UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?
I ridicule things that are inherently ridiculous. That seems a fair deal to me.Christopher Booker using examples of climate change to try to disprove climate change? You've got to admit that's a good one.
The GWPF report criticising the Royal Society for being biased - when the GWPF itself is unashamedly biased in its opposition to climate change? That's what Fred Pearce rightly called brazen hypocrisy.
My approach is simple. I look at both sides of the argument. I read reports in full, not just quoting selectively from extracts that look as if they might agree with me. I look at someone's credentials when deciding how much to trust them. Then I make my mind up.
Look at it this way. If you are ill, you go to a doctor. Someone with a medical degree. Someone who knows what they are talking about. You don't rely on the diagnosis of a bloke down the pub or a random blogger who believes that passive smoking or white asbestos isn't a risk to human health.
If Christopher Booker had something interesting to say, then I'd be prepared to listen. But all I have seen from him are "armchair expert" theories that show he does not understand the subject.
message 153:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 12:00PM)
(new)
"Look at it this way. If you are ill, you go to a doctor. Someone with a medical degree. Someone who knows what they are talking about. You don't rely on the diagnosis of a bloke down the pub or a random blogger who believes that passive smoking or white asbestos isn't a risk to human health."Thank you for reinforcing my point about professor Nurse.
You say:
"My approach is simple. I look at both sides of the argument. I read reports in full, not just quoting selectively from extracts that look as if they might agree with me. I look at someone's credentials when deciding how much to trust them. Then I make my mind up."
No. You then apply your usual bias. It is so all-pervading that you cannot see how wrong it is for a geneticist to pass himself off as a climate change expert.
We've done this one to death. Sir Paul Nurse is President of the Royal Society. As such, he speaks on behalf of the entire society, and science as a whole, on subjects where there is overwhelming scientific consensus.
If it was just Sir Paul Nurse talking about climate change then you would have a point. But it isn't, is it? It is hard to find a genuine scientist who doesn't believe in climate change or that man's activities are at least partly to blame.
Nurse is simply reporting what many others have said. That's his role.
But carry on insulting me ... it's what you usually do when you run out of arguments.
But that is exactly what Sir Paul Nurse is not doing. Many members of the Society have expressed great concern that he does not represent the views of them, as pointed out in the report you are so desperately trying to dismiss.
You are missing the point. Sir Paul Nurse is just one voice out of many who are talking about climate change. Whether he should be expressing those views or not as President of the Royal Society is a pretty moot question - a case of attacking the man and dodging the question.
No, not dodging the question at all. We are both agreed that the Earth's climate is changing. However, you believe that it is anthropogenic, I on the other hand am sceptical that we are warming the planet with CO2, as there is strong evidence that there is not a causal link between that and anthropogenic climate change. The evidence just does not stack up, as I'm sure you realise. Most climate scientists cannot explain why when CO2 rises, temperatures do not follow the same curve. In fact, their most hoped for theory, no pun intended, of deep ocean warming, has been blown out of the water by NASA. So why is that?I am also concerned that having looked more closely at the available data from the Peruvian sites that have been "adjusted" that they now show a temperature rise that is twice that of the released figures for World temperature rise. Why is this?
I'm sure if you look through your own posts Will you'll see that you have spent a great deal of time and effort attacking the man - Booker, many bloggers and columnists and a few respected scientists. I would go through your posts and list them, but frankly I cannot be bothered. You already know the truth and don't need me to rub it in.
So. Answer me the points I have made with supporting evidence. Convince me, if you can.
I blame Earth warming on mushy peas! There is far too much gas being released into the atmosphere. I have no scientific evidence to support my view, but there is nothing to suggest otherwise.
Graham wrote: "I blame Earth warming on mushy peas! There is far too much gas being released into the atmosphere. I have no scientific evidence to support my view, but there is nothing to suggest otherwise."Actually, I think it's the cumulative effect of hundreds of years of eatin' goober peas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goober_Peas
So long as you both remember that the debate out there in the world is conducted by professionals who have mortgages to pay.Christopher Brooker has to sell stories, other people in the debate have to get research funding or have to get their articles published in the appropriate publications.
As long as you're not looking for 'pure' science it's fine
GeoffYou keep on shifting the debate as I knock over your arguments one by one. Now you are dragging up questions that we have already dealt with.
Are you interested in the truth, or just trying to find something ... anything ... to find fault with the science of climate change?
Very well, here we go again...
Our climate is undeniably changing. People like Christopher Booker try to deny it, but the evidence is far too strong. And, no it doesn't matter whether 2014 was the hottest or the second hottest. That's just a smokescreen. A cheap shot.
The strong consensus of opinion is that man's activities are at least partly to blame. One reason for that is that the change in the climate has coincided with a massive increase in man's activities. In 1800 there were about a billion people on the earth. By 1927 we hit 2 billion. Between 1927 and 2011, the population of the earth has more than tripled to 7 billion. We are currently adding a billion new people every 12 years.
The sheer number of people on the planet would be a problem in itself. But add to that the fact that we are all consuming more raw resources, burning fossil fuels, producing CO2 and other gases, and deforesting large parts of the planet.
So an unprecedented warming of the planet happens at exactly the same time as an unprecedented increase in man's activities. Which is highly suspicious, to say the least. There is far more to the science than that, but that will do for starters.
We do not fully understand the relationship between man's activities and our climate. Our climate is a complicated thing, with many forces pushing and pulling against each other - wind, temperature, man's activities, other animals, solar activities, tides.
That means that it is difficult to predict what will happen next. It is a chaotic system. Climate also varies massively from one part of the globe to another.
Right now there is something happening which we can't yet explain. Our climate continues to change - sea levels are still rising, we are still experiencing extreme weather patterns - but the overall global temperatures are rising much slowly than they have been up to now.
This doesn't "prove" that climate change isn't happening. It doesn't "prove" that man's activities are not partly to blame. It is something that we do not yet understand. We are in uncharted territory with the climate that we currently have.
Deep ocean warming is not a "most hoped for theory". That's not how real science works. It is one area for investigation. Unlike the deniers, real scientists don't go looking for evidence to support a conclusion they have already reached.
Adjusting temperature readings? That's standard practice and has been for decades. The raw data can be misleading because it relies on manual data collection and the accuracy of the instruments. And, as the deniers love to point out, the warming effect of increased urbanisation.
BTW, isn't it funny that the deniers claim the heating effect of urbanisation when it suits them, but deny it when it doesn't suit their arguments? As in man-made climate change?
What do the Peruvian adjustments show? Take Peru out of the equation and all the other data readings show that the world is still warming. Look at the satellite data and we see that the world is still warming. Measure the sea temperatures and ... guess what? ... the world is still warming.
You said: "there is strong evidence that there is not a causal link between that and anthropogenic climate change."
Show me that strong evidence. You aren't going to find it in the blogs of Christopher Booker.
You ask for evidence of climate change? We've been here many times before. Start with the IPCC reports, then NASA, then ... frankly pick any reputable source and do your research from there.
Then read ALL of the reports, not just the bits that seem to support your arguments.
As for "attacking the man" - there simply is no comparison. One the one hand we have a handful of bloggers with next to no experience and a proven track record of championing silly theories. On the other hand, we have the consensus of the vast majority of the scientific community.
This attack on Sir Paul Nurse is especially pointless. The deniers would love to be able to find fault with climate change by tackling the credentials of the scientists working on it. But they simply can't do this, because every reputable scientist is saying more or less the same thing. So they have tried to fashion an attack on the President of the Royal Society because he is a geneticist.
Compare that to a man who disputes evolution and claims that passive smoking isn't harmful to human health.
We can argue this any which way and we still come to the same conclusions. The evidence points to man made climate change. The scientists researching this are far more credible than the tiny number of bloggers trying to pick holes in it. The oil industry, who have the most to lose, have stopped trying to dispute it.
The debate is almost over. Now we need to concentrate on working out what we are going to do about it.
message 162:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 23, 2015 02:17AM)
(new)
No evidence, no links. Come on Will, where's the meat? Just your usual rhetoric.Yes, I have read the IPCC report and I've also read the severe lack of peer reviewing. Very unimpressive. As for the summary...
Um ... there have been five main IPCC reports. Not one.And each report contains references to many other individual studies, each of which has been subject to peer review. The weight of evidence is overwhelming.
And on the other side ... nothing of note.
You're floundering. Time to give up.
I have genuinely tried to build a bridge between us to try and better understand your position (I appreciate that this is a one way street now). Unfortunately, as usual, you come back all full of vitriol and insults. I really should have known better.If I'm floundering, you drowned under your preconceptions some time ago. Yes I am going to give up trying... to understand your position as it is apparent that you are ill-equipped to put it forward.
Next Monday evening at 9.00pm BBC4 is screening a 75-minute programme called 'Climate Change by Numbers'.It looks to be an interesting approach to the problem of explaining the science of climate change.
Shall we have a truce until we've seen it?
No, not really BJ, a truce implies a battle. As far as I can see, no matter how hard I try, there is no will to look at the subject objectively from Will's viewpoint.If it anything like the one produced by the BBC that was fronted by Sir Paul Nurse, then really what is the point?
I will however try to watch it.
Oh yes, I've set it up. It is the 1.7 billion dollar fraud, isn't it?
GeoffCalm, calm, calm.
If you want to deal in insults, that's your choice. I'll stick to the facts and the evidence, as I have done all the way through this.
Facts without evidence are hearsay. They are therefore not facts, merely statements.
I've generally found that when someone say calm, it's usually because they themselves are agitated and therefore perceive others as agitated.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” (Michael Crichton, scientist and author, 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology)
Very eloquently put. Wish I was as competent with words as I am with IT.
Crichton's sentiment is nice enough but it doesn't really prove anything. For every maverick like Galileo and Darwin, there's a thousand Jenny McCarthys and Andrew Wakefields.
And his statement isn't close to being accurate. Let's start the list with gravity, DNA, evolution, relativity ... The entire scientific method is based on the concept of consensus. One scientist advances an hypothesis. It is tested by the scientific community. If it is reproducible and measurable and accepted by the scientific community then the hypothesis becomes confirmed.
It's a shame that Crichton died in 2008. I would have loved him to be alive today to see the latest evidence.
Don't forget the flat Earth, geocentricity, the four humours, miasmatic theory of disease, immovable continents and the stress theory of ulcers just for starters.All accepted scientific facts agreed by the consensus as right. The final one was accepted as true right up to the end of the 20th Century because anyone who disagreed was howled down as a quack. It was only when a rebel in Australia started treating patients with antibiotics that it became accepted.
Consensus is not only unscientific but also dangerous.
And we don't believe in a flat earth at the moment because ... ? Because the consensus changed in the face of new evidence.We used to believe in all sorts of silly notions - that blood-letting cured diseases, that sacrificing a sheep would appease the gods and bring a good harvest. All manner of nonsense.
And in each case we revised our theories when new evidence led to hypotheses which were then accepted by the scientific community.
Google "the scientific method". Or "peer review". Open any basic science text book. It is one of the most fundamental and basic principles. A theory only becomes confirmed when it has been reproduced and verified by independent analysis from the scientific community.
Come to think of it, weren't you complaining that the latest IPCC report hadn't been subject to enough peer review for your liking?
Consensus in the absence of any data certainly is dangerous. We don't simply accept something because large numbers of people say it. Instead we look for evidence, reproducible theories, credible sources and the consensus of the scientific community.
Consensus on the basis of peer review and evidence is at the heart of all science. All credible science, that is.
message 177:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 24, 2015 04:24PM)
(new)
Consensus in the absence of any data certainly is dangerous. Incorrect, again. Consensus in the absence of sufficient or incorrect data is dangerous.
Good attempt at obfuscation Will. Sorry it didn't wash.
Insults again? Your sentence "consensus in the absence of sufficient of incorrect data is dangerous" includes my sentence. The absence of any data is a subset of insufficient data."Nothing" is a subset of "not enough".
Surely you can see that? I know you are not a scientist, but this is simply basic logic.
But let's hold on to that thought. I think we can both agree that consensus in the absence of sufficient or inadequate data is dangerous. Consensus in the absence of any data is even more dangerous, yes?
So let's apply that principle to climate change. The arguments for man-made climate change are supported by a consensus within the scientific community based on a massive amount of data.
The arguments against man-made climate change are based on a consensus of armchair experts outside the scientific community based on very little data.
By your definition, you ought to believe in man-made climate change.
It's funny. You say that I am "incorrect again" and claim obfuscation. But throughout this whole debate you are the one continually getting things wrong, misquoting sources, not understanding basic science, and getting confused about things like the $1.2 trillion economic cost of climate change.
In many cases, all I need to do is look up the quotes that you give and repeat them back to you in full. Because where you quote selectively to support your argument, I look at the whole of a source - whether it supports my argument or not.
You say "incorrect again". You haven't yet proved me incorrect once. Yet you have been wrong time and time again. I have to admire your persistence. If I had been wrong so often in an argument I would have withdrawn from it long before now.
But feel free to resort to insults again.
message 179:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 25, 2015 02:24AM)
(new)
As someone who deals in logic for a living, that is absurd.The absence of data is completely different to insufficient or incorrect data.
I now begin to understand why you lack an inquisitive nature and are therefore incapable of questioning the information you have been fed.
I was not insulting you, you were obfuscating by trying to pass off no data as the same as inadequate or incorrect data. If you do not understand the difference then you should stay away from science.
I quote you: The arguments against man-made climate change are based on a consensus of armchair experts outside the scientific community based on very little data.
This is an absolute and complete lie as I have already demonstrated. If you had bothered to read any of the links I supplied instead of ignoring them, you would know this.
You say you have proved me wrong, yet you have provided no evidence just your interminable waffle. Your fiction appears very good.
Oh dear. Let's take it one step at a time. It is really quite simple."Insufficient evidence" means there is not enough evidence. This could mean that there is no evidence. Or it could mean that there is some evidence but it is inconclusive.
Insufficient = "not sufficient". And zero is clearly not sufficient.
So if the statement "insufficient evidence is dangerous" is true, then the statement "the absence of any evidence is dangerous" must also be true. Because insufficient includes zero.
Got it yet?
I have read every link you have sent. In many cases you linked to pro climate change articles but conveniently quoted only the bits that seem to support your argument. So I have replied quoting the full articles.
In some cases you have quoted numbers and facts that you clearly don't understand, like the $1.2 trillion economic cost of climate change. So I have put you straight.
The few anti climate change sources you have quoted - eg Christopher Booker's blogs - contain no credible facts to undermine man-made climate change. I have pointed out repeatedly where they are wrong.
But with phrases like "interminable waffle" we are back to insults again.
There is a serious debate to be had about climate change. There is much we don't yet understand. It is one of the most important problems facing us with potentially far-reaching consequences.
But we are not going to have that serious debate if you keep taking it the lowest level by resorting to insults.
message 181:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 25, 2015 04:52AM)
(new)
More bleating about being insulted, yet you are as abusive towards me, if you use your own measure, which I do not.If you spent more time debating and less time decrying we might get somewhere.
"bleating" ...You don't notice that you are doing it, do you?
Oh dear. More bleating, now about bleating.
And the winner of who is more abusive is.........Geoff.Shame, as a long time Lurker, very occasional poster and regular writing competition voter I liked this group for its politeness.
It's still polite, Pam.Even if I have to beat the fucking politeness into them, dammit.
Reasoned debate, please. Attacking personally is frikin boring.
And I dare anyone to accuse me of 'bleating'.
I'll show you abuse.
Pam wrote: "Thanks Patti."Pleasure. :)
Pam wrote: "Thanks Patti."At least it's contained in one thread :-)
message 192:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Apr 27, 2015 04:16AM)
(new)
What an interesting article from the Independent. Why should a legitimate inquiry into global surface temperature records be labelled 'This is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy'?Add into that the quote from Bob Watson that Lord Lawson did not understand "the current scientific and economic debate". I would suggest, as a former chancellor of the exchequer, Lord Lawson is in a better position that Bob Watson to understand the current economic debate.
Pretty trashy offering from the Indy.
Let's start with the obvious ...1. The inquiry is being funded by the well known climate-denying organisation "Global Warming Policy Foundation".
2. The inquiry has started with the presumption that there is a controversy to be investigated. In essence, they have made their minds up before they have even started. The terms of reference are highly biased.
3. The terms of reference rule out looking at satellite data. Why?
4. The panel is full of climate change deniers. Apart from the chair (who seems to have no background in climate change whatsoever) every single one of the panelists has published anti-climate change papers. Google any or all of them. No credible inquiry would include such an obvious bias.
In other words ... a biased investigation funded by a biased organisation and stuffed full of biased "experts" - and all to look at a "controversy" that only they think exists. It does not matter one iota whether 2014 was hotter than 2013 or whether 2015 will be hotter still.
It's gutter journalism for the gullible.
message 194:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Apr 27, 2015 10:04AM)
(new)
So let us look at the way the IPCC do it.1. Gathered information is funded by the IPCC, or governments and organisations that are climate change evangelists.
2. Information gathered presumes that global warming is a fact and that everything gathered will be correct and have no need to be scrutinised.
3. Terms of reference are selected to ensure that nothing appears that will rock the boat.
4. The panels are all stuffed with climate change crusaders. Chairs are often selected with no pre-existing climate change knowledge.
In other words, biased submissions funded by a biased organisation that depends upon global warming being anthopomorphic to exist. It is imperative that the climate change preachers state that global warming is man-made.
It's gutter promotion of poor science, badly, if peer-reviewed at all, sold to the gullible.
Well done! You've found one of the few anti-climate change pieces in the press recently. It's a shame that is says next to nothing about the science of climate change and is largely political. And most of its claims are wrong.Now post links to all the pro-climate change articles. You know, the ones with the science in. And the evidence. As you seem to like the Telegraph, take a look at these:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth...
You can keep on posting the occasional rogue article with no science in it. And I'll keep on posting links to the hundreds of articles with real science in them.
Read both sides of the argument and there is only one conclusion that a reasonable person can draw.
Will wrote: "Read both sides of the argument and there is only one conclusion that a reasonable person can draw."I have, and I have. That is that warming has stalled for 17 years, something that has not been contested. Also carbon levels in the atmosphere have continued to increase.
If global warming is indeed caused by increasing carbon levels, then why has it stalled? If the hypothesis was correct the one line on the graph should follow the other.
Unfortunately Will, like the industry you work in, your thinking is stuck on the tracks, incapable of being diverted until it slams into the buffers.
Well done with the link, Will. The first four articles are about a person, who believes his invisible friend will save us all. A better analogy for athropometric climate change I find hard to top.
message 199:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jun 19, 2015 04:00AM)
(new)
Add into that the list of 20 articles include no less that 12 that are related to politics not climate change, by your definition Will. A Further three are not directly related to climate change.Sloppy work that.
The link is to the climate change section of the Telegraph's website. It is not just the 20 stories on the first page, it is also a link to all the stories that the Telegraph has run.And if you scroll through and read them all you will find that the proportion of anti-climate change stories very low compared to the ones will real science in them that are talking about man-made climate change. Which is what you would expect as the climate change deniers have no evidence.
Naturally, you will find reasons to dismiss any that you don't agree with. Meanwhile in the real world...
He writes that the report, "for all its sharp—and in many cases justified—rejoinders to the official inquiries ... is likely to be ignored in some quarters for its brazen hypocrisy."
What you quoted:
"Andrew Montford's report for Lord Lawson's sceptic thinktank raises some valid criticisms but will most likely be ignored for its brazen hypocrisy"
You're even down to splitting hairs now.