Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6801 - 6820 of total 26688 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 17, 2013 - 11:09pm PT
Dyson is a pretty funny guy - he should be a comic;

Dyson: Of course. No doubt that warming is happening. I don’t think it is correct to say “global,” but certainly warming is happening. I have been to Greenland a year ago and saw it for myself. And that’s where the warming is most extreme. And it’s spectacular, no doubt about it. And glaciers are shrinking and so on.

But, there are all sorts of things that are not said, which decreases my feeling of alarm. First of all, the people in Greenland love it. They tell you it’s made their lives a lot easier. They hope it continues. I am not saying none of these consequences are happening. I am just questioning whether they are harmful.

It's hard to shake Hubris - it's hard work.

Humans can land sophisticated spacecraft on other planets, they can find planets like ours in nearby sections of our galaxy, but predict Earth's future climate based on what we are doing to the atmosphere - No! We can't do that!


Social climber
An Oil Field
May 18, 2013 - 12:22am PT
That spike during the Jurassic and Cretaceous is associated with an extreme hothouse event as Pangea broke up, along with a large period of volcanism. It is well documented in the fossil record, as well as the distribution of flora fossils around the world. This event is the classic CO2 forced greenhouse event, and careful examination of stomata density of leaves, as well as the global distribution of a high organic content shale (which sourced most of the middle eastern oilfields) has been interpreted to be a global anoxic event caused by ocean acidification.

There has been a lot of work put into the Jurrasic/Cretaceous source rocks, due to their massive economic significance. This event is a sort of benchmark event. The CO2 concentration is fairly well known, and paleoclimatologists like to compare this event with the progression of the current warming event, which is also CO2 forced.

Sorry. I have been doing a little reading on the topic. I work the late Devonian shales and am more familiar with those.

It is true that the Earth's climate is cyclic, but the forcing events, such as Milankovich Cycles, are not presently in a hot period, which begs the question of why the earth is warming.

The warming is going to be high in the arctic of the northern hemisphere, and that area is already showing a loss of summer ice that can't be ignored. The possibility of an ice free NW passage is of great economic importance, and it is becoming easier to navigate the passage. A 27 foot sailboat did it in a few months last year. Nobody can ignore the loss of summer ice pack. Try to tell an eskimo that they aren't experiencing warming.

The upside to all of this is that all but the youngest among us will be safely dead by the time things get severely out of hand.

Credit: BASE104

Trad climber
May 18, 2013 - 08:05am PT
Blah Blah I haven't had time to do much research on past drought levels but found this link that details the severe drought in the U.S.--the organization has only been in place 12 years but check out the science and I will get more research done--or provide some yourself if you like.


Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 18, 2013 - 09:20am PT
One of the most important components of "Science" is it's unbiased and very infinite philosophy of open mindedness towards the issue/theory at hand. Appears that many here on ST and throughout the Climate Change "Industry" have thrown this very important rational concept out the door, locked it behind them and thrown away the key. They have replaced it with an ideological platform of one way politics and dogma. Any form of independent thinking is the enemy. Anyone with a contrary opinion of the matter is deemed a heretic and complete idiot. The consensus prevails and anyone with an opposing view or opinion is to be immediately terminated and buried.

This new philosophy really and honestly does not come close to the definition of science that most of us were taught many decades ago. Thinking out of the consensus box is not allowed according to the modern "gotta save the world" club of Climate Science. Not one tiny bit. The likes of Leonardo Di Vinci would most certainly be one of the primary outcasts from this very bias and ideological industry called Climate Science.

Now, refute that.

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 18, 2013 - 09:45am PT
That is exactly what the "consensus" of the time titled Di VInci. Thus you proved my point and not yours.

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 18, 2013 - 09:48am PT
time to Man Up !

point by point refute the science of global warming

The Chief tried, failed, and disappeared

Rick Summer claims he can do it, but ,,,,,,waiting

and now knotts showes up, another new challenger!

how about it knotts?

will you finally be the denier to quit giving platitudes and personal opinions and get on with.....


challenge, prove the science behind all the studies WRONG

pick a couple studies by respected scientists, and prove the science wrong in the studies!
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 18, 2013 - 09:57am PT
This new philosophy really and honestly does not come close to the definition of science that most of us were taught many decades ago.

what new philosophy? Are you saying that within the professional sciences communities that new, opposing, unconventional, contrarian theories are now being actively suppressed? I don't think you are but you should make yourself clear. Is that what you are saying?

Isn't it more accurate to say that new, opposing, unconventional, and contrarian theories are being critiqued and tested by thier community peers and by and large are found to be less persuasive and provide less explanation than the current consensus science ? Do you have evidence that this is not the case?

Or are you suggesting that this "new philosophy" of asserting ideological political power by taking sides and suppressing the other is being practiced by us, the general public or other entities outside the science community?

In that case.... well, duh. Sure, happens all the time. Maybe even here in the hallowed halls of the stupor torpor. Do I think that is right or smart? Fuk no which is why I advocate letting science - in the absence of evidence of corruption so rife elsewhere - to do what they do best.

Or would you prefer that you, I, Rick Sumner or Donald Trump take on the task of deciding the science?

Are we more qualified to decide the public policy? Yes. Unfortunately we love that "new philosophy " stuff which makes for a bumpy road but if we start with the best science, maybe we'll also learn something about ethics.
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
May 18, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Denialists, answer these questions, please.

Has the CO2 levels risen since the start of the Industrial age?
according to science, it has gone up ~100 ppm.

Has man put trillions of tons of excess CO2 into the air from burning fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial age?
yes, this has been calculated.

Does the CO2 concentration in air act as a greenhouse gas?
science has proven that it does in the late 1800s.

Has there been a warming trend observed in the last 40 years?
The hockey stick graph indicates it has.

Is man responsible for the rising CO2 levels?

Where is the controversy?
Can you put 2 and 2 together and get 4?

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 18, 2013 - 10:59am PT
One of the most important components of "Science" is it's unbiased and very infinite philosophy of open mindedness towards the issue/theory at hand. Appears that many here on ST and throughout the Climate Change "Industry" have thrown this very important rational concept out the door, locked it behind them and thrown away the key.
- Knott

OK Knott, how does this statement of yours square with this:

The most ambitious survey on the causes of climate change - covering 11,994 peer-reviewed papers by 29,000 scientists over 20 years - has found that 97.1% agree climate change is caused by human activity, with dissenters representing a "vanishingly small proportion."

12,000 peer-reviewed papers, 29,000 scientists, and over 97% agreement on cause.

You demanded I refute your statement, and I have. So it's your turn.

Please, if you are able, tell us how open mindedness has been thrown out the door here, and how us SuperTopians have no key.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 18, 2013 - 12:23pm PT
I just googled " difference between intuition and predjudice" and came up with this, which i think is relevant here on a number of levels. I think it is important that intuition is considered important in steering investigation, but its abilities in determining any degree of judgement is inherently deficient.

Something else worth considering in the use of intuition in something as complex as climate science is If even the experts must be wary of its use, the inexpert may want to.....

Well, you decide:

Intuition and Prejudice

“Assessments are based, not on whether the decisions made are any good, but on whether they were made in accordance with what is deemed to be an appropriate process. We assume, not only that good procedure will give rise to good outcome, but also that the ability to articulate the procedure is the key to good outcomes.” -John Kay
It could be argued that one of the principle differences between a novice and an expert is the degree to which experts are able to explain the reasons for any judgement made and to supply these retrospectively. But this begs a question: if experts make intuitive judgements – which they often do - then how can we be sure that these are not simply preferences dressed up in the trappings of deft argumentation?

A standard reply would go something like this: if the justification for an intuitive judgement stands up to rigourous debate or close scrutiny then we have no alternative than to accept the justification as valid. If such valid judgements are performed repeatedly then we need no further proof of expertise. Novices, on the other hand, are less competent in teasing out or debating their reasoning process and their judgements tend to be more inconsistent. So, even if a novice makes the same choice as an expert, we cannot say that they have exercised judgement, since judgement - in order to be judgement - needs to be justifiable.

But is this not simply an intellectual sleight of hand that surreptitiously places the quality of the justification above the quality of the decision? And whilst we may accept that instantaneous decisions are justifiable post-hoc, this still doesn’t answer the question of how such decisions can be made without calling upon resources that require far more time-consuming and considered deliberation. In other words: what is actually going on when judgements are made in an intuitive instant?

Dylan Wiliam writes of experts having what he calls “scripts” that allow them to make rapid decisions and improvise within their domain of expertise. He cites the work of Chase and Simon and their studies comparing expert and novice chess players. Chase and Simon found that expert chess players were significantly more accurate at quickly memorizing the positions of chess pieces placed in positions of actual games whereas they were significantly worse at memorizing the positions of randomly arranged chess pieces:
“Chase and Simon suggest that the much better performance of experts with ‘real’ chessboards stems from an ability to ‘read’ a chessboard in terms of a series of standard configurations of pieces that they have learnt through their experience as chess players.”
Such expertise is the product of prolonged experience within a domain and cannot be acquired through shortcuts, formulae or crash-courses. Nonetheless we are all experts in the art of everyday life and the vast majority of the decisions we make are instantaneous and automatic. If pressed, we would have no difficulty in providing reasons for our having stopped at a red light. But can it be said that the background familiarity amassed by experts - us included - constitutes a form of criteria, or are criteria simply a means to externalize and make explicit what is essentially a tacit process that works in an entirely different way and therefore allows many decisions to be made intuitively rather than demanding deeper reflection?
"It is fairly clear that teachers acquire notions of ‘standards’ much more effectively when presented with actual samples of students’ work that exemplify the standards being promulgated than when given criterion-based descriptions of the standards. … I would like to suggest that the explanation of this phenomenon is that the grading of pieces of work with respect to a set of internal standards involves a far greater use of unconscious processing than has previously been acknowledged." -Dylan Wiliam
Psychologists, like Daniel Kahneman, distinguish between two kinds of decision making systems: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is roughly what we would think of as intuition. System 2 could be described as deliberative thinking:
“System 2 is the one who believes that it's making the decisions. But in reality, most of the time, System 1 is acting on its own, without your being aware of it. It's System 1 that decides whether you like a person, which thoughts or associations come to mind, and what you feel about something. All of this happens automatically. You can't help it, and yet you often base your decisions on it. […] System 2, on the other hand, is lazy and only becomes active when necessary. Slow, deliberate thinking is hard work. It consumes chemical resources in the brain, and people usually don't like that.” [my emphasis]
From the discussion so far it would seem that experts do not have sufficient time to formulate let alone deliberate over criteria in their intuitive judgements. This is not to say that they never pause to contemplate things more closely or even to reverse their initial judgements. They can and sometimes do. But what it does suggest is that criteria are not the primary tools of experts: experience is. By experience I mean the repertoire of exemplars that have been acquired through studying something closely – through comparing different instances and considering the relative merits of various examples, both good and bad. One nectarine alone would never be sufficient to furnish anyone with a clear idea of what constitutes a good nectarine. We need to experience a range of qualities of an experience in order to formulate an awareness of what might enhance it or detract from it, of whether the juice running down our chin is a sign of succulence or overripeness.

The point I’m making is that experts do not use criteria or deliberative thinking to form their initial judgements, instead they draw on experience and the more extensive this experience, the more well informed their judgements. However, an intuitive judgement, no matter how well informed, is not - strictly speaking - a judgement at all, but a pre-judgement; a pre-judice: an evaluation made without due consideration of the specific issues or circumstances at hand. It is a shortcut based on an unconscious repository of prior examples and is therefore limited to the known and familiar.

If the prevailing conditions in any situation that urgently demands judgement bear a close resemblance to previously encountered circumstances then it is obviously appropriate not to waste valuable time and energy logically weighing up the options.
“Intuitive intelligence is the ability to know directly, to perceive and appreciate whole or hidden patterns beyond (or faster than) logic.” -Tom Atlee (The Co-Intelligence Institute)
But where there is no urgency, and especially where decisions impact on other people – students for instance – it seems prudent to be wary of the tendency to cut cognitive corners. As the research of Daniel Kahneman, Philip Tetlock and others increasingly shows (although it is not impossible to find exceptions), even the judgements of experts can be far from reliable, especially when making predictions about intrinsically complex and unpredictable domains. In the arts (which are well known for their unpredictability), as in other creative fields, intuition is frequently revered as a unique and often indispensable route to problem solving and discovery. But in arts education, where the judgements of teachers are directed not just towards artworks but towards individuals, too great a reliance upon intuitive judgement or gut-feeling risks undermining the putative integrity of academic assessment. And there’s the rub: what works for the production of art may well be at odds with its evaluation.

Read more:

Ice climber
the ghost
May 18, 2013 - 02:57pm PT
Damn right I ignore anyone that keeps insisting 2 + 2 = 5
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 18, 2013 - 03:04pm PT
Credit: Ron Anderson

A friends place, in Palmer AK, today, 5/18..

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 18, 2013 - 03:20pm PT
My motorcycle

also just as relevant as Ron's friend's house to the overall increase in the global warming cycle

photo not found
Missing photo ID#303581

notice no snow on the ground, this is proof the earth is not getting colder......
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 18, 2013 - 07:25pm PT
Awesome - It took some real roll up your sleeves type google sluething but I finally found a real case of Fraudulent science in the climate sciences. Strange that you skeptics don't parade this around a bit more:

Journal for Geoclimatic Studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Journal for Geoclimatic Studies is the name given to a nonexistent journal which published a fabricated global warming study in November 2007 entitled, "Carbon dioxide production by benthic bacteria: the death of manmade global warming theory?" The published study identified the Journal for Geoclimatic Studies as an official publication of Okinawa University's Institute for Geoclimatic Studies (The Institute for Geoclimatic Studies is also fraudulent and does not exist). The spurious study, ostensibly authored by Daniel Klein and Mandeep J. Gupta of the University of Arizona's Department of Climatology, and Philip Cooper and Arne FR Jansson at the University of Gothenburg's Department of Atmospheric Physics, claimed that global warming was not human caused, but the work of carbon-dioxide emitting bacteria based on the ocean floor.

