Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[basketcase]

Take another look at the papers claiming there is a "consensus" -- none of them were based on determining whether or not the research findings could be replicated.

The methodology of the "consensus" papers that you cite make it absolutely clear that research has nothing to do with it.....

You mean when they polled experts on climate change, the experts are experts despite never looking at the evidence their field studies? Your conspiracy gets deeper and deeper.

You keep talking about empirical evidence. How about you play Galileo and show us what evidence disproves CO2 being the major driver of global warming instead of playing silly word games and trying to malign people with views you don't like.


There is a reason the scientific community supports the consensus and it's not because of advocacy or politics.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You mean when they polled experts on climate change, the experts are experts despite never looking at the evidence their field studies?

You're the one playing "word games." Whether their opinions had merit or not, they were polled on their opinions. You falsely claimed the "consensus" conclusion was based on replication of research. Polling people on their opinions is not replicating research.

You keep talking about empirical evidence. How about you play Galileo and show us what evidence disproves CO2 being the major driver of global warming?

Check out the results in the IPCC's latest report, which were first reported by the Met Office and have been confirmed by James Hansen and others. The planet has gone 17 years with no statistically significant change in temperature, despite huge increases in man-made CO2 emissions.

That doesn't disprove the currently unproven premise. But it certainly shows there is reason to be skeptical of the unproven premise that man-made CO2 emissions cause significant changes to the Earth's temperature. Particularly when the results completely contradict what was predicted, and all of the explanations only came after it was confirmed that the predictions were completely wrong.

The premise has neither been proven nor disproved. Nor is it likely that the question will be resolved for many years.

 

[Moviefan-2]

There is a reason the scientific community supports the consensus and it's not because of advocacy or politics.

Repeating false claims of a "consensus" isn't going to make it true. And if you want to talk about the response of the "scientific community" to the poll on "human activity," the response among climate researchers (not the "scientific community") was that about 80% of the respondents thought "human activity" is a significant influence on the climate -- that's not a "consensus."

As for my "conspiracy theory" about the IPCC's political/activist agenda, it is a widely shared view, disputed by very few.



http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/08/climate-forecast-alls-well-despite-what-the-ipcc-says/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...r-problem/article14491748/#dashboard/follows/

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/16/climate-change-hoax

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/climate-change-what-climate-change

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/world-needs-pause-from-ipcc-politics

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/01/condescending-bbc-cools-on-global-warming

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...ide-is-rising-on-climate-models-and-policies/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...oure-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...plays-high-priest-to-climate-change-religion/

---

Some select quotes:

-- Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun): "The IPCC today is primarily a political and advocacy organization. It has too many scientists who think of themselves as politicians, entitled to tell everyone else how to live. It is populated and stalked by green activists, who have an ideological agenda that is anti-growth and anti-western." http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26/time-to-end-the-climate-of-fear

-- Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail): "Global warming’s credibility problem is not the deniers’ and the skeptics’ fault. It’s the fault of activist scientists, Al Gore, and the IPCC. They’ve cried wolf too much. They’ve vastly overstated what the science “says,” and treated anybody who is the least bit doubtful as the enemy." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...r-problem/article14491748/#dashboard/follows/

-- Matt Gurney (National Post): "(A)larmism, once proven to be bogus, destroys credibility just as effectively as it sells papers and motivates politicians. I would not invest my money with someone who got the stock market as wrong as the IPCC has gotten Earth’s climate wrong since 2007." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...oure-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

-- Judith Curry (National Post): "The problem and solution were vastly oversimplified back in 1990 by the UNFCCC/IPCC, where they framed both the problem and the solution as irreducibly global. This framing was locked in by a self-reinforcing consensus-seeking approach to the science and a “speaking consensus to power” approach for decision making that pointed to only one possible course of policy action – radical emissions reductions." http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/

-- Charles Krauthammer (National Post, via the Washington Post): "(T)hose scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...plays-high-priest-to-climate-change-religion/

 

[blackrock13]

Repeating false claims of a "consensus" isn't going to make it true. And if you want to talk about the response of the "scientific community" to the poll on "human activity," the response was that about 80% thought "human activity" is a significant influence on the climate -- that's not a "consensus."

As for my "conspiracy theory" about the IPCC's political/activist agenda, it is a widely shared view, disputed by very few.


http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...the-ipcc-says/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...lobal-warming/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...board/follows/

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/16...te-change-hoax

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27...climate-change

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26...limate-of-fear

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27...-ipcc-politics

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/01...global-warming

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...-and-policies/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...el-pretenders/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-believes-you/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ange-religion/

---

Some select quotes:

-- Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun): "The IPCC today is primarily a political and advocacy organization. It has too many scientists who think of themselves as politicians, entitled to tell everyone else how to live. It is populated and stalked by green activists, who have an ideological agenda that is anti-growth and anti-western." http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/26...limate-of-fear

-- Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail): "Global warming’s credibility problem is not the deniers’ and the skeptics’ fault. It’s the fault of activist scientists, Al Gore, and the IPCC. They’ve cried wolf too much. They’ve vastly overstated what the science “says,” and treated anybody who is the least bit doubtful as the enemy." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...board/follows/

-- Matt Gurney (National Post): "(A)larmism, once proven to be bogus, destroys credibility just as effectively as it sells papers and motivates politicians. I would not invest my money with someone who got the stock market as wrong as the IPCC has gotten Earth’s climate wrong since 2007." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...-believes-you/

-- Judith Curry (National Post): "The problem and solution were vastly oversimplified back in 1990 by the UNFCCC/IPCC, where they framed both the problem and the solution as irreducibly global. This framing was locked in by a self-reinforcing consensus-seeking approach to the science and a “speaking consensus to power” approach for decision making that pointed to only one possible course of policy action – radical emissions reductions." http://opinion.financialpost.com/201...lobal-warming/

-- Charles Krauthammer (National Post, via the Washington Post): "(T)hose scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ange-religion/

Sure would like to know where you got the first seven links, they go nowhere. I got bored and didn't check them all. I'm going to guess you didn't check your references
........................................... again.

Makes me wonder if this is your compilation.

Judith Curry and Charles Krauthammer again, really? Do you remember what you post in past posts. Curry is bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry.

Check this interview out; http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11/11/207018/judith-curry-climate-science/

She's a real pip.

 

[basketcase]

You really are scientifically illiterate since you still talk about the science not being 'proven'. You also fail to understand that the consensus view is not because of a survey but rather because the scientific community has seen the evidence supports the conclusion. As the Einstein quote referenced, a theory based solidly on evidence will survive until evidence backs a better theory.

On your side, you don't have any evidence for a better theory, merely scepticism and a refusal to accept facts you don't like. If you want to discuss science, why don't you actually find evidence that supports your view that man-made CO2 is not a major driver of our current global warming.

 

[basketcase]

Sure would like to know where you got the first seven links, they go nowhere. I got bored and didn't check them all. I'm going to guess you didn't check your references
........................................... again.

Makes me wonder if this is your compilation.

I know looking at the urls I see a lot of 'opinion' and 'comment' and not science.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Sure would like to know where you got the first seven links, they go nowhere.

I fixed the links. Now, you can read up on the issue.

 

[blackrock13]

I know looking at the urls I see a lot of 'opinion' and 'comment' and not science.

:thumb::thumb:

Charles Krauthammer, a well known climatologist and research scientist.

I checked his first link and it was a repeat from the same bunch of Heartland connected researchers exposed in past posts, nothing new or creditable.

The second one was Judith Curry again, fossil fuel industries owned researcher.

The fourth one was written by Ezra Levant, need I say more.

The rest are a rehash of past links MF2 has posted, just opinions one unattributed(a group effort?), nothing new. It would appear he's running out of new material.

 

[Moviefan-2]

On your side, you don't have any evidence for a better theory, merely scepticism and a refusal to accept facts you don't like. If you want to discuss science, why don't you actually find evidence that supports your view that man-made CO2 is not a major driver of our current global warming.

This is the kind of almost Groggy-like misrepresentation you have displayed throughout this thread (I'm surprised you haven't accused me of believing that Creationism is science).

You keep asking for a "better theory" to explain the allegedly unusual changes in the climate, implying that I agree with your premise that something unusual has happened to the climate. Based on the evidence, I do not accept that premise. Climate change is not something that is unique to the industrial era.

As to the more specific point about CO2, I did give you the evidence. If you want a direct quote, here is one from Page 15 of the IPCC's fifth assessment report released last fall (emphasis added by me):

"There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The "simulated" trends are what the models predicted. The "observed" trends are what actually happened.

Our "current global warming," as you call it, isn't so current.

 

[Moviefan-2]

:thumb::thumb:

Charles Krauthammer, a well known climatologist and research scientist.

You missed the point (again). The links and the quotes confirm that the view that the IPCC is driven to a large extent (some have said is "primarily" driven) by a political/activist agenda is a widely held view.

I'm not sure why our friend thinks it's a "conspiracy theory." Even the Nobel Institute recognized the IPCC for its political agenda (surely, an award for science was out of the question. )

 

[groggy]

Actually, we both got it wrong.

You're right in that he was saying it only takes one scientist to disprove a theory. However, science relies on evidence and research confirming that results can be replicated -- not "consensus."

And the fault with your argument is that cannot supply one person who has disproven the findings of the IPCC.

All you can find are creationists.

 

[blackrock13]

You missed the point (again). The links and the quotes confirm that the view that the IPCC is driven to a large extent (some have said is "primarily" driven) by a political/activist agenda is a widely held view.

I'm not sure why our friend thinks it's a "conspiracy theory." Even the Nobel Institute recognized the IPCC for its political agenda (surely, an award for science was out of the question. )

The links prove no such thing.

 

[groggy]

Actually, we both got it wrong.

You're right in that he was saying it only takes one scientist to disprove a theory. However, science relies on evidence and research confirming that results can be replicated -- not "consensus."

And in the case of climate change both consensus and evidence support the findings of the IPCC.

No credible other theory has come out, even by creationists.

 

[groggy]

Take another look at the papers claiming there is a "consensus" -- none of them were based on determining whether or not the research findings could be replicated.

You must be really stupid to even try to make that connection.

The consensus papers also didn't determine whether creationists could prove the world is 6000 years old. Because that wasn't what they set out to ask.

They just asked how many climatologists believe in the theory of anthropomorphic climate change.

Idiot.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And the fault with your argument is that cannot supply one person who has disproven the findings of the IPCC.

I think you're losing it. I haven't been trying to find someone who can disprove the results that were reported by the IPCC, the Met Office and others that show the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

As I said to basketcase, I fully accept those findings.

 

[Moviefan-2]

You must be really stupid to even try to make that connection.

Idiot.

Try reading the posts before you comment (or accept a bet). It was basketcase who made that connection. :biggrin1:

(And, for what it's worth, I don't support the assertion that basketcase is an "idiot." I don't agree with him. But adults are allowed to disagree.)

 

[groggy]

I think you're losing it. I haven't been trying to find someone who can disprove the results that were reported by the IPCC, the Met Office and others that show the IPCC's predictions were spectacularly wrong.

As I said to basketcase, I fully accept those findings.

No, you are wrong, just as you are wrong with the bets we've made.
Just as 2013 was the fourth warmest year and all latest reports show we are still sadly on target for .2C average decadal increase according to all new reports.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000165/abstract
Of course, you aren't smart enough to read or understand that, are you?
Admit it, you're too stupid to understand the science.

Your claim about the Met Office has been shot down, just as your IPCC cherry picking claim has been shot down.

And again, you argue that it only takes one person with one theory, but can't produce that person or that theory.

In short, you're rehashing bad arguments, which is all you're capable of.

 

[groggy]

Try reading the posts before you comment (or accept a bet). It was basketcase who made that connection. :biggrin1:

(And, for what it's worth, I don't support the assertion that basketcase is an "idiot." I don't agree with him. But adults are allowed to disagree.)

No, that was your stupid connection.
Be a man and accept when you fuck up.


Just for fun, its time to analyze each of your pathetic arguments based on the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism, they are:

Conspiracy theories
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won't admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
Fake experts
These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research 'junk science'.
Cherry picking
This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a 'threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy'.

That's a pretty good summation of everything you've brought to this argument.

 

[basketcase]

...
You keep asking for a "better theory" to explain the allegedly unusual changes in the climate, implying that I agree with your premise that something unusual has happened to the climate. Based on the evidence, I do not accept that premise. Climate change is not something that is unique to the industrial era.....

Sorry but that is how science works. The evidence gives strong support to the idea of man-made CO2 having a major impact on global warming. The few scientists who share your opinion and refuse (or are payed not to) follow where the evidence leads have been desperately trying to find a theory that better explains the observations but they have yet to do so.


To help you understand how science works, we can talk gravity and motion. Aristotle came up with a theory that fit the known evidence that said the natural state of motion is at rest. Even though his theory turned out to be flawed, it is still usable to explain motion on earth that is subject to resistive forces. A couple millennium later, Newton's studies came up with a better theory. His theory was able to similarly explain Aristotle's observations but was able to overcome the flaws of Aristotle. Newton's work was peer reviewed, others examined the evidence and reached a CONSENSUS that is commonly known as his Laws of Motion and Law of Universal Gravitation (though to be scientifically accurate they are theories, not Laws). As time went on, people saw that there were weaknesses with Newton's model; specifically that the motion of some planets didn't match what Newton's laws stated. In a couple cases, the discrepancy was due to factors that weren't accounted for (the previously unknown Uranus and Neptune). In the other case, Mercury's orbit couldn't be completely matched. It was Einstein who (as you would say) proved Newton wrong. Even though Einstein came up with a more complete theory, the scientific community waited a few decades before they had evidence that his theory was better. Of course if you took high school physics, you would know that Newton wasn't wrong and his theories are still used in many cases. Then we also know that Einstein's theory is incomplete, requiring this concept of dark matter to make his work meet the observations. That means that the scientific community has identified flaws with Einstein's work but based on the evidence, it is still the best theory for now. There are physicists who have alternate theories of gravity but they know that at this point the don't have the evidence that their theories are better so they don't do what you do and call Einstein 'spectacularly wrong'. They wait until the have evidence showing their work better meets the evidence.

But the fact is scientifically, Newton wasn't proven wrong, just incomplete. Newton is still used in a wide variety of situation. Even Aristotle isn't considered scientifically 'wrong', just less complete than Newton. The way science works is a progression of providing theories that better explain the observations.


In terms of climate change, there are many models with a range of predictions. The observations do show a discrepancy with the mainstream previous predictions (though still within the low end of predictions). Just like with Newton, that doesn't mean the consensus is wrong, just incomplete. The case of the pause is like with Uranus and we have discovered some variables we didn't adequately account for such as the amount of heat being stored in the deep ocean.

Maybe someone will come along with a better theory that excludes anthropogenic CO2 but there is no evidence of it yet so all you are doing is blowing smoke up your own ass.


Yes that was a bit lengthy but you will ignore whatever I post so I might as well try to explain to you how science works.

 

[basketcase]

You missed the point (again). The links and the quotes confirm that the view that the IPCC is driven to a large extent (some have said is "primarily" driven) by a political/activist agenda is a widely held view.

I'm not sure why our friend thinks it's a "conspiracy theory." Even the Nobel Institute recognized the IPCC for its political agenda (surely, an award for science was out of the question. )

Sadly for your conspiracy theory, their political agenda is based on the evidence supporting CO2 as the major driver, not the other way around. The scientists discovered the problem and advocate because they need the world's help to fix it.