Saver Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 This is not true - what they mean is "the vast majority of climate scientists" agree. Walk into any physics department in the world and you will find many people who don't agree with it (and after climategate I have met physicists at conferences who say they no longer have confidence in climate scientists integrity). I have also heard most geologists don't agree with climate science. Not sure about in other fields of science what the majority viewpoint is - but certainly the "majority of scientists" do not agree about climate change. btw I have seen this happen a few times in science - everyone in a particular subfield agrees, but outside that subfield there can still be fierce debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 No, my argument had three main elements - 1) Climate is complicated and observation alone can't be used. Define observation. And if a subject is complicated, well, tough. 2) Without testing (or repeated observation taking the place of testing) what you've got isn't proper science. As far as the basics go (i.e. climate sensitivity), the same result has been obtained in many different ways: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm Has a good set. So I regard this argument as false. 3) Using the scientific method on scare stories up to MMGW would lead you to believe MMGW is nonsense because all the others were. Let's see: Acid rain was not a made up scare story, it was/is real. Still ongoing in places like China. Fixed by appropriate legislation. DDT is more interesting. Usage was reduced as much because of evolved resistance as anything else; it became ineffective. It is also an accumulative poison. Not sure what exactly you are claiming when you say it is 'cobblers'. Ozone depletion. Not made up either; a serious problem fixed by government action. You seem to be simply picking out a laundry list of things you once heard of, doing no work whatsoever to see if you are right or not, and then throwing them against the wall to see what sticks. Not particularly scientific. Or even logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 This is not true - what they mean is "the vast majority of climate scientists" agree. Walk into any physics department in the world and you will find many people who don't agree with it (and after climategate I have met physicists at conferences who say they no longer have confidence in climate scientists integrity). I have also heard most geologists don't agree with climate science. I've heard people say that the moon is made of green cheese, clearly showing that the whole 'moon landings' thing was faked. Further reading.. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saver Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I've heard people say that the moon is made of green cheese, clearly showing that the whole 'moon landings' thing was faked. what a ridiculous comparison. And you wonder why many physicists think what they do about you?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 what a ridiculous comparison. And you wonder why many physicists think what they do about you?! You should hear what my mate said about you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 You should hear what my mate said about you! Late to the party Fluff, what will your paymasters think. Same old bollux though. Keep it up though, always good for a laugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Oh and Fluff, stop linking to Sceptical Science. Find something from a more balanced source. I might even bother to follow the links. Injin, epic fail using Acid Rain and Ozone Depletion as in my, very humble an pooly educated, opinion they are two of the best cases for successful government intervention. But AGW must be true 'cos it's been baking hot this last week. I see the light...I'm a convert... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFmlvXx2aJs&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Oh and Fluff, stop linking to Sceptical Science. Find something from a more balanced source. I might even bother to follow the links. I wouldn't bother, to be honest I'm surprised you can use a mouse without injuring yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBdamo Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I wouldn't bother, to be honest I'm surprised you can use a mouse without injuring yourself. bless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Define observation. And if a subject is complicated, well, tough. I have no need to define observation. You were the one who asserted it could replace testing. As far as the basics go (i.e. climate sensitivity), the same result has been obtained in many different ways: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm Has a good set. So I regard this argument as false. I don't think anyone is denying the climate changes. Let's see: Acid rain was not a made up scare story, it was/is real. Still ongoing in places like China. Fixed by appropriate legislation. DDT is more interesting. Usage was reduced as much because of evolved resistance as anything else; it became ineffective. It is also an accumulative poison. Not sure what exactly you are claiming when you say it is 'cobblers'. Ozone depletion. Not made up either; a serious problem fixed by government action. You seem to be simply picking out a laundry list of things you once heard of, doing no work whatsoever to see if you are right or not, and then throwing them against the wall to see what sticks. Not particularly scientific. Or even logical. Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I have no need to define observation. You were the one who asserted it could replace testing. I don't think anyone is denying the climate changes. Oh dear. Glad to see you're still here Injin No doubt you can still argue the hind leg off a donkey. I haven't been here for a couple years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okaycuckoo Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Lost track of this controverys, but picked this up today: Climate scientists are conspiring to push "global warming" Myth: Thousands of emails between climate scientists leaked in November 2009 (dubbed Climategate) revealed a cover-up of data that conflicted with research showing the Earth is warming. Science: Yes, a hacker did access and release emails and documents from the University of East Anglia server. But there was no cover-up; a number of investigations were launched, including two independent reviews set up by the university: the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review (ICCER) and the independent Scientific Appraisal Panel (SAP). The investigations cleared the researchers involved with the e-mails of scientific misconduct, and found no evidence of a cover-up. http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html Do the investigations pass the smell test? Both set up by the university, then the parliamentary review relied on the findings of those investigations. No judge in his own cause. What's difficult about that? And what's the difference between a hacker and whistleblower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashinmattress Posted April 9, 2013 Author Share Posted April 9, 2013 then the parliamentary review relied on the findings of those investigations. Oh yes. All those academics who've spent careers researching only to have a liberal arts educated politician take big dump on their faces. Or better yet, being pushed into creating something wholly fictitious, factually incorrect, or closed to full peer review by the state. Or, having some lobbyist scream enough and make for binding legislation? All dependent on what politicians think will secure them another term. Such is the madness of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 And what's the difference between a hacker and whistleblower? One's an admissible source in a court of law. The other isn't. I'm sure the folks who've labelled it as a hack are well aware of the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Do the investigations pass the smell test? Both set up by the university......... These are the people who carried out the investigations: Ronald Oxburgh, Baron Oxburgh Lord Oxburgh was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council (Singapore), as of 1 January 2002, and is a member of the International Academic Advisory Panel of Singapore and the University Grants Committee (Hong Kong).[9] He is honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association,[10] chairman of Falck Renewables, a wind energy firm,[11] an advisor to Climate Change Capital. He was chairman of D1 Oils, plc, a biodiesel producer, in 2007, and a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment. Muir Russell From reference 6. Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find." No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. Draw your own conclusions. Edit: Some more on the russell enquiry Within minutes of the announcement of the panel, commentators had expressed concern at the appointment of Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature, the journal responsible for the publication of two of the key papers in the Climategate scandal: Jones’s 1990 study on urban heat islands, The 1998 Hockey Stick paper by Michael Mann, Since criticism of either of these papers could have been seen as criticism of Nature and, in the case of the “Hockey Stick” paper, of Dr Campbell himself, his appointment might have beenconsidered inappropriate. And on the investigation itself (same source): Orientation meetings at the university were held in December and January prior to the announcement of the panel on 12 February. Subsequently, there were only two evidence-taking interviews with CRU staff............ Remarkably, the majority of the panel, including Russell, did not attend these. The interview on proxy reconstructions was carried out by Geoffrey Boulton – the most conflicted member of the panel – accompanied by only one other panellist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Glad to see you're still here Injin No doubt you can still argue the hind leg off a donkey. I haven't been here for a couple years Seamless necromancy. Awesome job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.