The Great Global Warming Swindle

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.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

I guess that's a "no" then.

Ok,

If they are significant then?
Please show me how they are.
I don't want their credentials.
I want the alternative theory they're proposing and the analysis of it that has been done in the literature.

enfant terrible

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.

Have all the above been debunked?

I thought the general consensus was were not sure how everything interacts together.

Turtwig

enfant terrible wrote: »

Have all the above been debunked?

Evidence to support them just isn't really there anymore.

I thought the general consensus was were not sure how everything interacts together.

This is pretty much the same in every field of science, to paraphrase Dara O Brien; if it wasn't science would stop.

All scientists can do is develop models and see which model best fits ALL the available data.
At the current time AGW is the best theory that fits and explains all the data we have that is currently available. Such is nature of science that any new data that comes to light will test this theory and or test the validity of the alternatives.

Here's where we stand.
The sun is believed to have minimal impact on the climate. Though solar sensitivity is high in the Polar regions there is little to suggest it is the primary driver of Global Climate Change. That being said there are still contributions from the sun that are lesser understood.

Cloud cover, I think is a non issue anymore.
Cosmic Rays have experiments on going e.g the CLOUD experiment. Current consensus is that these rays have minimal influence.

Natural Restoration is pretty much understood and dead.
The ecosystems will at first dampen the effects of Global Warming, however, once a certain threshold has been passed it is highly likely that they will amplify it.

auerillo

Malty_T wrote: »

Ok,

If they are significant then?
Please show me how they are.
I don't want their credentials.
I want the alternative theory they're proposing and the analysis of it that has been done in the literature.

If its your judgement than no one can question a hypothesis unless they put forward an alternative theory, then that's your judgement. It seems an unusual position to take and I can't say I have ever met a scientist who agrees with that position.

Akrasia

auerillo wrote: »

If its your judgement than no one can question a hypothesis unless they put forward an alternative theory, then that's your judgement. It seems an unusual position to take and I can't say I have ever met a scientist who agrees with that position.

They need to provide the scientific basis for their disbelief in the prevailing theory. This science needs to stand up to peer review scrutiny.

That is how science works, They can't just say "I don't believe it, you haven't proven it sufficiently" without showing exactly where the flaws in the theories are and demonstrating that they are sufficient to merit discarding the theory on a whole.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

If its your judgement than no one can question a hypothesis unless they put forward an alternative theory, then that's your judgement. It seems an unusual position to take and I can't say I have ever met a scientist who agrees with that position.

Nor have I.

Science thrives on rational and reasoned skepticism, in fact I encourage it. However, all your skepticism in the world is ultimately meaningless if you can't propose an alternative that explains the data better than the current model does. No point in proposing an alternative if it only explains the inconsistencies in the current model : it still needs to explain what the original model explains aswell.

In science the theory lives or dies by the evidence supporting it.
Not by the amount of questions it leaves us with.

auerillo

Akrasia wrote: »

They need to provide the scientific basis for their disbelief in the prevailing theory. This science needs to stand up to peer review scrutiny.

That is how science works, They can't just say "I don't believe it, you haven't proven it sufficiently" without showing exactly where the flaws in the theories are and demonstrating that they are sufficient to merit discarding the theory on a whole.

Wow, I never knew that. Thanks!

How can anyone "peer review" the work of, for example, Prof Jones when he refused to give them the data on which his work is based, (and in so doing seems content to break the law), and later says he has lost it?

No good scientist would ever just say "I don't believe it" without evidence or based on their experience, just as no good scientist would take another scientists work as "proof" when he no longer has the evidence on which he is basing his theory.

The problem with this thread is that we've been through all this before, and evidence has been given from scientists of their scientific basis of their uncertainty that man is causing global warming. Well, its either this one or the climategate one. So one ends up having the same discussion with different people who haven't read the earlier parts where the evidence was given.

Turtwig

auerillo wrote: »

Wow, I never knew that. Thanks!

How can anyone "peer review" the work of, for example, Prof Jones when he refused to give them the data on which his work is based, (and in so doing seems content to break the law), and later says he has lost it?

Citation needed.
When did Jones submit research for peer review sans data?

No good scientist would ever just say "I don't believe it" without evidence or based on their experience, just as no good scientist would take another scientists work as "proof" when he no longer has the evidence on which he is basing his theory.

Funny thing is even if Prof Jones was fraudulent pr1ck and no better than Andrew Wakefield it wouldn't even dent AGW. Too much data from too many different sources (many independent of one another) all telling the same story.