snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 what we need is a scientific counter-argument to climate alarmism, which exists; but has zero chance of getting aired on the BBC. By putting up instead superannuated politicians like Lawson against climate scientists they are sneakily skewing the debate in favour of alarmism.. That's an article of faith on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 what we need is a scientific counter-argument to climate alarmism, which exists; Really? The biggest single problem I have with skeptics is their refusal to put up such an argument. It's always whining about 'alamists', whining about 'groupthink', whining about minor flaws (real or imagined) in climate scientist's work.. Never 'Here is our alternative theory that explains all that current climatology does and more, which we are prepared to defend in detail'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Really? The biggest single problem I have with skeptics is their refusal to put up such an argument. It's always whining about 'alamists', whining about 'groupthink', whining about minor flaws (real or imagined) in climate scientist's work.. Never 'Here is our alternative theory that explains all that current climatology does and more, which we are prepared to defend in detail'. and others ignore the fact that the global temp is "paused". The word paused is Alarmist too....its like saying a mother "moves on" from breastfeeding to baby milk...the implication is in the wording. Paused means stopped, but poised to advance again. Truth is, the models were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I'm perfectly happy for the experts to be questioned by the public. What I'm not happy about is BBC air time being given to people who are not experts in the field to pontificate on the issue as though their opinions have equal weight to those of people who are experts. BBC do this in all fields...we rarely hear the words of our leaders...they cut in and have it all analysed by their experts...when we are all capable of actually hearing the actual words spoken.. Most of course cant be arsed to listen to any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpectrumFX Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 The BBC do seem to try very hard to present both sides of an argument as equally valid in science, but they don't seem bothered to do the same on other topics. I'd be happy if they started interviewing estate agents the way they currently interview scientists and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 and others ignore the fact that the global temp is "paused". The word paused is Alarmist too....its like saying a mother "moves on" from breastfeeding to baby milk...the implication is in the wording. Paused means stopped, but poised to advance again. Truth is, the models were wrong. I forgot that other skeptic habit of warbling on about the use of language and making sweeping unbacked assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 I forgot that other skeptic habit of warbling on about the use of language and making sweeping unbacked assertions. what is your definition of "The Pause" as used by the Met Office in relation to Global warming? Why didnt they say "stopped"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 what is your definition of "The Pause" as used by the Met Office in relation to Global warming? Why didnt they say "stopped"? Because it keeps starting again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Because it keeps starting again? abitrary line drawing does not bust a wording issue. I see in that series a rising line then a horizontal, especially at the peaks...then again, the features I see in a face will be different to ones you observe. Squinting at it will help as fuzz evens out the thin bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 abitrary line drawing does not bust a wording issue. I see in that series a rising line then a horizontal, especially at the peaks...then again, the features I see in a face will be different to ones you observe. Squinting at it will help as fuzz evens out the thin bits. What the graph is supposed to demonstrate is the pointlessness of claiming that global warming has stopped on the basis of less than a couple of decades of worth of measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 what is your definition of "The Pause" as used by the Met Office in relation to Global warming? Why didnt they say "stopped"? ..instead of outlining a viable alternative hypothesis .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 ..instead of outlining a viable alternative hypothesis ..guess lets face it, they were wrong, they cant admit it, and go on and on trying to make their wrongness not make them all look gullible. Even a child says "yeah, but" every time it is caught out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Truth is, the models were wrong. How wrong? Completely wrong or broadly right but incomplete? There's a massive difference there. Also a problem with one model or hypothesis in no way lends support to anything that opposed it - the only way that's the case is if you've got two mutually exclusive ideas and can demonstrate that one of them must be correct (which is usually far harder than you'd think). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Another step towards making it socially unacceptable to dispute the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Censor dissenting voices; call people names like holocaust climate change DENIERS; sack sceptics (like the Greens suggested recently). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Another step towards making it socially unacceptable to dispute the notion of anthropogenic climate change. Censor dissenting voices; call people names like holocaust climate change DENIERS; sack sceptics (like the Greens suggested recently). all fair game in "post-normal" science. there is a global consensus, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 all fair game in "post-normal" science. there is a global consensus, after all. Scientists (2014): "Climate change is probably man-made." The lack of consensus is highlighted by the word "probably". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 Scientists (2014): "Climate change is probably man-made." The lack of consensus is highlighted by the word "probably". No, the word "probably" indicates that it is science! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Deflation Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 No, the word "probably" indicates that it is science! Science - yes. Consensus - no. Compare the statement with "climate change is man made". "The proton IS a positively charged particle." "Jupiter IS the biggest planet." "It's PROBABLY going to be a good summer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 No, the word "probably" indicates that it is science! Science is derived from the latin word scientia which means knowledge. 'probably' implies lack of knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 Science - yes. Consensus - no. There is a scientific consensus that the currently observed changes in the climate are probably mainly due to human emissions of greenhouse gases. The probables and mainlys are the language of science; they do not indicate lack of consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 How wrong? Completely wrong or broadly right but incomplete? There's a massive difference there. Also a problem with one model or hypothesis in no way lends support to anything that opposed it - the only way that's the case is if you've got two mutually exclusive ideas and can demonstrate that one of them must be correct (which is usually far harder than you'd think). well, wrong in the sense that warming "paused" for the last 15 years. Now they are scrabbling to find other causes for where the "lost" extra energy is now stored and manifest. I suspect the new theories are rather like cooking a frozen chicken in a bag...first, the bag heats up, but then attains steady temperature as the now thawing chicken heats up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 Science - yes. Consensus - no. Compare the statement with "climate change is man made". "The proton IS a positively charged particle." "Jupiter IS the biggest planet." "It's PROBABLY going to be a good summer." Read any scientific paper, and you'll see it's full of probablys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted April 3, 2014 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 well, wrong in the sense that warming "paused" for the last 15 years. Now they are scrabbling to find other causes for where the "lost" extra energy is now stored and manifest. I suspect the new theories are rather like cooking a frozen chicken in a bag...first, the bag heats up, but then attains steady temperature as the now thawing chicken heats up... Nobody is scrabbling. As I pointed out earlier and you studiously ignore, such "pauses" have already occurred a number of times. This is entirely expected, and is most likely the result of heat sloshing back and forth between the oceans and the atmosphere. There is no big mystery here, though the precise mechanisms involved are still a matter for further investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 Read any scientific paper, and you'll see it's full of probablys. Of course, serious scientists distinguish between facts and their personal opinion (expressed by using 'probably' and other similar words). It's 'believers' like yourself that skip over the 'probably' and consider those personal options to be facts, just because they were expressed by scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted April 3, 2014 Share Posted April 3, 2014 well, wrong in the sense that warming "paused" for the last 15 years. Now they are scrabbling to find other causes for where the "lost" extra energy is now stored and manifest. I suspect the new theories are rather like cooking a frozen chicken in a bag...first, the bag heats up, but then attains steady temperature as the now thawing chicken heats up... So which is it then? Completely wrong or just in need of refinement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.