The report was circulated by a number of global warming skeptics before discovery that the study authors and university departments identified in the publication did not exist. The website where the study was published was taken down once the deception was revealed, and its ownership was traced to David Thorpe, a science journalist and web designer based in the United Kingdom.

The true author of the article is purportedly a man identifying himself as Mark Cox, who has claimed the hoax was designed to expose the gullibility and scientific illiteracy of global warming skeptics.

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 18, 2013 - 08:39pm PT
You demanded I refute your statement, and I have.

You refuted nothing. You simply posted some numbers. Typical.

Gym climber
May 18, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
Bruce--gloat all you want about a hoax that apparently didn't fool anyone who has posted on this thread.

But I think even the real scientists who post here (and we're all thankful for their contributions I'm sure) would agree that we should be skeptics when evaluating any claim--that's the best mindset to have in science and in life. Granted we don't always have the time or perhaps the ability to form truly independent views on every subject, but it's kind of creepy that so many people on this thread are against skepticism per se.

Mountainlion--saw your posts but didn't have time to review much--just want to acknowledge your thoughtful replies. The theory that people are reporting more tornadoes (rather than their truly being more) reminds me of the "heat island effect" (not a perfect analogy)--I had initially thought that the heat island effect was an important component of the exaggeration of global warming, but I think the real scientists are all over that one now so I've dropped it.

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 18, 2013 - 09:29pm PT
"its kinda creepy that so many people on this thread are against skepticism per se"

Really,97% dude.

I have plenty more ,if you can read ,upthread...........

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 18, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
gloat all you want

Why don't you join me? I mean you must admit its pretty funny in regards to the people who often claim the existence of an actual global wide professional conspiracy of fraud, that the only documented case of actual fraud was some sort of prank illustrating their gullibility and all round ignorance of the subject matter!

But seriously, upon what basis do you account for your own skepticism? If like me and Rick you have no significant training and education in any sciences let alone climate science, why would you assume that the remarkably solid consensus is wrong in favor of a handful largely populated with cranks and wierdos like Monkton or fred Singer? Even if you can come up with one or two Dysons what would possibly compel you to assume they are right when a gazilion equally credentialed and presumably credible others disagree?
Why would you distrust the 97% in favor of the 3%, especially with no ability to even begin to dabble in the science? I mean, without the ability to judge that is exactly what it boils down to right - trust.

Is it your intuition?

I think you misunderstand us. We are skeptical. We are simply far more skeptical of you. Hell I'd love to believe you and Lord Bunkton. I love driving my car, flicking the lights on, hot showers and flying all over the world. I don't want it to stop and I really don't mind the idea of well managed petrochemical industry to get it and to hell with a few little bunnies. But if all the evidence suggests otherwise, you actually recommend I throw my weight behind a bunch of flakes, as#@&%es and idiots ?

McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 18, 2013 - 09:51pm PT
I had initially thought that the heat island effect was an important component of the exaggeration of global warming

BlahBlah, you've probably also heard that concrete is responsible for flooding. Also, I doubt anyone here is against Skepticism 'per se'. That sounds like another dumb 'talking point'. Probaly the most Skeptical people are the climate scientists themselves - the ones creating the science. The science is not created without a healthy dose of skepticism in the process. You make it sound like the science comes out of the blue and you guys are the number one skeptics, which is ridiculous. Nobody really wants climate change to be happening either.

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 18, 2013 - 10:26pm PT
the ones creating the science.

There lies the issue. They are indeed creating it. Fudging the numbers and data as they go along. Distorting the true real time science and creating it so they can continue to reinforce the propaganda of alarmism in order to substantiate the persistent delusion of the impending catastrophe and insisting that they can now predict the future. Oh the absurdity of it all.

It may in fact be warming. That I will give you. What & why is the forcing behind it? No one really knows with any absolute certainty. No one. Be very glad that it isn't as "hot" as it has been before on numerous occasions throughout this planets existence, regardless the cause.

Di Vinci is most certainly laughing at you all from his grave. That is a given. He is laughing at you all I tell you.
Messages 6801 - 6820 of total 26688 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews