Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25121 - 25140 of total 28298 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:07am PT
Is that not a correct "assumption" EDH and/or Larry?

that assumption is based on what?

the "trend line" that indicates flat temperature anomaly is incorrect, as you extend it into the past you get a result that is in disagreement with the data.

so what makes you think that pushing that trend line into the future will give you a better idea of what the trend actually is?

If your assumption is that a constant trend line is a correct description of the temperature anomaly over time, it is demonstrably incorrect, just extend it back to 1900 and you'll be off by a huge amount.

You want to try again, The Chief?
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Aug 14, 2014 - 10:57am PT
If your assumption is that a constant trend line is a correct description of the temperature anomaly over time, it is demonstrably incorrect, just extend it back to 1900 and you'll be off by a huge amount.

No, let's just keep it at where SAT data (1975ish) began EDH.
raymond phule

climber
Aug 14, 2014 - 11:44am PT

No, let's just keep it at where SAT data (1975ish) began EDH.

LOL, like that would change Ed's point.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
Hey, throw in the C02 at the current trend. What the hell..
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
even if you keep it at 1975, you're assumption of a constant temperature anomaly is incorrect...

why 1975? why are the satellite measurements significant?
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:22pm PT
Global Warming is The Final Fantasy.

Collectors Items Buying Guide!
Hurry and get your favorite Catastropharian action figures.

http://www.ebay.com/gds/Final-Fantasy-Collectors-Items-Buying-Guide-/10000000177628535/g.html
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
Hey EDh, why not. That is when 90% of the current 69 or so CC/Earth Systems/RCM models began.


Just saw this piece of masterful fear mongering from the author of the latest study...

"Glaciers are really shrinking rapidly now," he said. "I think it's fair to say most of it is man-made."
Ben Marzeion 2014
http://news.yahoo.com/study-blames-humans-most-melting-glaciers-180304285.html

He "thinks it's fair to say".

The new science. Thinking and Assuming in order to be fair.


Could only imagine if the POUS used that process in order to invade a country and commence all out war/combat operations there what the AGW Brigade here would be screaming.


Oh shet, wait a minute, didn't that happen recently???
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 14, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
Bruce,
Here's an interesting article in The Economist that supports what I wrote above regarding problems with modern "science." (Remember the quotation marks are to distinguish real science from the snake oil salesmen.)
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correcting-alarming-degree-it-not-trouble

Ed, I suppose you don't consider The Economist to be a reputable publication but I can assure you that most informed members of the public do (that's not to say they consider everything in The Economist that's ever been written to be gospel).

If the generally informed members of the public think there's a problem with science, then there is indeed a problem. Even if you're right and The Economist is wrong (which I don't believe for a second), there is a problem with public perception, and at the end of the day, that's what will govern what society does in response to so-called "global warming" (which morphed into "climate change," and which I suppose may even morph into global cooling at some point--I have no doubt our favorite hornswoggler can give at least five different reasons (perhaps contradictory, but so what?) why that would further prove that he and his fellow "scientists" have been right all along).
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 14, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
Ed, I suppose you don't consider The Economist to be a reputable publication ...


You are twisting what Ed said.


Here, take a look:

I don't think it [The Economist] says that... and if it does, it is quite incorrect.
    Ed


Hopefully you read the detailed article in The Economist more carefully than you read the simple sentence that Ed wrote.
raymond phule

climber
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:26pm PT

If the generally informed members of the public think there's a problem with science, then there is indeed a problem.

But do you believe that the informed members of the public think there is a (important) problem with science? Or do you for example think that rick, the chief and sketch are informed members of the public...?

While reading the comments sections and many of the articles on "skeptic" blogs like whatsupwiththat the last thing I think are that most of those people are informed. It is mostly cheer leading.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
RPhoooole,

Please do post up what you consider a viable "blog" that informs it's visitor with valid, unbiased and truthful information on this issue.

SO curious to see...
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
Hey EDh, why not. That is when 90% of the current 69 or so CC/Earth Systems/RCM models began.

ah, no, the models actually output values back to 1900 (at least).

but I'll post once I get home.

The "public" has no such concern, blahblah, as few of them imagine science being in their lives at all. To the extent that science is, usually it is medicine, and usually the dissatisfaction comes from the lack of scientific support for treatment (e.g. mammography, PSA tests, etc).

As for scientific fraud, what you know about it is entirely due to the fact that an independent check of the experiment, known as reproducibility, failed and in the effort to reconcile the different and independent experimental results the fraud was uncovered.

This generally happens in "high valued" science, generally health research related, and is due to the economic pressures from institutions on researchers to demonstrate success. The conflicting interests of those institutions on demonstrating success (financial success) and academic success (requiring high integrity research results) puts some naive (generally young) researchers in a bind.

