Global Warming debate

[Snapper]

As I expected - the Hanson quote was lifted and used very much out of context. It actually comes from this - which, for those with an open mind and the ability to deal with the science - makes interesting reading.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070816_realdeal.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Actually I did read it. Along with your childish refrence to "Thatcher" previously and now this sudden hostility, it told me everything I needed to know.

The reference to Thatcher is factual. Monkton is a well-known Thatcherite and that colours his view.

There's no sudden hostility. I'm more than happy to give illustrations of the science and where it comes from until the cows come home. I'm also willing to source the evidence that backs it up. There's plenty of independent verification - you seem to forget (or deliberately ignore) that this is a global issue and that thousands of scientists around the world are working on both the raw data and the science - hence organisations like the IPCC. The science is well known, it has been for many years and it's regularly reviewed and updated - and the calculations changed if and when new evidence and data emerges - something else you seem to have missed when you read the GISS article. There has been no major revision of that data.

Meanwhile all you have done is try to cast aspersions. You've not provided anything of value to the debate.

 

[table38]

Meanwhile all you have done is try to cast aspersions. You've not provided anything of value to the debate.

Well, that's for other readers of this thread to decide for themselves.

Perhape they will also notice how you have avoided answering a few direct questions, and where your "evidence" comes from.

 

[districtline]

Well, that's for other readers of this thread to decide for themselves.

Perhape they will also notice how you have avoided answering a few direct questions, and where your "evidence" comes from.

Climate Change is real, end of. Further debate is not very constructive as simply distracts from the action that needs to be taken. It's not just NASA either, a UK based university has done extensive research into climate change and before anyone starts saying about hacked emails, the university were cleared of any misrepresenting of data. The people that deny climate change have no academic backing.

 

[Snapper]

Perhape they will also notice how you have avoided answering a few direct questions, and where your "evidence" comes from.

I've answered that question directly - many times. It comes from the scientists and the science. That's why I provide links to their work and the wider debate instead of just my own opinion. Trying to cast aspersions by putting the word evidence in quotation marks in no way invalidates the science - it's just a very poor attempt at trying to sow doubt on something you've been unable to challenge.

 

[table38]

Trying to cast aspersions by putting the word evidence in quotation marks in no way invalidates the science - it's just a very poor attempt at trying to sow doubt on something you've been unable to challenge.

What invalidates the "science" is the lack of independent review, and those who try to shut down the debate, something that only appears to happen in the "science" of climate change.

When you can provide some proper independent peer-reviewed evidence, I'll stop using the quotation marks.

 

[jon0844]

This thread is very soon going to become about a million pages, so I think it's time for me to say 'I'm out'.

I am quite disappointed to see people who are totally unwilling to listen to any other argument and keep saying the science is proven and it's all fact, then pretending to be interested in reading anything that questions it it, before dismissing it completely as, after all, the science is proven anyway. That's just arrogant and better placed on some biased blog than a forum that is meant to be about discussion.

History proves the climate will change all the time, whether we can influence it or not, so I'll just carry on trying to reduce my energy usage - while also avoiding all the hot air being put into the atmosphere from this thread.

 

[Snapper]

When you can provide some proper independent peer-reviewed evidence, I'll stop using the quotation marks.

The research you so blithely dismiss has been peer-reviewed. The overwhelming majority of the science is regularly peer reviewed. To try and suggest otherwise suggests either an ignorance of the processes around the climate change conclusions that the world agrees on or an unwillingness to accept the realities. And the world does broadly agree - hence some of the actions we're seeing from Governments. There will always be those who take a contrarian position but they haven't seriously challenged or disproved any of the science. Saying 'I don't believe it' or producing spurious arguments to try and cast doubt without proof isn't really much of a discussion.

What does matter is that those with influence take it seriously.

 

[districtline]

What invalidates the "science" is the lack of independent review, and those who try to shut down the debate, something that only appears to happen in the "science" of climate change.

When you can provide some proper independent peer-reviewed evidence, I'll stop using the quotation marks.

There is no debate to be had, climate change is real and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If you don't believe this then provide some sources with credible academic backing. People use to think the Earth was flat but science has shown it has not. Science has also shown that the climate is changing due to CO2.

 

[table38]

The research you so blithely dismiss has been peer-reviewed. The overwhelming majority of the science is regularly peer reviewed. To try and suggest otherwise suggests either an ignorance of the processes around the climate change conclusions that the world agrees on or an unwillingness to accept the realities. And the world does broadly agree - hence some of the actions we're seeing from Governments. There will always be those who take a contrarian position but they haven't seriously challenged or disproved any of the science. Saying 'I don't believe it' or producing spurious arguments to try and cast doubt without proof isn't really much of a discussion.

What does matter is that those with influence take it seriously.

You forgot that I said "independent".

