for AGW, minimal for everything else. At the end of day the best science with the most evidence will eventually come to the fore. The problem is there is so much evidence at the moment supporting AGW we can't just ignore it and keep trying to pick holes in it to get an absolutely 100% correct theory, because by then it could be too late to do anything about something that we knew for years.

Akrasia

auerillo wrote: »

We'll have to disagree. Gallilleo was right, and he was one scientist against the whole consensus of scientists of his day.

Galilleo was right, he proved his theories with irrefutable evidence.

He didn't just go around shouting at all the other 'scientists/philosophers' and telling them that they're wrong and that they should just believe Him

If the sceptic scientists are right and the rest are wrong, all the sceptics need to do is prove it. With science, not propaganda

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

Galilleo was right, he proved his theories with irrefutable evidence.

He didn't just go around shouting at all the other 'scientists/philosophers' and telling them that they're wrong and that they should just believe Him

If the sceptic scientists are right and the rest are wrong, all the sceptics need to do is prove it. With science, not propaganda

I'm not sure if he shouted or not, but he did put forward the theory, based on the evidence he found, that the earth wasn't at the centre of the universe. That was against the "scientific" consensus of the day, and he was, eventually, proved right.

Whatever we all think about the evidence for global warming, we have to recognise that there is a significant body of scientific opinion which does not agree that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that man is responsible for the recent claims for global warming.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I'm not sure if he shouted or not, but he did put forward the theory, based on the evidence he found, that the earth wasn't at the centre of the universe. That was against the "scientific" consensus of the day, and he was, eventually, proved right.

Whatever we all think about the evidence for global warming, we have to recognise that there is a significant body of scientific opinion which does not agree that there is enough evidence to conclusively say that man is responsible for the recent claims for global warming.

You still kinda missed the point.

Before Galileo, there really was no such thing as empirical science.
The body you refer isn't really significant btw - all their alternative theories have little if any evidence to support them.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

You still kinda missed the point.

Before Galileo, there really was no such thing as empirical science.
The body you refer isn't really significant btw - all their alternative theories have little if any evidence to support them.

I wasn't aware that such eminent people as Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, and Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others, have been judged to be not really significant.

But I take your word for that. As a footnote, who is it that has decreed that they are not really significant?

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I wasn't aware that such eminent people as Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, and Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others, have been judged to be not really significant.

But I take your word for that. As a footnote, who is it that has decreed that they are not really significant?

What alternate theory are they proposing?
And how has it fared in the grander scheme of things?

Prominent scientist though they may be if the have little or no evidence to support what can only be regarded as hypothesis then we have no choice but to deem it insignificant.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

What alternate theory are they proposing?
And how has it fared in the grander scheme of things?

Prominent scientist though they may be if the have little or no evidence to support what can only be regarded as hypothesis then we have no choice but to deem it insignificant.

I'm still not sure who it it that has deemed Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others, to be be not really significant. Are you able to enlighten us as to who it is who has deemed them to be "not really significant" ?

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I'm still not sure who it it that has deemed Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others to be be not really significant. Are you able to enlighten us as to who it is who has deemed them to be "not really significant" ?

They have no evidence to support any alternative hypothesis. Whereas AGW has a wealth of evidence.
Nearly every alternative hypothesis that has thus far presented has been debunked.
Primary Solar Forcing.
Evaporative Cooling.
Cosmic Rays.
Natural Restoration.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

They have no evidence to support any alternative hypothesis. Whereas AGW has a wealth of evidence.
Nearly every alternative hypothesis that has thus far presented has been debunked.
Primary Solar Forcing.
Evaporative Cooling.
Cosmic Rays.
Natural Restoration.

I'm still not sure who it it that has deemed Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others, to be be not really significant. Are you able to enlighten us as to who it is who has deemed them to be "not really significant" ?

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I'm still not sure who it it that has deemed Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others, to be be not really significant. Are you able to enlighten us as to who it is who has deemed them to be "not really significant" ?

Themselves.
No evidence == no significance in science, end of.

You can disagree with a theory as much as you want but if you've got no solid grounds for an alternative the theory stays.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

Themselves.
No evidence == no significance in science, end of.

You can disagree with a theory as much as you want but if you've got no solid grounds for an alternative the theory stays.

auerillo wrote: »

I'm still not sure who it it that has deemed Professor John Christie, lead author , IPCC, Professor Paul Reiter, IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris; and Professor Richard Lindzen, IPCC & M.I.T, and others, to be be not really significant. Are you able to enlighten us as to who it is who has deemed them to be "not really significant" ?

I guess that's a "no" then.