Battle of the global warming alarmists - Basketcase vs. Frankfooter

[basketcase]

What about the respondents who said they didn't know or that the amount is unknown, which also align with my views. The total adds up to 25%.

As for why I believe what I believe, it's because I have looked at the data.

Not surprised that you are trying to co-opt a variety of views to justify your anti-science intransigence.

Which view represents you?
AGW is significant but less than 50% of the cause?
AGW occurs but is insignificant? (<25%)
AGW's impact is unknown?

The third can't be combined with the first 2. The first two are definite conclusions that clearly show AGW has an impact. The third is ambiguous (and can just as easily be combined with the 66%).

If you think the impact of AGW is unknown you are only supported by 10% of the scientific community. If you think that AGW occurs but contributes < half of climate change then you agree with only 12% of scientists.

Of course you never have actually stated a scientific thesis but instead you merely follow conspiracy theorist tactics and try to poke holes.


p.s. It is also interesting in the pbl survey that the more expertise respondents have in the field, the more confident they are about the impact of human produced CO2. Also the people who think that AGW is not the major factor are far less confident in their views.

 

[basketcase]

Also that pbl survey rips your claims that there has been no change over the past decade.

Question 2a
Has the trend in global average temperature changed over the past decade, compared to the preceding decades?

The response "The trend over the past decade is approximately zero (i.e. no change in temperature)" has support from only 9.1% of respondents. Even if you add the 2% that feel there was cooling, you once again end up being backed by next to no one.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf


As usual your own sources show the scientific community at large disagree with you.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Which view represents you?
AGW is significant but less than 50% of the cause?
AGW occurs but is insignificant? (<25%)
AGW's impact is unknown?

The third can't be combined with the first 2.

Sure it can. The only reason you would make that statement is because you are scientifically illiterate.

People who are capable of critical thinking are able to hold more than one opinion at the same time if the opinions are complementary. A person who understands the complexity of measuring the climate and knows the data can believe the percentage is unknown but is likely significantly less than 50%.

It's called science, my boy.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Also that pbl survey rips your claims that there has been no change over the past decade.

Question 2a
Has the trend in global average temperature changed over the past decade, compared to the preceding decades?

The response "The trend over the past decade is approximately zero (i.e. no change in temperature)" has support from only 9.1% of respondents. Even if you add the 2% that feel there was cooling, you once again end up being backed by next to no one.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/fil...ence-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf


As usual your own sources show the scientific community at large disagree with you.

That is simply astonishing. You take a result that shows nearly half of the so-called climate "experts" don't actually know the data and somehow think that works in your favour.

The Earth's temperature isn't measured by gathering opinions. There are actual temperature measurements. And whether you want to call the recent trend a "slowdown" or whatever, the data confirm that the correct responses were either zero (if you're considering statistical significance) or slightly lower than before.

Thus, only about 20% of respondents got it right (although the question allowed others who knew about the "slowdown" to weasel out by saying it's too short a time frame).

As Ross McKitrick wrote about the PBL results: "A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much."

http://business.financialpost.com/f...ensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

Indeed.

(And since you seem to have forgotten, the IPCC has also reported that temperature changes in the 21st century were less than in previous decades. According to you, the "scientific community at large" disagrees with the IPCC's findings.)

 

[bishop]

Fuji and Basketcase, please stop using the argument that no well accepted alternate theory means that AGW is the correct theory, that is not the way science works and science has never worked in that fashion. It has always been the burden to prove a theory is correct to rigorous scientific standards, rather than assuming every theory is correct and the burden is to prove a theory is wrong.

I do not understand why you guys give AGW a free pass on the failing the rigors of the scientific method and yet in the same breath say that AGW is a sound scientific theory.

 

[fuji]

The paragraph you quoted doesn't say anything about the "amount predicted." That part came from you, not the study.

Actually it did. Read it again, this time with a dictionary.

 

[fuji]

Fuji and Basketcase, please stop using the argument that no well accepted alternate theory means that AGW is the correct theory, that is not the way science works and science has never worked in that fashion. It has always been the burden to prove a theory is correct to rigorous scientific standards, rather than assuming every theory is correct and the burden is to prove a theory is wrong.

I do not understand why you guys give AGW a free pass on the failing the rigors of the scientific method and yet in the same breath say that AGW is a sound scientific theory.

AGW is experimentally proven, with hard science. The unknown is what other factors are also influencing the climate and whether they have a larger or smaller effect.

 

[fuji]

But not the actual temperature,...???

FAST

Correct. What's proven is the warming effect.

To predict the temperature you need to know all factors that influence temperature.

 

[bishop]

AGW is experimentally proven, with hard science. The unknown is what other factors are also influencing the climate and whether they have a larger or smaller effect.

Experimentally it has been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one debates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Experimentally it has been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one debates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Indeed.

 

[canada-man]

AGW is experimentally proven, with hard science. The unknown is what other factors are also influencing the climate and whether they have a larger or smaller effect.

computer models which can be manipulated and changed to fit one's view is not hard science

 

[Frankfooter]

YOU are the one who constantly claims there is an intergovernmental conspiracy,...that's just ridiculous,...even from you.

Nothing I have stated needs clarification,...you are still playing your rather obvious and childish game of avoidance,...but all you are really doing is confirming you cannot debate an an adult level,...and also confirming you are rather simple minded.

FAST

Everything you state needs clarification. It might be clear in your head, SLOW, but out here its incredibly poor writing.
And no, the conspiracy claims are all yours, this one starts with your claim that all scientists hired by governments only do research that comes out with the same result.
Or at least that's what i thought you were claiming, again, your writing is very unclear.

 

[Frankfooter]

That is simply astonishing. You take a result that shows nearly half of the so-called climate "experts" don't actually know the data and somehow think that works in your favour.

In this case 'knows the data' refers to establishing an exact ratio of climate change attributable to human influence.
Claiming that if you don't know the exact number you don't know anything is another troll argument.
Similar to the way you ignore the ranges the IPCC sets for their projections and claim that really its on the mean of those ranges that counts.
Its not the way that real science works.
They give you what they know with ranges and confidence levels.
As an example, check again the bloomberg page, which represents some really great work.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

They tell you what their ranges are and their confidence level for those ranges.
That's good science, not blustery claims.

You are arguing that the science isn't exact and should be judged on that, when they are very clear about how exact they think they are.

This claim is based on just as wrongheaded an understanding as your claim about IPCC accuracies is.

The Earth's temperature isn't measured by gathering opinions. There are actual temperature measurements.

0.87ºC as measured by NASA.
We went over this before, loser.

 

[basketcase]

Sure it can. The only reason you would make that statement is because you are scientifically illiterate...

Coming from you that is a compliment.

 

[basketcase]

That is simply astonishing. ....)

Spin spin spin.

You post a survey where only 9% agree with your claims of the temperature being stagnant.

And as usual you refuse to state your view. Do you think the effect of AGW are unknown or do think the effect is known to be less than 50%? Those two points are mutually exclusive.

 

[basketcase]

Fuji and Basketcase, please stop using the argument that no well accepted alternate theory means that AGW is the correct theory, that is not the way science works ...

That is exactly how science works. The best theory is the accepted one until a better theory emerges.

 

[bishop]

That is exactly how science works. The best theory is the accepted one until a better theory emerges.

Really?

 

[fuji]

computer models which can be manipulated and changed to fit one's view is not hard science

If you bothered to read the thread instead of ignorantly spewing nonsense you would know it was proved by precision measurement, not computer models.

You continue to show that you are incapable of discussion. You mindlessly repeat garbage without bothering to see what people are talking about.

 

[fuji]

Experimentally it has been proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no one debates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It was experimentally proven that human created greenhouse gases are warming the planet, and the degree of that warming was exactly what was predicted.

The unknown with respect to net change in temperature is that there are many other things that influence climate, some that cool, some that warm, and most of them are not well understood.

But AGW has been confirmed by empirical observation.

To give an analogy: if I turn my furnace on, I know my home will get warmer. But what if it's winter and a window had been left open? I likely can't predict just how much warmer my home will get: but I can still measure the heat coming from my vents and confidently say my home is going to be warmer than if the furnace were turned off.

We know exactly how much heat AGW produces. We DON'T know all the other things heating and cooling the planet.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Spin spin spin.

Incredible. You genuinely believe the Earth's temperature is measured by asking for a show of hands?