Reviewing research within a closed shop of publicly funded organisations who have a vested interest in promoting climate change, is not science.

Extrapolating the consensus within the climate change lobby to imply that "everyone" agrees is also not science, and incidentally, many proper scientists are getting fairly annoyed with the way that the climate change industry behaves.

Suggesting that Governments also agree, when it is those very goverments who are funding the research, is also not entirely unexpected.

The sceptics don't need to prove they are right. It is the job of the people putting forward their theories to prove that they are right, and just repeating platitudes does not achieve that.

 

[Stewart]

The research you so blithely dismiss has been peer-reviewed. The overwhelming majority of the science is regularly peer reviewed. To try and suggest otherwise suggests either an ignorance of the processes around the climate change conclusions that the world agrees on or an unwillingness to accept the realities. And the world does broadly agree - hence some of the actions we're seeing from Governments. There will always be those who take a contrarian position but they haven't seriously challenged or disproved any of the science. Saying 'I don't believe it' or producing spurious arguments to try and cast doubt without proof isn't really much of a discussion.

What does matter is that those with influence take it seriously.

Does peer review guarantee that something is correct? :roll:

As for the "exonerations" of Jones, I suggest interested observers do not rely on other people's opinions of what Jones said (especially those of politicians and PR activists such as Neil Wallis), but read his emails for yourself.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

The source data is more damning than any interpretation into what the scientists have been getting up to. Lord Of The Flies and all that.

 

[Snapper]

More misinformation.

Does that link go to what it's claimed it does (the source)? No it goes to a climate change denial website.

I posted a link to the genuine article earlier. It's here.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2007/20070816_realdeal.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Extrapolating the consensus within the climate change lobby to imply that "everyone" agrees is also not science, and incidentally, many proper scientists are getting fairly annoyed with the way that the climate change industry behaves.

And which 'proper' scientists are the ones getting annoyed then? I notice you haven't named a single one, never mind 'many'..

The consensus goes far beyond the climate change lobby. It extends to nearly all the worlds major institutions, political and financial - barring some who rather obviously have a vested interest in denial.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Climate Change is real, end of. Further debate is not very constructive as simply distracts from the action that needs to be taken. It's not just NASA either, a UK based university has done extensive research into climate change and before anyone starts saying about hacked emails, the university were cleared of any misrepresenting of data. The people that deny climate change have no academic backing.

That's a pretty fair summation. Non of the mud that the denial camp have tried to fling has stuck outside the conservative newspapers and the internet. In the corridors of power (the ones that matter) the view is rather different.

 

[table38]

And which 'proper' scientists are the ones getting annoyed then? I notice you haven't named a single one, never mind 'many'..

Most of the ones I work with. I hope you don't mind if I don't name them on here.

And why the quotes? Isn't that:

Trying to cast aspersions by putting the word evidence in quotation marks in no way invalidates the science - it's just a very poor attempt at trying to sow doubt on something you've been unable to challenge.

Or is it OK when you do it?

The consensus goes far beyond the climate change lobby. It extends to nearly all the worlds major institutions, political and financial - barring some who rather obviously have a vested interest in denial.

How exactly could anyone have a vested interest in denial? What would they gain by this vested interest?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If the emails were as damning as Stewart would like to make out, then why have you had to link to a source that admits they have been "edited and annotated"?


---
- Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[table38]

Non of the mud that the denial camp have tried to fling has stuck outside the conservative newspapers and the internet. In the corridors of power (the ones that matter) the view is rather different.

So are you saying that the views of ordinary people are less important than "the ones that matter" in the corridors of power?

Not only a "Thaterite" comment, now another attack at "conservatives" ? It seems you are letting your political dogma cloud your judgement.

Not a credible argument in sight.

 

[jon0844]

To try and discredit someone because of their supposed political views is surely an admission that anyone could allow themselves to be biased - in which case, you'd have to question the 'indisputable' evidence on exactly the same basis.

Or perhaps only people with conservative views can be biased. Or maybe only those who think something else than what you do?

(Damn, I said I was going to drop out of this one!)

 

[Snapper]

Most of the ones I work with. I hope you don't mind if I don't name them on here.

Well, actually, yes. Because It's meaningless if you don't - it's just more innuendo. We don't know who they are, what their disciplines or qualifications or backgrounds are or where their interests lie.

How exactly could anyone have a vested interest in denial? What would they gain by this vested interest?

A very odd question for someone who professes to be interested in the debate. Those with a vested interest range from the energy industry (especially carbon producers) - like the oil and coal industry, Evengelical Christians and a few others who tend to be outside of anything and have a touching faith in all sort of other conspiracy theories to keep the global warming skepticism company.

The Guardian carried a list of a few good British examples. Seeing as some of you have been relying on Monkton as an 'authority' his entry is especially funny!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

This is also worth reading:

http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html

As for the scientists and who do and don't concour, this points out that "Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate
researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the
field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and
scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are
substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So are you saying that the views of ordinary people are less important than "the ones that matter" in the corridors of power?

Of course!

 

[table38]

all sort of other conspiracy theories to keep the global warming skepticism company.

Fantastic, I had a bet with someone you'd move onto conspiracy theories sooner or later. (I guess that's fantastic in both senses of the word )

 

[Snapper]

Personally I have no truck with conspiracy theories. However it is interesting to see that a significant number of the global warming deniers are attracted to them - even if it's not really that surprising. Neither group are really very good with real science or levels of evidence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, it seems that the only 'evidence' that we're being presented with by the deniers is the entertaining Lord Monkton's denial of climate change. So, let's take a (less then dry) closer look at the science and figures behind the man - and indeed - at the man himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

You might recognise the graph used by 'Stewart' in this thread earlier where he tried to suggest it showed that temperatures have dropped since 1998. Here it's being used by someone who actually bothered to read it and who can understand it. (at 5:43)...

Part two is equally interesting, especially as we see one of the main blocks of his arguments being undermined - by the scientist he's meant to be quoting and who he relies on for the bedrock of his premise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duxG4lyeSlc&feature=related

 

[table38]

Well, it seems that the only 'evidence' that we're being presented with by the deniers is the entertaining Lord Monkton's denial of climate change.

Not me, I'd never even heard of him until he was mentioned on here.

It's been fun, but I'm bored with you now. As I said, it's not for the deniers to provide the evidence, it's up to those proposing the theory to do that. That, and independent peer-review, is "real" science, the sort of science that I'm exposed to every day. I've got better things to do than waste my time repeating myself on here, and if one of us doesn't give up and go and do something more worthwhile, this could go on for another few days.

If that makes you think you have won the agrument, then I'm happy for you.

It's clear that you seem to think deniers are all part of some sort of horrible right-wing power industry evangelical conspiracy. I can't be bothered arguing with anyone that delusional.

And hey - I won my bet

 

[Snapper]

It's been fun, but I'm bored with you now. As I said, it's not for the deniers to provide the evidence, it's up to those proposing the theory to do that. That, and independent peer-review, is "real" science, the sort of science that I'm exposed to every day.

It's a mystery to me how you can in one breath say that it's the 'sort of science that I'm exposed to every day' and yet still claim that this independent peer reviewed research hasn't been proved to exist. Because of course, it does. And, it only takes a few minutes on the internet to find it:

www.realclimate.org

How on earth can someone who claims to be exposed to science every day not know these things?

 

[Stewart]

It's a mystery to me how you can in one breath say that it's the 'sort of science that I'm exposed to every day' and yet still claim that this independent peer reviewed research hasn't been proved to exist. Because of course, it does. And, it only takes a few minutes on the internet to find it:

www.realclimate.org

How on earth can someone who claims to be exposed to science every day not know these things?

www.climateaudit.org is more neutral and also allows critics their say. Unrealclimate censors views they do not like.

 

[Snapper]

www.climateaudit.org is more neutral and also allows critics their say. Unrealclimate censors views they do not like.

More whaffle that sheds no light at all on the issues. All the sites mentioned remove idiotic comment and attacks - therefore they moderate or 'censor' the comment (just as this and any other forum does). Nor is it true that realclimate.org doesn't allow critics their say. The only thing is that you'll have to be a pretty well informed critic to survive on there...

However, they do two thing that never happens with any of our denial friends. They actually discuss the science and they do it from an informed perspective - as many of them are actually climate scientists or scientists from other disciplines which are relevant to the debate. They also tackle the background of some of the more contentious issues and personalities.

I notice that there's been no attempt at an informed defense of or a rebuttal to the points made earlier about the fallacies broadcast by Monkton that were mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

[jon0844]

And hey - I won my bet

I don't win my bet until someone compares all of this with the Nazis.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I don't win my bet until someone compares all of this with the Nazis.

Godwins Law?

 

[jon0844]

Indeed. I am disappointed that it didn't happen and now I suspect this thread has got as hot as it can get and is now destined to be frozen for all eternity...

 

[Hydro]

I suspect this thread has got as hot as it can get and is now destined to be frozen for all eternity...

Must be all the hot air causing some thread climate change...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Must be all the hot air causing some thread climate change...

It is rather ironic that we're all pounding this argument out on our computers arguing that we should be cutting emissions...

 

[Snapper]

I don't win my bet until someone compares all of this with the Nazis.

As a fan of Godwin's Law I can assure you that it won't be me...

 

[exile]

I wish I could say come back in 50 years and we'll see who was right but I might no longer be in a position to enter into a debate by then!

 

[Greenback]

It may take a lot longer than 50 years...