Interestingly, the private sector response is to make research private and guarded, property which is not to be shared with the outside world. This may protect some "intellectual property" but it inhibits the natural checks that public research is subject to. Cold Fusion is an example, which Pons and Fleishman famously recused from the scientific community's scrutiny claiming the need to protect intellectual property. That bogus research continues, shrouded from view.

The Chief, rick, blahblah are all able to download the data from the climate science research supported by the USG and then to analyze. The same data the climate researchers use.

Proudly proclaiming your ignorance, it seems that you set yourselves up to be hornswoggled by anyone who can produce an "analysis" of the data... you cannot tell the difference, nor can you verify the results independently. You have an opinion of the results without having any information.

raymond phule

climber
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:37pm PT

Even if you're right and The Economist is wrong (which I don't believe for a second),

I missed the part about global warming in the economist article. Can you show it to me?

To me it seems like you make a little more sophisticated version of Rick's main argument.

1. There are some problems with science (science is not perfect).
2. You don't like the conclusions that climate science came up with.

So you draw the conclusion that climate science is wrong.

Rick doesn't even care about 1. He already know that everything he disagrees with is incorrect but you don't seem to do much better when you seems to draw the conclusions from some general problems from different areas of science to the area we are discussing.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 14, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
Your welcome Rick.

I don't have to rely on "intuition, luck, or willful distortion", Bruce
I simply have to read. Emerging from the rat trap noise of the CAGW narrative are a group of solar scientists from around the world that are beginning to untangle the mechanisms

Yes you do and no you can't. Simply reading dosn't cut it. You must understand and at the risk of being a broken record it is demonstrated that you don't. You do have to rely on your intuition , however because your intuition has no basis in experience and knowledge it is weak. Besides that you are so driven by emotional biases that you wouldn't recognize intuition if it kicked you in the nuts.

Unfortunately Intuition is your only tool, because deliberation of fact is unavailable to you. Its like this: You know how in sierra leone right now the medical services people are being run out of town and threatened because the citizens think they look like Martians and most of the Eboa patients seem to die in their care? That is due to a mix of hopelessly weak intuitive skill and outrageous bias toward voodoo and magic delusion.

We are not quite so prone because the bias influence is lower ( except for maybe Michelle Bachmann) and our depth of experience and knowledge with western medicine and sterilization technique provides the foundation for correct intuitive decision.

In both their case and ours almost none of us can form a decision of purely deliberation of fact because for both them and us we don't know enough to determine fact for ourselves. We would be incompetent to try. The only factual deliberation of any use is in establishing trust - do these tyvek suit wearing martians have a track record of public health service or not?

Answer 0f course is yes which combined with our higher quality intuitive capabilities and our ability to filter out irrational biases ( except Michelle bachmann) produces a decision that has a high probability of being considered best.

Anyway that is public health and Ebola. When it comes to climate change, you and Chuff are exactly the same as the guys in Sierra Leone who freak out at the sight of Martians and go running off to the Witch Doctor. They are as out of their depth in the decision making process as you and it shows in the quality of their judgement. The bizarre part is that you are not deepest darkest Africa, you are red state america. You have full exposure to what has a trusted track record and what does not, but like Mchelle Bachmann the only thing that you fly by is ideological bias.



Thanks Blah I'll have a look
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Aug 14, 2014 - 03:29pm PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Aug 14, 2014 - 01:32pm PT

ah, no, the models actually output values back to 1900 (at least).

The ones that do, well, with data they "filtered" to ensure accuracy to conform to the agenda.

Got it.

BITW Larry, why doesn't your graph below




Indicate this recently re-instated fact (that 1936 was the hottest year) from NOAA:



Oh, must be the "filtering". Right Larry.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 14, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
I missed the part about global warming in the economist article. Can you show it to me?

To me it seems like you make a little more sophisticated version of Rick's main argument.

1. There are some problems with science (science is not perfect).
2. You don't like the conclusions that climate science came up with.

So you draw the conclusion that climate science is wrong.

Rick doesn't even care about 1. He already know that everything he disagrees with is incorrect but you don't seem to do much better when you seems to draw the conclusions from some general problems from different areas of science to the area we are discussing.

The Economist article wasn't on global warming specifically, and I never said that it was. Rather, the point of it was that much of "science" doesn't survive scrutiny, and the theory of the warmists that "science" is self correcting doesn't seem to work very well in practice (as a general proposition).
Maybe the science will become settled in the long run, but as they say, in the long run we'll all be dead.
Meanwhile, the scientists would have the public fundamentally reorganize society according to their crackpot theories, all the while increasing public spending for "science," that is, for the "scientists."

Some of us are just suggesting that everyone take a few deep breaths (a little extra CO2 won't hurt you), calm down, and recognize that climate change "scientists" and their cohorts are hardly honest brokers in this game (think Al Gore and huge investment funds "investing" in industries not for their intrinsic value but for the value generated by government regulations, and the opportunities for corruption that presents).
As I've written before on this thread, I think almost everyone agrees that the introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause a very modest increase in temperatures that is generally linear with the amount of introduced CO2 and is manageable. But the theories of extreme positive feedbacks, while not really susceptible to disproof, don't seem to be playing out, and increased CO2 has at least some benefits (remember that high school biology class on photosynthesis).

And for this view I'm mercilessly attacked by Chiloe and "the gang." (I suppose I'm guilty of responding in kind to the ad hominems, I never claimed to be a saint.) I think that's fairly typical of the way "scientists" deal with anyone who dares to question their pronouncements, and is it any wonder that the public has grown a little tired of the whole affair is ready to move on to the next crisis?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 14, 2014 - 04:37pm PT
Rather, the point of it was that much of "science" doesn't survive scrutiny, and the theory of the warmists that "science" is self correcting doesn't seem to work very well in practice (as a general proposition).


The article is about "much of science doesn't survive scrutiny." But, you have thousands of scientists pouring over the climate data, trying to find what it means.

You are extrapolating an general statement about science to a very specific field--does your assumption hold up?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 14, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
You are extrapolating an general statement about science to a very specific field--does your assumption hold up?

I honestly don't know. Just try to follow this thread and you'll see how it goes round and round!
Consider the so-called "pause"--
has there been one? Was there one and it's now over? Was the apparent "pause" the result of sampling only a part of the planet, and there's been huge warming in the unsampled part? What role if any does the "magic ocean" play? This just from my unaided memory--there's a lot more to it than that.
All I can say is that at least in some cases the "scientists" seem to have constructed a house of cards.
(And yes, I do believe in science without quotation marks, but the tricky part is figuring out what part of it to believe. It's like going to the doctor--we all know that modern medicine can be extremely helpful and life-saving for lots of things, but it's worthless in others. Ask most middle-aged lifer climbers how successful doctors have been in treating standard climbing related overuse injuries. Most of us give up on actual doctors and just rely on whatever witchcraft is presently in vogue.)
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Aug 14, 2014 - 05:32pm PT
latest in crackpot conclusions:
"The Economist article wasn't on global warming specifically, and I never said that it was. Rather, the point of it was that much of "science" doesn't survive scrutiny,"

(which means it is self-correcting when it matters, and thus the "science" has indeed survived.)

and then your very next made up leap wrongly claims the article suggests
" and the theory of the warmists that "science" is self correcting doesn't seem to work very well in practice (as a general proposition)."

So you contradict yourself immediately. You are claiming that the broad findings of climate science, which are being investigated by many, should be lumped together with anecdotal studies of mostly little significance. Clinical trials of obscure drugs are not widely scrutinized by anyone except those who will profit.
Minor papers on psychology may not be corrected soon because not many researchers actually care about that particular study.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 14, 2014 - 05:47pm PT
Ask most middle-aged lifer climbers how successful doctors have been in treating standard climbing related overuse injuries. Most of us give up on actual doctors and just rely on whatever witchcraft is presently in vogue.

Ain't that the truth! But don't for a second think that the witchcraft offers any credible alternative, no matter what the crusty old beligerant contrarian farts say. If there is anything to learn from this thread is that age does not equal wisdom, more likely it equals arogant Dunning Krugger Syndrome.

But i get your drift about the falibility of science / medicine . i've seen the full spectrum from a cancer being diagnosed as depresion to the usual climbers elbow. The elbow was hilarios in retrospect. I went through the variety of prescribed treatments - cortisone being the only one of benefit, if for only a month - then due to a growing distrust of "the system" and its percieved failure to fix me pronto, I abandoned convention for voodoo under guidance and recommendation of various other malcontented crank gypo's ( climbers with fuked elbows) all leading no where despite all placebo potential.

then I suddenly realized stress had something to do with it. it then cleared up on its own, sans treatment.

Ever since then I'm making a killing as a elbow healer at all the local climbing gyms. Its the perfect swindle..... everything I say is plausible but impossible to prove either way and If they say it isn't working I tell them its all their fault for being stressed out.

BTW that economist article was interesting but I have no idea how anyone outside of the expert realm can conclude anything substantive from it in regard to trustability of the system. Refer to the description of "tacit knowledge" if you wonder what I mean. It clearly articulated the existence of a well supported and demonstra6ed system of self governance, not perfect and perhaps under new threats but still light years ahead of any other institutional ethical governance.

Hardly reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, particularly considering the alternative.
Messages 25121 - 25140 of total 28298 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews