Read this on the BBC Yesterday. Basically the rub is that an independent body setup to investigate climate change and mal practice more or less produced the exact same results that the English University under scrutiny did.

Guess that means that Climate science is more legit then some are willing to admit.

It did find that they were not as transparent with their data as they should have been but if the results are the same it seems fair that they have not mis-represented their findings.

404

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

read what?

or is this like some sort of deep meta statement about how no one has been able to study and disprove climate change

Er yeah,

so the forum is struggling with the post for some reason.

I can't figure it out

this is the article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

I assume this is the article?Wow, yet another analysis that use the same data and find the same temperature trend! There is very little controversy over the various instrumental temperature series, HadCRUT included. This is a much better review of what ClimateGate was all about, and a new instrumental series has no relevance at all.

There's no point, some uneducated and inexperienced people are just smarter and better informed than super accomplished scientists, and that's the end of it.

Nerfy, just because you stupidly refuse to educate yourself, you shouldn't get jealous of those that do.

Used the exact same data
got the exact same result mostly.
But is that data a fair representation of The Earths temperature ranges ?
Add in the accuracy of the Weather Stations the selection of stations.
What we would like is the exact material used to create the original set.

Think of it like this,
Original unconstructed data -> selected by The CRU -> went to Muller.
We'd like
Original unconstructed data -> went to Muller, but alas it is lost, deleted, hidden, misplaced.

Marc Moreno has had a go at it and Mullers dubious claim to being a Sceptic.
Mullers has been claiming Sceptic cant deny AGW now when really all he has done is show some warming happened towards the en d of last century.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/13375/Befuddled-Warmist-Richard-Muller-Declares-Skeptics-Should-Convert-to-Believers-Because-His-Study-Shows-the-Earth-Has-Warmed-Since-the-1950s--Climate-Depot-Responds

I do wish Moreno would change the style of his site.

Global Warming - Planet Warming naturally
AGW - Man Made Co2 causing significant warming above the natural signal.
Co2 is now higher than at any time in the last 15 million years and warming has stopped for around the last 10 years. According to AGW Theory that shouldnt have happened.

Does it disprove AGW ?
No it does not.
If the Earth had cooled 10 years ago would we be having this discussion ?
Prolly not.

Hey Faceman you're such a fuckin GRAND KNOB.

Used the exact same data
got the exact same result mostly.

Er exactly. Ergo, the accusation of overstating AGW would then appear to be false. They were accused of massaging their data in order to over state the problem.

So therefore, if a completely open and independent study ran the same numbers and got the same result it seems to suggest that they aren't a bunch of politically motivated crocks.

Co2 is now higher than at any time in the last 15 million years and warming has stopped for around the last 10 years. According to AGW Theory that shouldnt have happened.

Can you back that up with a credible source, and doesn't mean that AGW is not happening.

the burn everything was

not fully understanding the natural cycle is true

I vastly overestimated your capability for humility and recognition of your own limitations and inexperience within technical fields earlier. I apologise.

So instead, I'm just going to go with - Evangelicals-regarding-evolution and faceman sitting in a tree, exact-same-bullshit-i-n-g.

I'm a little cut up because for some time I was under the impression that there was genuine debate over this within the scientific community, because of relentless crazy people like you guys. I suppose the upside is that you guys bringing it up actually got me to look for some respectable scientist opinions, which were overwhelming, so ty.

Hi-5.

Though, I sometimes fear that I might have fallen prey to an elaborate ruse of false personalities created to make me do just such a thing.

PornoPete, I have no idea what I'm talking about or who is talking about or when is talking about, but if you're interested, there's a possibly-valid layman explanation for that here at skepticalscience..

Oh hello, another science site to add to my list of sites to read reguarly. Thanks Nerfy!

How can you have a debate about Climate Change (lets be honest here its called Global Warming or used to be before the warming ended) if you only allow one side of the argument ?

Co2 deserves a fair trial.
Co2 is innocents i tells ya
IT WAS THE SUN

How can you have a debate about Climate Change (lets be honest here its called Global Warming or used to be before the warming ended) if you only allow one side of the argument ?

Somebody should ask those relentless and ridiculous "deniers" this.

Arguing about climate change on the internet is like arguing on the internet.

It has a purpose, in pointing out to people who were in my recent position the ridiculousness of this apparent "debate" on an important issue, I figure. That or I'm just feeling really really pissy with these crazy armchair experts calling all top scientists frauds or incompetents compared to them. :P

Anti-global warming is to the Green religion what Galileo and heliocentricity is to the Catholic Church. I wonder how many of the consensus lovers out there would have been on the bandwagon to try Galileo as a heretic.

Anti-global warming is to the Green religion what Galileo and heliocentricity is to the Catholic Church. I wonder how many of the consensus lovers out there would have been on the bandwagon to try Galileo as a heretic.

Green religion... lawl. Scientists and Hippies, long time allies m i right?

Anti-science types such as faceman and dazed are to science as the church was to galileo. "The science doesn't agree with my uneducated beliefs and expectations about how things are therefore we will be enormous assholes."

The only problem is that some people think that their ignorant opinions mean as much as forty years of education/experience/research into the matter. Like you.

Thank you. :D

You'd have thought that this news story might have shut them up a bit, but they're just getting more rabid. Why is it that humans are so much more confident and indignant when they're less educated and experienced? I'd expect it to be the other way around, fucking us.

On a side note, a just posted 'ask me anything' from a(n apparent) postgrad working in the field (nobody has their identity proven on that board, but until recently it was a very awesome niche area only frequented by those interested in getting genuinely informed answers). You guys might want to take your concerns there (politely), and if it doesn't cause him/her too much of a headache, he/she might even be able to explain it to you in a way that their undergrad students would understand.

But in this case the scientists have reached a consensus with an overwhelming amount of study and data, where in Galileo's case the consensus on heliocentricity was based on religious nonsense and other astronomers fear of church reprisal. So yeah sorry dazed, but your still retarded.

Sorry dipshit but I am not going to post evidence like other people have just for you to ignore it and then go on one of your frothy naturalnews tangents.

But man you totally got me on that your thing, though.

You'd have thought that this news story might have shut them up a bit, but they're just getting more rabid. Why is it that humans are so much more confident and indignant when they're less educated and experienced? I'd expect it to be the other way around, fucking us.

Nerf, almost every thing you say is wrong, illogical and stupid. This study has no relevance at all to the credible arguments against the IPCC doomsday "consensus". You would understand that for yourself if you educated yourself to even an introductory level on this issue. An issue that you spend a lot of time blabbing on about, invoking your argument from authority with such fervor we can practically smell the cum running down your cheeks from all the "scientist" cock stuffed firmly into the back of your throat.

Nerf, almost every thing you say is wrong, illogical and stupid.

I tried to warn you against getting in bed with Door a known troll once and lecturing a PhD student on research techniques, and you've only frothed at me ever since. Hooray for appreciation I guess.

This study has no relevance at all to the credible arguments against the IPCC doomsday "consensus".

You might want to try looking at faceman's comic regarding funding for 'climate change skeptics' and what my statement was.

You would understand that for yourself if you educated yourself to even an introductory level on this issue.

You're still doing it loutl, claiming superior home-educated expert understanding over a jillion accomplished scientists, and then calling me stupid for not playing into your lots' "we are the non-sheep" ego game.

we can practically smell the cum running down your cheeks from all the "scientist" cock stuffed firmly into the back of your throat.

Gee I'm sorry for considering science a vastly superior source over... who? Religious institutions? andrew bolt? you uneducated-but-somehow-magically-more-right lot?

loutl I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Yeah but you're the guy who claimed to be part of some "intellectual" group and knows who isn't in it, so that's expected. :P

I'm at the point again where I realise that I really shouldn't bother trying to talk humility into you guys, so I quit this thread.

edit: Or not, it seems. >_<

The reason that I "turned it around" was because you had it back to front in the first place. That was a case of science vs not science - just as this is a case of uneducated conspiracy nutters versus super trained and accomplished scientists.

So now you've shown your true position. That you think the thousands of scientists and engineers that have views opposing the warmists are not scientists but conspiracy nutters. There is no more golden evidence of your utterly ridiculous position than this.

And it also conveniently exposes your lack of understanding of the whole Galileo incident. Galileo had different evidence that contradicted the half-arsed evidence that the Popes (or Al Gores) men were drumming up. They just hadn't bothered to look through a telescope. Even some Catholic mathematicians agreed with his conclusion. My guess is they weren't in the employ of the Vatican for much longer after that.

But, the fact that you don't understand history and apply your own definition of what it is to be a scientist whilst quite obviously not bothering to educate yourself is a side issue. The fact remains that you and your kind cannot and will not admit even the possibility that corruption could exist in climate change research organisations. That alone essentially destroys any credibility you might have had.

Exactly how much climate gazing have you done? I can't believe how deluded you are. You really think your fighting the Man about climate change when you post on a forum?

Climate gazing? Fighting the man? I never claimed to be doing either of those things. This fabrication of the oppositions viewpoints and main arguments is tiring. And it happens all the time.

Elementary Chaos theory would inform you that tracking down the precise cause of something as complex the global climate, is probably impossible.

I have been told by a PhD in geo science that predicting an earth quake more then about a day before it happens is a deluded dream because the system is simply too complex. So I guess earth quakes must happen because god is angry at us right? You can't point to the exact precise change that caused the boxing day tsunami so I guess we should junk all of geo science.

Faceman why is it that you insist on posting idiotic pictures in stead of actually arguing a point. Oh some cartoonist did a picture of a dead end for skeptical climate scientists trying get funding. That surely proves there is a massive global conspiracy against "proper science" in climate research.

Elementary Chaos theory. Why are you so excited to apply that to earthquakes and tsunamis and not to the climate? Because you're braindead, is why. If you're somehow claiming I myself am predicting the climate, you're the deluded one. All I am ever saying is that it is a massive uncontrollable force of nature that is affected nearly entirely by nature itself. Warmists didn't predict the cooling over the last 10 years is good evidence of this. Think what you want. Talk to all the fairytale PhDs you want. You're still deliberately ignorant.

I have not misrepresented your arguement at any time. You said here

I'll explain why I chose to use the Galileo analogy, seems some people aren't quite up to the challenge of making the connection mentally

Likening a climate science denier to Galileo and his situation with the church is exactly saying that you are fighting the status quo, or "The Man"

Elementary Chaos theory. Why are you so excited to apply that to earthquakes and tsunamis and not to the climate? Because you're braindead, is why

Dude seriously read and comprehend the first sentence in that failed attempt to quote me.

I exactly applied Elementary Chaos theory to the Climate.

This 10 years of cooling that you and faceman keep going on about is a bunch of crap. I can't find a single credible source that says that the earth has stopped warming in the last ten years. The only thing I can find that refers to that are sites made by people like you, who spit vitriol and nonsense at anyone who calls you out.

Finding a precise chain of causation for Climate Change is probably not going to happen. Just like find the Precise cause of an earthquake is probably never going to happen.

Just because you can't get an exact cause doesn't mean stuff isn't happening.

You neglect the fact that organisations like the IPCC is government funded, and that those funds would not be there unless there was an alarmist saying how bad humans are fucking up the planet. Maybe not so much of a "burn at the stake" punishment but they'd at the least lose their jobs if they came out with contradicting evidence (that evidence is just buried).

This is exactly the nonsense that the article is talking about. You don't post any science, you don't post any facts, you just bang on about some ridiculous conspiracy to defraud government out of research grants. If you read the article, the man accused of being an alarmist and massaging data in order to get these fraudulent grants, simply didn't do that. Nobody buried evidence or did anything of the sort. Climate gate was a total non event.

Not very scary is it.

"Elementary chaos theory" tells us that small changes in complex systems can have significant effects

hahahaha, I kill me

Oh good lord, are we doing this again?

Fuck that.

Jim's graph is correct, which also accounts for the cooling over the past 10 years. Pirate attacks have been on the rise.

This 10 years of cooling that you and faceman keep going on about is a bunch of crap. I can't find a single credible source that says that the earth has stopped warming in the last ten years. The only thing I can find that refers to that are sites made by people like you, who spit vitriol and nonsense at anyone who calls you out.

I am PornoPete! When tasked with determining if the earth has stopped warming in the last ten years, instead of looking at the instrumental record like FaceMan, I surf a few websites run by evil people and conclude that it's all bunk because the websites were run by evil people. I'm super scientific!.

Let's just continue to price pollutants into the economy and reduce pollution at a global level.
If we focus on that, climate change will take care of itself if it is indeed accelerated under human influence.
If it isn't, then we still live sustainably anyway.

I an Pinky! I excel at simply presuming the issue of contention and making meaningless circular arguments. Let's all be friends!

Hiya Faceman, I can play random graph game too:

I am Tollaz0r!! When FaceMan posts a plot of the last 10 years temperature data to cite the claim that warming had stopped in the last 10 years, I accuse him of playing random graph and then I join in! I'm fucking spastic!

@FaceMan

I'm not exactly sure what argument you've shifted too. You seem to have flipped to a "natural cycles" argument.

My understanding is that Lappi is a proponent of "there is an ice age coming, so who gives a fuck about climate change?!".

The current expectations is that the Earth is currently set for a very mild glacial period (without the impacts of carbon induced climate change) due to our current orbit and tilt. Even if we were in the process of moving to an ice age, it would take thousands of years for the overall change in climate to become a large negative.

The flip side to this is that the immediate warming process will have massive impacts in hundreds of years, and we can mitigate this damage directly through innovation.

It's kind of like worrying that one day your house might fall into the Ocean due to erosion in the middle of a house fire.

Typo, it's more like worring about the termites your neighbour, 3 doors down, has.
Sure, it's a potential danger and you should definitly take measures to prevent it, but fire-bombing any/all surrounding houses is probably a little bit overboard.

Congratulations typo you showed the Earth warmed.

If the Earth had never warmed before then Co2 rise and Temperature rising together might be convincing evidence that Co2 causes Temperature rise.

The major problem with your entire line of argument is that when we look at external functions on our system, we should be cooling.

If anything the current unpredicted cooling is further evidence that either we dont know enough or that the claims about Co2s effect on Temperature have been greatly exaggerated.




last edited by FaceMan at 14:33:45 24/Oct/11

last edited by FaceMan at 14:34:18 24/Oct/11

I am Pinky! I excel at simply presuming the issue of contention and making meaningless circular arguments. Let's all be friends!

Is this guy for real?

wouldn't have picked typo as a climate change adopter

typo, in what respect, because as far as climate goes, high school level (and not afraid to say it)

My only suggestion is to consider that when people go further then that, they all come out saying "I've realised that I don't know jack shit about anything, and trust nothing except years of specialist advice in a field." Consider it. Things are much more complex than they originally appear - a great deal of what is taught in highschool science is actually wrong, purposefully simplified lies only so that students can get results (For example, electrons don't really orbit around nuclei like planets)

Consider that your opinion is up against the A+ students, who went on to do far more advanced science, full time, after highschool, in several more successive layers of school (could easily take a decade), always being the top of those exponentially increasingly difficult groups.

The rub is, when you don't understand something - don't assume that others must be wrong first, unless you have comparable training in that area. It's the human ego getting in your way. In the grand scheme of things, you know very very little with only a highschool level education - that's not an insult, it's a reality that requires humility to admit. The bits and pieces that you might pick up along the way simply cannot catch you up with the decades of fulltime study and proper scientific technique - everybody must go up the whole ladder, but our egos make us think that we're good enough to magically skip rungs.

The rub is, when you don't understand something - don't assume that others must be wrong first, unless you have comparable training in that area. It's the human ego getting in your way. In the grand scheme of things, you know very very little with only a highschool level education - that's not an insult, it's a reality that requires humility to admit. The bits and pieces that you might pick up along the way simply cannot catch you up with the decades of fulltime study and proper scientific technique - everybody must go up the whole ladder, but our egos make us think that we're good enough to magically skip rungs.

it doesn't need a large understanding to know that a narrow view of a long process makes it easy to make mistakes


also, as far as education goes, a high school ed gives you a broad understanding and a broad range of topics,

getting a PHD just means you know alot about a little, so someone who studies the data in relation to climate temps in the last 300 years, it can be fair that they might have about the same understanding as a high schooler when it comes to geology, or history

so using the same (seeming) logic that the climate changers are using, for the last 2250 odd years, compasses have point north, now the pole is moving, and the effect is getting weaker,

now in that same 2000 years, we have pulled alot of iron out of the earth, so in order to maintain a magnetic pole, we should stop mining ferric metals, or is it a natural cycle (pro tip, natural cycle)

also, as far as education goes, a high school ed gives you a broad understanding and a broad range of topics,

getting a PHD just means you know alot about a little, so someone who studies the data in relation to climate temps in the last 300 years, it can be fair that they might have about the same understanding as a high schooler when it comes to geology, or history

oh no you didn't

I thought I would post a recap of all the evidence that Nerfy has put forward to support his view on what caused the Global Warming in the later half of last Century, Here it is _________________

last edited by FaceMan at 17:13:12 24/Oct/11

pretty sure bitching about nuking and bans is worthy of getting your post nuked, and you banned


also, i'm not supporting climate change, however i support a change in our life style and how we treat the planet

I am PornoPete! When tasked with determining if the earth has stopped warming in the last ten years, instead of looking at the instrumental record like FaceMan, I surf a few websites run by evil people and conclude that it's all bunk because the websites were run by evil people. I'm super scientific!.

Dude you have to joking.

If someone wants to go and backup a statement that is against the current accepted knowledge the burden of proof is on them. I went along with it to the extent that cursory look for this cooling data doesn't exist from credible sources, or as faceman got called out on earlier, shows data from a single weather station in absence of proper context.

however, hopefully the tax will prompt a chance in business

business has got to be the hardest thing (practices wise) to get to change

they will only change if there is pressure from government or from competition and consumer pressure,

(just look at cars, there has been a very slow update until (of late) the price of fuel started to effect the middle class more

I went along with it to the extent that cursory look for this cooling data doesn't exist from credible sources, or as faceman got called out on earlier, shows data from a single weather station in absence of proper context.

I showed a graph from WoodForTrees which is a pro global warming site. (pro is a bit harsh, its a reference for many global warming proponents)

I could have chosen satellite data that shows the world has not warmed beyond the super El nino of the late 90s. In the time Co2 has risen 15%.
Im not seeing global Warming anymore, maybe it stopped, maybe it isnt Co2, maybe its something we dont know of or we do know of but have undervalued its influence.

No Im saying that Superstition is not Science.

No Im saying that Superstition is not Science.

That's great. Although, I'm not sure you know what Science is. For the record, it's not cherry picking data, and subscribing to crack pots. Which, pretty much sums up everything you post.

Here it is for the last 30 years.

While I really don't want to defend Faceman and his ilk... go back further... as far as we have reliable records... trend goes down. Anyone cherry picking dates is doing it wrong.

Please, go ahead and explain why this woman has no conflict of interest and that she must be on the straight and narrow because she's a scientist and she's part of the consensus. Then I will lol.

Megan used to be a VP at BHP. She was hired for her executive experience, not for her current research (I don't think she is currently publishing) - although her experience within academia served her well in getting the job.

The current policy of the CSIRO is to let their research staff publish their findings freely. As long as the publishers (journals/conferences) are held in high regard by the academic community (that is, has high standards and is in good repute).

Anybody doing amateur science (particularly if they're putting their differing results on a higher pedestal) is doing it wrong.

Even if they are wrong, people get to have an opinion.

Please don't reply Nerf, even as I click Post I regret it.

typo once again you have proved Warming happened at the end of the 20th century.

Just because you keep repeating things that are wrong, doesn't make them magically right.

But you are certain that the warming of the late 20th century is caused by Co2 based on Co2 rising

No. I'm not certain. Certainty in Science is the wrong approach to have. I differ to the arguments of the large body of experts that are there to observe the natural world.

If you have some evidence of Co2 EVER causing Temperature rise in Earths history plz post it.

So, again, your argument comes down to because there is no evidence of something happening before, it can never happen?

Could you please do us a favour and score how retarded you are on a scale of 1 - 10. 1 is functionally retarded, and 10 is you.

p.s., the answer is 10

People looking at information available for themselves and not just accepting garble, from either side, at face value is doing it right :)

People thinking that they are even remotely able to sift through that information in a comparable way which lets them then lecture and accuse industry professionals, who have years of training, experience, and testing, are an embarrassment to our species. I love the Buddha quote about questioning everything as much as the next guy, but I'm not inexperienced enough to know everything any more.

People that claim again and again that they have no knowledge, and have no intention to try gain that knowledge, but still feel the need to tell you that you don't have any knowledge at all, in any field, is doing it wrong ;)

I will happily discuss fields in which I am fluent. Though I am far from mastering any of them.

Discussing fields in which one is not, or is only half-assed, is at best annoying noise. When they start throwing out accusations of conspiracies and incompetence, and start trying to drown us in their amateur conclusions and call us "stupid" for not accepting them as the default go to, they become a social cancer against our progress and responsibilities.

just so we are clear, and I haven't offended

I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy, or that there is a degree of imcompentence,

just that I am not willing to jump to it because science is saying it

and i dont take to people claiming i'm not informed because i'm not willing to jump on board,

science can be wrong and misinformed, and pursue a line of research that proves to be non related the problem, (it is science knowledge is gained by mistakes, as well as successes)

I'm not (personally) willing to accept that they know enough about (climate change) because all the factors that can influence it are not fully understood

and I think it is stupid using narrow data to push a point, and the media has played to much in this issue that it (the research) has been polluted due to the agendas of other agencies, and politics

Nah, most people are smart enough to see Faceman and his ilk for what they are, you putting up your 'argument' isn't helping anyone.

Because you're annoying and seem like a whiny bitch. They're stupid. Stupid is more funny/entertaining then whiny.

Also, go back far enough in climate threads and you would see me (and many others having a go at you, including Hog) have a go at them.

ALSO, also; I didn't even respond to any of your usual drivel until you quoted me :)

Yep, one of the most Iconic 4WD's in the modern world sure does look a lot like a rice car.

Pretty sure I never actually came out and flat out said you were stupid before. Though I did just say I would start. Fact is, I didn't have a go at you at all in this thread until you directly quoted me. Was pretty much going to be 'Ignore Nerfy and his usual crapping on about nothing' until you quoted me.

Crapping about nothing which you yourself said that you guys tried the same before my time, until you also discovered that these guys were hopeless.

I don't really know what you're trying to say.

And I don't know what an iconic 4WD is. Afaik cars are either red or not red (red makes them go faster, so I've heard).

blue and whatever colour scooters is

but, i'm not wanting to have a dig

(fyi, for most of the reason you dislike people saying there is no issue, I dislike people saying there is, and using "proof" that sometimes does not include the bigger picture, but I respect that you have clearly done more research on the matter than i might have done,)

I came back to stick up for pete, not to attempt to talk rational humility into those guys. ^_^

We said "You're wrong, here's why;" NOT "You don't have a degree in this field so you shouldn't be talking about it. At all. Ever"

See the difference?

Yes. You guys are making the same mistake as faceman and dazed, but more luckily are in agreement with the professionals, so get to feel even more overconfident about your imagined but non-existent professional ability. :P

No. I'm not certain. Certainty in Science is the wrong approach to have. I differ to the arguments of the large body of experts that are there to observe the natural world.

So in other words, the right approach according to you is let whoever has the most popular opinion make your decisions for you. This goes back to the funny Galileo incident, where the most popular opinion was that the Sun orbited the Earth. You'd also have no problem calling people retarded for believing anything other than that because your reasoning (or deferring any requirement to use any grey matter you have to "experts" that have been caught lying, fabricating data and applying highly questionable statistical methods to generate their trendlines) is about as well thought out as a quadriplegic attempting to do a backflip.

Your entire argument, as usual, is not based around fact. It is based around the assumption that many people cannot possibly be wrong (Galileo was just one incident, there have been many many other incidents). Why are you not willing to simply look at the cases for debunking the hockey stick graph for instance? Do you even know what the hockey stick graph is and what a cock up it was?

Yes. You guys are making the same mistake as faceman and dazed, but more luckily are in agreement with the professionals, so get to feel even more overconfident about your imagined but non-existent professional ability. :P

Properly researching a topic and seeing first hand the amount of debunking that has happened regarding the official global warming story is apparently a mistake. Isn't it absurd that someone who has not researched the alternate views at all is somehow able to pass sweeping and grand judgements on those who have at least dabbled? Only in the west has such abject disinterest in the world around you gone unpunished. Well, the punishment is coming. In the form of a middle class tax. This isn't even a case of the 51% burying the 49%. There was no mandate. Only socialists think the right course of action is one that the intellectual elites decide.

That used to happen all the time. It was around the same time the Inquisition ran around killing people for believing in something other than what the elites wanted them to believe.

Unlike you, I can actually look at data, for myself,

Should be "I think that I can, but really have no way to validate this, as I'm neither trained to do so, nor have achieved anything which highlights or suggests a superior understanding."

^_^

I don't know how or why you are so willing to blindly accept all their future ones.

Huh? I have no fucking idea what their predictions are, nor accept anything.

Saying "don't loudly and viciously spread your amateur results and call your proven superiors liars and fakes", does not equal "I believe or accept anything". It's just suggesting that you guys stop acting like tools and hammering the voting population with your amateur and unprofessional opinions. Like, alternative medicine pushers, and creationists, and everybody else who "interprets the data" without the training, understanding, or experience to do so.

They have them. You are basically saying they're infallible

I just said the opposite.

Therefore

No connection.

you accept them, by default.

Yesssssssssss!!!!!! Somebody understands! As a default position, I defer to the people who are most worth my respect. Not the people who most loudly call me a dick on the Internet for not seeing their genius and jumping on their bandwagon.

Glad we finally sorted that out. Now if you "my-alternative"-science pushers would be so kind as to gtfo of every political and science thread on this gaming board, it would make it a more pleasant place. :)

that is one type of de-forestation I think must people can agree on

You don't even know of their predictions/positions

Correct. Well, ok, I lie, I know a little - The absolute top most accomplished dudes tried to make a short and sweet version, and said something like "carbon == bad, get rid of it, oh god get rid of it".

but you don't agree with them

Of course not. It would be juvenile to go around agreeing or disagreeing with things for which I'm not trained and learned enough to usefully do so.

But you agree with all of them without knowing anything about what you're agreeing too?

I defer to them. They say "this", you guys say "no this", I say "no lawl, you guys are just loud and annoying noobs" and then try to let you understand that most important fact that we are all only noobs, but you guys are all "rarrgh no we are so smart and the scientists are corrupt and dumb, anybody who doesn't listen to us is a sheep" (most compelling argument ever btw, totally not used by every alternative theory and conspiracy notion in the history of everything ever).

edit: And then you're all "arghh no I'm better at objective science than these guys, that's the difference", and I'm all "yeah the evidence of that is sort of... nowhere."

And you think my position is the one born out of ignorance?

Every position is born out of ignorance! But ever since the enlightenment, humanity has been massively refining how to reduce that unavoidable problem, with methods, tools, and super triple quadruple double peer checking and furious re-checking and debate, so that we have some small reason to be confident about, say, whether the sky is actually blue, or whether 1+1==2 (though that kind of tricky stuff is way out of my league, and I've spent several years fulltime on the basics, and have always been an A+ maths student, in maths b & c, and undergrad engineering and science. Mathematical proofs were always my weakness though, they're so goddamn tedious).

now I know I might be well off the mark

You're doing it right :), though unfortunately I can't answer your questions, because this field is not one I'm interested in at all, and I don't hang on to creationist/young earthers/climate change "skeptics"/whatever sites. You could try pm'ing the author who was just answering questions here perhaps (I'd try to make your question shorter though, if possible. I don't actually know if the author is legit).

edit: Actually the very first chain of answers delves into your question, a little.

shit dang, i nailed the gases, not bad for someone with no more than a high school level of understanding on the matter (and that was over ten years ago)

that said, reading that faceman, it does kinda down play the CFC's, which I would have thought has done more harm than all the other man made effects

I quoted you using the fucking quote button.

I said that they were doing something wrong. I didn't say that they can't have an opinion.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Have an opinion, sure, just don't insist that it's better than the scientists' because it's yours.

Trying to play amateur professional (for the purpose of advising yourself or others) is doing it wrong. Explaining away discrepancies between your amateur results and the professionals' with 'they are lying or frauds' before 'I am probably incorrect' is doing it wrong. Lack of rational humility is doing it wrong.

Notice again and again that I stressed that my criticism didn't extend to copuis. He was dubious about "climate change" also (as are we all), but wasn't accusing professionals of being incompetent and liars, and readily admitted his own shortcomings and identified where his knowledge was weak and assumptions were being made.

I don't buy your criticism of me on this topic. It's only ever directed at me, and it always seems to be round about trying to protect the supposed validity of these self-proclaimed "climate skeptics". You seemed to be better than that from other topics.

A little write up by Phil Plait, about the way that circle-jerking pseudoscience responds to attempts to address whatever bullshit it happens to be religiously pushing.

So many conspiracy theorists and fringe-science pushers on this topic, and I'm not sure that they all entirely realise it.

edit: It's magically reaffirming to hear his words perfectly align with my own on this topic (that's from a climate change denialism site, which builds a fantastic case against itself). Another from him as well.

Well, you admittedly would because you're so unbelievably ignorant to both sides of the story that you pass it off as pseudo-science when you quite obviously don't even know the meaning of the word.

I'd say that the stuff that you're doing in this thread, and when you "proved" that vaccines kill people (for Bill Gates' African murder program), are pretty good examples of pseudoscience (despite what your spell check tells you, it's actually one word, ftr).

As a side note, the 'opposing' scientists can be found in every field, for every fringe topic, it's not special.

In the same way that you'll occasionally get religious scientists who, as a huge surprise which calls into question the validity of the entire field of biology, have "doubts" about the validity of evolution, you get evangelicals in research (usually with bad histories) joining movements such as those, while often literally declaring "global warming is impossible, because god wouldn't let it happen."

More useful, is to look to the accomplished scientists (much higher chance that they're doing their job well, as they're getting results). There's essentially no opposition there (and hell, less than 5% by people in total from people who actually have the qualifications to be working in the field anyway). There's no logical reason for the layman to 'side with' them - it can only be religious conviction and faith in a pre-expectant outcome. Though then we're just going to get "No I am on par with the very top professional scientists - one of the longest and hardest technical careers in the world - and you are an idiot if you don't accept my analysis on the Internet.

I said that they were doing something wrong. I didn't say that they can't have an opinion.

Jesus fuck I need to punch something.

I'd say that the stuff that you're doing in this thread, and when you "proved" that vaccines kill people (for Bill Gates' African murder program), are pretty good examples of pseudoscience (despite what your spell check tells you, it's actually one word, ftr).

Don't try and bring a totally irrelevant argument in. That is stupid. Address the facts of this topic before proving your ignorance regarding another.

So you say but you don't link to papers or research. You only ever spit hyperbole about the man keeping free thinkers down.

I do actually. I have done multiple times in very old threads and am not going to bother fishing for the specifics again. Besides, why would I do anything remotely regarded as effort when hypocrites like you deliberately do nothing of the sort?

And as we have gone over the 10 year decline doesn't pan out across all the data. Just because the relationship between the atmosphere is not fully understood doesn't mean that one can not observe changes in it.

You seem to be missing the point still. There is no problem with observation. It is the transformation of observation into bullshit alarmist propaganda, taxes and regulations that I have a problem with. You should too, if you care about reason and democratic freedom.

The point is the people who do do the research are not a part of this fictional civilization ending green conspiracy you keep banging on about.

Do you know this for a fact? It seems there is a significant risk of corruption (as I showed in the CSIRO, that was conveniently ignored or the assumption was there is no possibility for conflict of interest). Besides, the people who do the research are told what to do. Those that do not like it, defect. That number grows daily. Most, I'd guess, like a paypacket at the end of the week.

More useful, is to look to the accomplished scientists (much higher chance that they're doing their job well, as they're getting results).

Here you go again, making absolutely ridiculous assumptions about the opposing side with ZERO (get this through your head) knowledge of the people that constitute that opposition.

- it can only be religious conviction and faith in a pre-expectant outcome.

You must mean the prejudice the warmists had before the climate inexplicably cooled for a decade straight. We are still going ahead with a tax for this, however, even though every warming model has been a dismal failure in predicting temperatures.

Because you insist on reading something that isn't there and won't be told otherwise? :/ Calm the fuck down dude and stop sticking to your guns on a misinterpretation, indigence can't make it true, but it's sapping my respect for you dramatically.

Fucking lol Nerf. You're quite a unit; you don't get to call other posters fuckwits and then a few posts later tell people to calm down.

I con't care if you respect me, not even a little bit. I'm sorry if that's upsetting.

you don't get to call other posters fuckwits

Soooo sooo skeptical of your apparent issue with me on this topic, if that's your argument, considering that the froth coming from those guys was so bad it had to be nuked. :/

You spend a great deal of time calling me a fuckwit, I rarely rarely will speak that way to another human being.

Me thinks, that you are not liking the bullshit of unprofessional "climate skepticism" being pointed out.

nerfy, is like a Mormon of climate change, there is alot of passion there, but it (you view) doesn't need to be forced on other till they agree

hoggy, just let me know when to duck (i fear the punching will start soon)

me: get a clue on how to use grammar ffs

nerfy, is like a Mormon of climate change, there is alot of passion there, but it (you view) doesn't need to be forced on other till they agree

... Why are you telling me this? O_o, I'm not the one drowning this forum in these threads, and usurping nearly every single political and science related thread.

Calling other people liars and frauds fucking warrants the right to call the claimers full of shit. Religious attempts to spread pseudoscience should be stood up to at every turn. Do you remember what happened with vaccines?

People are dying because of pseudoscience, and may well again from the current issue if these overconfident and untrained fuckwits get their way.

hoggy, just let me know when to duck (i fear the punching will start soon)

Hoggy's always "spitting mad" at something, it's part of his identity. He'll get over it.

true, but while faceman floods the forum with information, he does (at times) so that he can keep an open mind, and doesn't ""go with the flow"

he offers a different view (on most things) but it is seldom accepting of the mainstream

acceptance kills change and invention copuis, just now

The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.(oscar wilde, before he died, and well before his graves cock was snapped off)

also oscar,
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.


there is so much data, and so many sciences involved, and so many more theories, that both support and reject global warming, climate change, climate distress, what ever they want to call it, that I feel accepting what science supports in regards to "fixing" this possible issue is plain stupid,

but hey, all of science can't be wrong, I mean they are always been right, all the time right off the bat, it really is a good thing we never travel over 60mph, or wash our hands, use A/C electrics, and use transorbital lobotomies to solve the problems of mental illness, use leaded petrol, and CFC's because they are safe (all those things once were the common conseses of the science world, and were ideas that were heavily supported at one time)

In other words, only a moron would try to fit a linear trendline to that data set.

So only morons don't know proper statistical methodology?

Your craving to make yourself feel intellectually superior to other people in completely irrational and outlandish ways (because this is the only way it is possible for you to be intellectually superior to people) is apparent in all of your posts. You do realise that all you are is 'internet conspiracy nutjob #456X' right? You should be really flattered that PornoPete is even bothering to reply to your frothy dribble. All internet conspiracy nutjobs are good for is making fun of.

edit: added the quote just in case copius wasn't joking because he is such a mormon he might not be.

last edited by fpot at 18:21:40 25/Oct/11

there is so much data, and so many sciences involved, and so many more theories, that both support and reject global warming, climate change, climate distress,

The people who professionally judge that, who have put in the hard years to learn how, and have proven themselves with accomplishments, say that this is not so.

but hey, all of science can't be wrong, I mean they are always been right, all the time right off the bat, it really is a good thing we never travel over 60mph, or wash our hands, use A/C electrics, and use transorbital lobotomies to solve the problems of mental illness, use leaded petrol, and CFC's because they are safe (all those things once were the common conseses of the science world, and were ideas that were heavily supported at one time)

Wait... who proved all these things, if not science?

Do you really think they'd come out swinging with advice, in this day and age, if their extremely advanced and complex techniques for judging the reliability of the data was not giving enormously confident results?

Judging research, and how well validated it is, is part of the work of scientists. You doing it, is like trying to perform open heart surgery without the training, or programming a nuclear power plant, or flying a commercial airliner (which is relatively simple with an early finishing point for learning, unlike a research career), or arguing the law in a courtroom - you don't just do it with a highschool education and consider yourself to be on par or, heaven forbid, better at it. Lawyers often lose cases, guess that means that none of them know what they're talking about, and that there's no more proven reliable lawyers to defer to on matters of the law (which is a difficult field, but still has nothing on hard science).

---------

For all you people who claim that you can quickly "learn anything" in the "information age" because you're "just not a moron" - you could solve a current issue of mine for me. I'm trying to write the most efficient gameengine in JavaScript, which renders to WebGL, Canvas2D with affine mapping, or software rendered sprites buffered in a pixel array - depending on the local machine's performance - in the most efficient way possible. Please turn your skills at being experts to something which will help me at least. (Note, that, some of the classes must be able to run on the Java runtime on Google App Engine too, so I am dual compiling from Java sourcecode using GWT, and use a static overridden boolean to determine when in the Java runtime and when not to determine whether to enter native browser code, and vice-versa, which thankfully prunes a great deal of problematic code from each platform). Fairly simple stuff really, could do it if you were a first or second year undergrad coder. Could probably even do this without professional training tbh, so long as you get basic programming experience one way or another. Go!

Note that - Andrew Bolt or NaturalNews will probably not have talking points for this one, but you don't just repeat what they say anyway do you?

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time something was accepted as a hard fact by science, but was then disproved? I am not talking little niggly things, I am talking about things like the recent discovery that neutrinos could go faster than c (if that discovery was actually a true discovery... wasn't it found to be a GPS error or something?)

I just hope that you don't get in planes and rely on gravity copuis, because that causes scientists far more confusion than Earth's climate.

Luckily, we know to have absolutely zero confidence in anything regarding our gravity algorithms, and aren't so stupid as to fly or to think that we could send probes to other planets, slingshotted by their gravity and taking into account relativity and a jillion other poorly understood science ideas, to arrive at their destination to the second. Those scientists are a joke, always so wrong, about everything, and when I discover that there's any amount of unknown in any field, I declare the whole thing entirely unreliable, and will not build or react on that information, and so will turn to the only other source which is my gut feelings - and rest assured, if I didn't know about it as a kid, and it's big, my gut probably knows it is false, and there's no self-skepticism needed, as if I'm some sort of walking hormonal monkey-man flatworm-mutant thing who perhaps shouldn't entirely trust its own brain if it knows what's good for it. ^_^

it has been happening for how long in relation to diet and what is good for you

how about the mobile phone brain cancer thing (still in the air with debate)

or the still ever changing drugs (pharma)

Vioxx, it was the greatest, safest thing ever, it was only later that they found it kinda sorta gave you a heart attack

and the list goes on, and that is stuff that wasn't all that long ago,

and i'm pretty sure (in the grand scheme of things) that the human body is a tad bit more complex than the climate

You are confusing what the media says is "science news", with news that has anything to do with actual science.

In case you're interested, the mobile phone brain cancer thing is not in the air with debate.

Yeah but you know what I mean. Something that was universally thought as true but then found out to be completely the other way. There are plenty of instances of this in history, but none that seem very recent. Perhaps the invention of computers and their ability to parse large amounts of data more reliably than humans has something to do with this.

all i'm saying no matter how "correct" the thinking might be, the is room for error, and that taking it all as gospel isn't always the best action

as it had been calculated and refined so many times, when it proved to be incorrect

The actual scientific method isn't all that old

Have you studied the history of science formally? Because I have and you're very wrong here, the ironing of you speaking from ignorance in this thread is delicious.

Something that was universally thought as true but then found out to be completely the other way.

Stomache ulcers? I'm sure there's lots more examples. The new discoveries tend to be on the fuzzier, more chaotic systems that can't be very easily tested - like human biology and climate.

Have you studied the history of science formally? Because I have and you're very wrong here, the ironing of you speaking from ignorance in this thread is delicious.

Have you ever stopped trying to be a smug know it all? :P Yes, I know about the foundations. Fuck I've probably quoted half the guys trying to get people to understand the basic concepts on this board.

No I have not studied it formally, and may well be making mistakes somewhere. When I talk of modern science, I mean post enlightenment.

The new discoveries tend to be on the fuzzier, more chaotic systems that can't be very easily tested - like human biology and climate.

More alarm bells. >_>

Nerfy you dont seem to know much at all about Global Warming Science apart from what was on The Greens How To Vote Card last election.

Bit rich coming from a knob promoting a dickhead in his sig as if promoted dickhead is not a dickhead, if you get my drift.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 20:35:56 25/Oct/11

Faceman, I am a lib voter. You continue to insist that this is a green conspiracy theory, you continue to be cruel to your self.

+1.

Faceman, I am a lib voter. You continue to insist that this is a green conspiracy theory, you continue to be cruel to your self.

Because the "direct action plan" is wholly and truly against the grain of man-made Global warming. Oh, wait, it's not. Admitting you vote Labor or Liberal is further evidence you just do not get it.

Have you ever stopped trying to be a smug know it all?

How often will you accuse me of shit you are doing left right and centre Nerf?

How often will you accuse me of shit you are doing left right and centre Nerf?

I've tried to be a teacher, though I'm not very good at it and have lost my patience. These guys have shot themselves in the foot horribly in this thread - and I'm actively encouraging them now, because it's working fantastically in discrediting their own argument. :D

Whereas you look to sneer and mock at every turn, and have done so ever since I joined these boards, in every topic, like some sort of self-appointed king of QGL. :/

-------

I like Sagan's take on anti-scientism for the sake of perhaps staying comfortable, and not trusting our brains - that we need to defer to the mechanisms laid out in science, which gets us those results. You don't get to pick and choose science when it's politically, religiously, or economically convenient to do so. That's exactly when you must be the most wary.

But knowledge, is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Our commonsense intuitions can be mistaken. Our preferences don't count. We do not live in a privileged reference frame.

You have nothing to teach. You evangelise and proselytise.

Har, you only have that problem with me in one of these threads? I don't even make these shitstorms, it's nearly always one of those same few trying to preach to us about the latest "climategate" which has "put the final nail in the coffin of climate science", or they find a vaguely related thread to bring it up and start again.

As I've said, you are so so one sided in that criticism that it leaves one a little suspicious about whether you just might only not like one side of the argument.

nerfy, you are kinda failing to miss the point, I made a point that there have been many times that science has embraced a theory, or an idea, and it has been studied the fuck out of, and science thought it had a full understanding, (hoggy also tried, but his was worded nicer)

only to find out that they have been incorrect, the history of science (in ALL ages) is made from these errors, and from those's who took a step back and looked at it different great leaps in science have happened,

to say that science is 100% correct about this is tbh a fool hardy mistake, because if that was the case, there wouldn't be an argument about it, there would be different ideas on how to solve it, and this thread would have been 8 pages shorter

nerfy, you are kinda failing to miss the point

Oh I understand your point, I promise, pinky-swear, and I know that I'm failing to address it properly.

(Though I'm presuming that you didn't mean "failing to miss the point" precisely :P)

to say that science is 100% correct about this is tbh a fool hardy mistake

I five thousand percent agree. I'd never suggest doing that.

(Given that you're working from an understanding with a highschool science education, I'll try to bring you up to speed for what I've learned since - I may be incorrect in places as I do not have a huge amount of professional experience, and haven't really studied the history properly in incredible depth (I'm actually a giant newb, and know it!) - but I'm fairly sure that all of this is correct)

Putting aside those examples of science's mistakes from earlier (most of them were pseudoscience, things and "controversies" which the media run because they get tons of hits and interest. "Boffins say that coffee equals good/bad for you? I drink coffee!" - nothing to do with real science). Science does make mistakes. People win the lottery. Some people die by being hit by lightning. Though I might point out that presuming that you're going to win the lottery today is not a good life plan.

As far as I know, the "things which we believed, which later turned out to be false" usually tend to be "things which we believed, for unscientific, or comparatively pseudoscientific, reasons, which were disproven due to modern science." I'm not sure of any 'strong' positions within science in recent decades which have turned out to be completely wrong. It would seem near impossible, given the number of avenues of evidence required to arrive at a position now. (Partial filler explanations in frontier fields, which aren't given much confidence in the first place, perhaps are "disproven" more frequently - but that's the goal, not an embarrassment)

But regarding that, modern science doesn't try to pretend that scientists can't make mistakes - it's not some embarrassing secret pushed to the side into the shadows. Rather, the whole modern process is built around embracing that, and ensuring that everything is repeatable, quadruple checked, checked by peers, attacked, attacked again, alternatives tried, checked under all kinds of conditions required to prove something - techniques which have been built up for centuries, every single thing x which must be true or untrue given y must be proven or y is not considered very strong, etc. It's an intense global process, of everybody vying to be right. For something to stick, it has to hold up under immense scrutiny - the more it spreads, the more people there are now looking to check its validity. (This is why evolution is considered such an insanely strong theory, and why the Catholic Church has embraced it - it has been damn well tested and has held up. Note that, as it expands, bits and pieces need to be added, and changed, for the theory or 'algorithm' to best fit all the data points, but the rest didn't just get invalidated - it worked then and works now). Nobody wants to be associated with something which wasn't correctly checked - How would that reflect on them when the truth came out? The modern scientific process embraces humanity's pride and argumentative nature and harnesses that entirely for trying to ensure that an incredibly powerful filter works on this stuff, which is why we are now exploding nuclear bombs, curing tons of different diseases, getting people to the moon, building quantum computers, etc.

There are many areas which serious scientists won't touch with a ten foot pole. For good reason. It would be overconfident and far too early to be making claims in that domain yet (for example, theoretical physicists seem to always be mocking themselves over how wrong they will one day be shown to be in many areas - saturday morning breakfast cereal, if you ever read it, is penned by a physicist, and is an amusing example of just that). Basically, do not expect overreaching from accomplished professionals in science - if they have a statement to make, it's not just a casual sort-of-informed opinion which has a reasonable chance of being wrong due to our own limited understanding. :P

Now, also, there are endless, infinite, "alternative" 'theories', in every field. It's not just the ones that a few are repeating here about climate, every field is filled with an endless sea of them, many junk (such as the easy ones that the media drags out and makes you wonder what the hell scientists are doing), and a professional's job is to deal with that. Every semi-ok sounding idea to us could be, and probably by now is, long debunked junk to the professionals. Things get regurgitated in the public sphere all the time despite long being shown as scientifically unsound. Sifting through that is hard and requires training and expertise. Doing it with less than a PhD (which is a 'doctor' who has put in years full time, learning the really advanced stuff after uni, but still a junior at the professional level - understand how scary that is for what the professional level must be :P, phds teach university students, who themselves would blow highschool students out of the water) would be like somebody in preschool-spelling challenging a leading author to a write-off. People without the training and experience are not worth listening to, they are overconfident. When they get flustered and nasty, and start accusing the people who are professionals of being liars and frauds, then they are becoming pretty terrible egotistical human beings (though it's not their fault, studies have shown again and again that this is what people do - experts disagree with them, they accuse conspiracies. I just wish that people would recognise and stop that).

So, basically, given the above - The global National Academies of Sciences wouldn't be making those pressing government warnings if they had any serious reason to doubt, at all. (Which, on a side note, means that shit actually is almost certainly serious, not a good position to be hoping for vague maybes where it turns out to not be so)

It's not "true" because they said so, it's that it's "the best damn opinion on the planet" because thousands of them, with nobel prizes, said so. Their warning was not with some beginner's overconfidence. Their whole field revolves around specifically trying to avoid that mistake. It's not "their opinion, but very possibly false" - it's "their opinion, and pretty much no realistic reason to consider doing anything but treating it as a truth."

But then people, and not you that I've seen copious, start accusing all of those accomplished professionals from many varied fields as being either stupid (compared to whoever is posting, or a fringe scientist who they judge as quality - which is thus still picking a theory and doing the same thing), or being part of an evil global conspiracy - and for some reason tons of people nod their heads and say "Yes, there is uncertainty about all this." We should be pretty damn furious at them for the terrible shit that they are accusing hard working people of, but instead we seem to be letting our wishful thinking and political/economical ties pull us towards their position. Suddenly we're all as smart as creationists.

This pseudoscience debate being taken semi seriously is like nails in my sanity. We don't accept chemtrails, we don't accept moon hoaxes, we don't accept palm healing, we don't accept creationism, we don't accept astrology, we don't accept chiropractors - yet for some reason, on this topic, tons of people seem to suddenly happily accept that "the science is probably flawed - in fact, they probably don't know what they're talking about! - in fact we should move forward on that assumption."

We should only rely on scientists for science information. We should only rely on scientists for evaluating the quality of scientific claims (not ourselves). We should defer to the most accomplished, especially when they are in an overwhelming majority (remember, fringe claims exist in every field). This army of what is essentially Internet doctors giving medical advice without having ever been to med school, is really really bad. Don't listen to them.

did you really type all that nerf?

i just lol @ this nerf vs hog stuff. this is great.

Suprised to see the topic of a Carbon tax come up on Bill Maher's discussion panel. They were actually for it.

I like Sagan's take on anti-scientism for the sake of perhaps staying comfortable, and not trusting our brains - that we need to defer to the mechanisms laid out in science, which gets us those results. You don't get to pick and choose science when it's politically, religiously, or economically convenient to do so. That's exactly when you must be the most wary.

But knowledge, is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. Modern science has been a voyage into the unknown, with a lesson in humility waiting at every stop. Our commonsense intuitions can be mistaken. Our preferences don't count. We do not live in a privileged reference frame.

Do you actually apply any of the rubbish you push around this forum on yourself? In what world do you think you're wary of the political, religious or economic agendas around the global warming science? You don't even know anything about the science, and you're trying to tell everyone they should be wary. What insanity.

Then you go and quote someone whose first line is knowledge is preferable to ignorance. The exact opposite of you, by your own admission!! My god it is hilarious.

Richard A. Muller (the "climate skeptic" behind the study)

You'll also find, if you look into it, that he actually finds nothing new. He took the same raw data from the weather stations used in the past and then calls himself a skeptic and tells everyone he is wrong. Huge publicity stunt for the green agenda, nothing more.

And calling Muller a skeptic is top notch evidence for journalistic fraud. I'll give here a quote from an interview Muller did in 2008

"Oh yes. [Laughs.] In fact, back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

So he poses as a skeptic recently only to be miraculously converted using old data that says absolutely nothing new.

Hook line and sinker.

Now on the list of people promoting a hidden agenda to defraud you of your democratic rights.

The CSIRO
The Labor Party of Australia
The Liberal Party of Australia
The UK MET Office
NASA
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
*edit*
Oh yeah forgot to mention

UC Berkeley
University of East Anglia

All of whom are doing dodgy research or deliberately funding known dodgy research in a wink and nod arrangement to deny you of something.

You don't even know anything about the science, and you're trying to tell everyone they should be wary. What insanity.

Dude unless you have a qualification that you have been very quite about, you also know fuck all about the Science. All you ever do is ad hominem.

It is obviously totally impossible to consider that someone might consider AGW is possible and that someone else has been disingenuous with their data.

nerfy, you missed the point, and attacked my level of education, because I not willing to jump on board, okay simple

science can be wrong, regards of how correct they might be, the bigger the issue, the harder it is, and the more likely that in 50 years time, people will look back and go, "I can't believe people thought that"

this problem is further complicated because of so many other peoples agenda, both business and politics, all over the world,

yes there is some challenges ahead, and sure they might have done alot of data crunching, but i'm still pretty sure they can only accurately predict the weather a few days in advance, the rest is a really good guess that while getting better, is still a guess

weather is (one would guess) a far smaller and easier to model process than the greater climate, one doesn't need any more than a primary education to know that if we can predict and manage a simple process, no amount of understanding will help us influence the great overall more complex system that the simple process is

"With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that water vapour is the dominant contributor (~50% of the effect), followed by clouds (~25%) and then CO2 with ~20%."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi?id=sc05400j

GISTEMP does not measure ocean temperature anomolies. Because they largely use the same underlying data

Yes it does you can view a graph of there ocean data here

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. Both GISTEMP and HadCRUT include sea surface temperature anomolies in their series (but SST's only, not deeper ocean temperatures). My point was that the difference between them is not that GISTEMP includes ocean and HadCRUT doesn't like you said, but that GISTEMP interpolates gridboxes without any measurements based on the closest ones around (which in the case of the Arctic means using readings from >1000kilometers away) whereas HadCRUT doesn't (effectively giving thos gridboxes the global average by leaving those gridboxes out of the computation). Who's right? There are obviously arguments both ways but in any event, the difference is immaterial. Neither GISTEMP nor HadCRUT show the amount of heating that we should have observed in the last 10 years under the IPCC projections.

So for you to be happy you would need more weather stations in the arctic? Dividing something up into grids for a statistical analyses is totally standard. As is leaving out potentially rubbish data, which can have been affected buy something producing noise. I notice you also leave out that they will leave out data that is both too hot as well as too cold.

What?? Look, I get the feeling that for once I have someone that accepts the consensus that is willing to actually discuss the science. THANK YOU. Worlds apart from outright trolls like Nerf and fpot who bring nothing at all to these threads. But paragraphs like this one are perplexing. I would be very happy for there to be more weather stations everywhere! What makes you think otherwise? Did I make any comment anywhere against the use of gridboxes? You notice that I left out a point that no one has mentioned at all and isn't relevant to our discussion?? We might get somewhere if you calm down and discuss this a little more rationally and with a little less emotion.

Phil Jones and the university of east Anglia are involved in producing hadCRUT if they are tied up in mis representing data how are they doing it if not to their own data exactly? are they hacking into nasa making their model go up while their own goes down?

Phil Jones does a lot more than just maintain HadCRUT. The bad behaviour exposed when his emails were released were not related to the integrity of HadCRUT. Read climateaudit.org starting from just after climategate broke if you want a very long, very detailed, very accurate accounting of the whole thing.

Yes I know for a fact that there is not a global conspiracy involving multiple government outfits from multiple countries employing thousands of people, that nobody except climate deniers are on too.

To not accept the case that catasrophic global warming is being caused by CO2 emmisions does not require that there is a global clandestine conspiracy involving multiple government outfits yadda yadda. I do not accept that the IPCC provides an impartial synthesis of the available science however. I suggest you read The Delinquent Teenager (one of many reviews here) if you want to understand why I reject that the "consensus" view is anything of the sort.

wasn't, more harm was done from CFC's, yet that doesn't seem to play into any of the reasons "why" being put forward, it all seems to be blamed on other gases

wasn't, more harm was done from CFC's, yet that doesn't seem to play into any of the reasons "why" being put forward, it all seems to be blamed on other gases

Well a new ozone hole formed over the Arctic last northern winter, not because of CFCs but because the Winter was so damn cold, during the hottest decade for more than a thousand years.

By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
water vapor, 36–70%
carbon dioxide, 9–26%
methane, 4–9%
ozone, 3–7%

What you don't mention in those figures is what kind of heating each of those things can do when present in equal amounts.

Methane is a much stronger greenhouse agent then CO2 for example yet in that list its only at 4-9% for the current trends. I would wager that the reason for that is that there is much more CO2 and H20 in the atmosphere.

Now there is no doubt that water vapor play a role and that we produce water vapor. But that doesn't mean that CO2 is not the primary culprit. Large amounts of water vapor in the earths atmosphere are not unusual and I doubt that as a percentage of whats up there our emissions represent the lions share, though I would be happily stand corrected. We can be pretty sure however that most of CO2 in the atmosphere would not be up there anyway.

What?? Look, I get the feeling that for once I have someone that accepts the consensus that is willing to actually discuss the science. THANK YOU. Worlds apart from outright trolls like Nerf and fpot who bring nothing at all to these threads. But paragraphs like this one are perplexing. I would be very happy for there to be more weather stations everywhere! What makes you think otherwise? Did I make any comment anywhere against the use of gridboxes? You notice that I left out a point that no one has mentioned at all and isn't relevant to our discussion?? We might get somewhere if you calm down and discuss this a little more rationally and with a little less emotion.

Accusing a model of being misleading because it doesn't have weather stations every square meter across the arctic is a little unfair don't you think. People always go on about the potential costs of climate change. Putting together a fine grid across the arctic and then maintaining would be an enormously expensive exercise and as we don't have any strong reason to believe that the data coming from that area would be particularly noisy. I doubt there are many hidden pockets of massive heat or cold in the arctic that are going to throw out an interpolation of data from that area.

Phil Jones does a lot more than just maintain HadCRUT. The bad behaviour exposed when his emails were released were not related to the integrity of HadCRUT. Read climateaudit.org starting from just after climategate broke if you want a very long, very detailed, very accurate accounting of the whole thing.

The point is that Phil Jones is involved in maintaining HadCRUT. If there is a place where he is going to be doing his cover ups or mis representation sure that is the data set he is going to do it on. But as you and faceman pointed out it is his model which has failed to warm in the last ten years.

I will go through your super detailed analysis of climate gate some other time but, from the wiki page:

Climate sceptics alleged that the emails revealed scientists manipulating climate data and suppressing their critics.[7] Climate sceptics said the documents showed evidence that global warming was a scientific conspiracy.[8]

This is the part that I am taking exception to. Which whatever else you may wish to claim is tied up in the Climategate bullshit.

Now you say yourself that hadCRUT is an honest if imperfect model, if another independent body runs the same numbers and gets the same results, it seems logical to me that the accusation of manipulation of data is bunk.

Attacking the methodology that they used to come up with those numbers is one thing, however that is not what dominated the news or the popular dialogue. It was all the crap that dazedandconfused goes on with:"i'm just asking questions is that so wrong? ZOMG you don't agree with my totally uneducated opinion therefore global conspiracy"

By reading your posts; before someone says it, I know that's my first mistake, but its like a car crash I just can't avert my gaze.

You must be a very, very bad communicator if so many people get the wrong impression of your rants.

I thought this, and felt bad, but surprisingly now get a few pms every now and again telling me to not worry about "the knobs" and whatnot and that people agree with me, which is unexpectedly nice. It's only a few people who consistently have a problem with me I now see. You have a bit of a king complex.

do they have the right to accuse others of being frauds and liars, but I don't have the right to accuse them of being people who can't admit that they're uneducated laymen first?

That's the only thing that I really want to hear you respond to, given your (fluctuating reasons for) criticism of me earlier.

No I mean examples of real science. Not media science.

I specifically asked not for examples of humanity being wrong. I want examples of modern science being wrong, that which dispels humanity's wrongs with proper technique, an entire enormous complex field falling apart. I can only think of evolutions, rather than revolutions, such as where previous algorithms in physics still work at the scales that they were relevant for, but refinements are made for new scales. I should clarify that I'm only interested in hard sciences.

The very fact that science is so obsessed with the fallibility of science is why they deserve so much credit when they come out with a strong unified position on a natural process.

edit: As I said earlier they of course could be wrong, but it's not realistic to work on the assumption that they probably are wrong, given what humanity is achieving now (such as the multi-science machines that we are communicating on via space - all that wasn't achieved by modern science getting it wrong :P).

King complex? Get the fuck out, I don't think you want to start a personality label fight Nerf.

again, look at the examples, they were not media science, but real science, having done every known (at the time) test, and proved in peer review how right they were,

You mean these?

it has been happening for how long in relation to diet and what is good for you

how about the mobile phone brain cancer thing (still in the air with debate)

or the still ever changing drugs (pharma)

Vioxx, it was the greatest, safest thing ever, it was only later that they found it kinda sorta gave you a heart attack

and the list goes on, and that is stuff that wasn't all that long ago

You think that positions are actually flip flopping on these in real science? Or that real science even necessarily has strong positions on those?

Many people consider the media's supposed science stories to be painful at best, actually an enormous problem at worse, because it gives a very false impression of how serious and self-demanding real science actually is. You'd be right to have scepticism - if those listed things were actually a reflection of science or the going ons within science.

Just a few weeks ago, there was this amusing (and for sci fi fans, obviously hopeful) result which CERN was getting which would seem to break relativity. They checked and rechecked for months, but couldn't find an error, and put their results into the scientific community so that other people can try to replicate it, test it, see if they can identify where an error was made in all those horribly complex stages and frontier equipment - nobody seriously believed that relativity had just been broken (even if it had, it'd still work in all the countless experimental situations and real world uses that it has now), yet the media? Straight away - Einstein was wrong: relativity theory busted. Whatever you think science is from the media, is not what science is, it's a horrible hysterical misrepresentation. When real scientists give a unified stance on something, and when you understand to what extent the evidence must be damning to get that lack of internal argumentativeness, you should take it very very seriously as the most informed and reliable position on Earth, not something to be shrugged away as if it's the type of stuff that the media reports on as "science". It's the type of stuff that gets probes to other planets (!) to the calculated second (despite a million crazy characteristics of the space, the solar system, the universe, and time), it's not "coffee is good/bad for you this week".

King complex? Get the fuck out, I don't think you want to start a personality label fight Nerf.

You stroll around as such. Don't like it, don't start it.

he has an undying trust in science, and refuses to accept it's history (sciences that is) and the possibility that it may make mistakes in this day and age

Whatever. You've provided no examples for your claims which weren't media science stories, aside from perhaps rofecoxib which didn't cause the whole field of microbiology/immunobiology/drug delivery/whatever to collapse (and was found, by, yes that's right, science, not-science didn't win the day yet again), and I've said several times that having undying trust is exactly the wrong thing to do, so you're not listening if you say that.

regarding him being like a mormon of climate change

The argument would be made for any hard science with near total agreement from the very top scientists. It's "don't be arrogant and think that you know better, because the odds of that are so close to zero that they're not worth considering." I honestly don't give two shits about climate change as an individual topic.

remember, I'm incapable of understanding because of my level of education

?? If you were incapable of understanding, why would I be trying to explain it to you as if you were? Anybody can understand this without education, it's just humility, and knowing that what the media reports on should not be factored into your worldview of what science is.

they have, after all, studied and run lots of calculations and can no doubt write boobs, and booboil on their calculators without sniggering

No they fucking can't.

Oh, I have no real opinion on that. As best I can tell, Abbot appears to be playing the "it's too early to say" card despite the scientists saying "it isn't", but I was able to dig up some earlier stuff which suggested that he was respectful of the situation, so he might be doing just that - playing it as a card. Really sad though if true, but I don't pay much attention any more so could be horribly wrong.

As for the economics, you know that I know that I have no idea. Judging by the quality of the people arguing against it, and the techniques that they use (attempts to link it with the science being bad/conspiratorial etc at every turn), I'd poorly guess that the tax might not be so bad, because I hear nobody intelligent and honest arguing against it. Haven't looked hard, but expected given the onslaught this forum cops from those so set against it (and my mailbox now too), I should have been exposed to one by now. Jumped on The Economist and saw support for it, felt warm and fuzzy about it.

What's the emoticon for a raised eyebrow?

I'm sorry that 'might' is considered a strong opinion in your vocabulary. You asked, I didn't come here to preach it.

Are you cool with (portions of) the revenue being sent OS?

Why are you talking to me about that? My only discussion is about the science. This thread is about the science.

I'm sorry that 'might' is considered a strong opinion in your vocabulary. You asked, I didn't come here to preach it.

Its the intelligent and honest part I was really quoting.

For someone who doesn't really have an opinion, you seem to have declared that anyone you have heard speaking against the carbon tax is stupid or a liar?

Why are you talking to me about that? My only discussion is about the science. This thread is about the science.

You're telling me what its ok to talk about in the thread, and I am somehow the one with a king complex?

I'm interested in the politics of global warming more than endless debates about quantifying the validity of the field's current consensus. If I start another AGW thread it will almost certainly get locked and I'll be directed here.

If as you say, the science is settled, then surely what should we do is a much more interesting question than should we do anything?

We're done dude. You don't know how much you don't know, and are overconfident, as we all were at one stage. I will science-pray for you.

But you have so much to teach me, Nerfy!

Edit: let me know when you're done reworking your post dude and I'll reply.

Edit: let me know when you're done reworking your post dude and I'll reply.

>_> Me senses that I'm now also getting shit for quickly editing in a response to a post that wasn't there when I posted.

Anyway. Why are you talking to me about economics in a science thread? Why are you having a whinge at me for the board being flooded with "science debate" instead of economic discussion which I've kept requesting? Why are you having a go at only me for apparently preaching, when I'm not the one starting all these "climate preaching" threads, and my responses are only to the preachers in the first place telling them to stop preaching?

i'm not calling them lairs, and i'm not saying it is a conspiracy, i'm not claiming to know better, and i'm not saying they are terrible

Eh fair enough. I can't fault you for most of that post, but I won't accept that modern science is often hugely and fundamentally wrong without examples beyond "media science stories". I don't like that you consider yourself such a good judge of how much science knows, when that's specifically their job and passion, and given that they don't make claims lightly, nor in incredible worldwide consensus from all the top people.

i accept and embrace science, and i accept it has it's flaws, (something you fail to do)

I agreed with you on that in nearly every single response...???

nerfy, you maintain they can't be wrong

I... what? The cornerstone of my argument has been that they may well be wrong, but are not likely to be wrong, and their global combined stance of super intelligent people who also happen to be top scientists is infinitely more reliable than anything that you or I can provide from our brains.

We may be talking entirely different languages. I don't believe that you can know absolutely anything with one hundred percent certainty, so you have to make really really really good estimations, with a jillion considerations for what makes a good estimation taken into account, and better to have lots and lots of intelligent people who are trained and revolve around doing just that, as best as we know how or not at all, challenging it, evaluating it.

As I said earlier, it's not "true" because they said so, it's that it's "the best damn opinion on the planet" because thousands of them, with nobel prizes, said so. Any other opinion, such as "I don't think they've taken enough into consideration", is valid, but not one that I really think people would hold if they understand how much these guys taken into consideration, especially to get everybody to stop arguing like this (the evidence would be near incontrovertible to people who's job and passion it is to controvert it). I won't try to talk you out of the position further though, as my real concern was with what the people accusing them of being frauds and part of a conspiracy were doing.

On the politics being involved thing - I'd point out that nobody is more anal about science than scientists, and the entire professional industry is basically behind this (the numbers of climate scientists holding the position is pretty high, something like 95%, but the number of top scientists from any field also agreeing that it's good and valid science, is very high - their job is to judge the quality of science and they've been doing it their whole lives and getting results because of it. You judging science is essentially doing their job, and you're getting different results, so I would suggest first thinking "well I'm probably not better informed than them about this", considering their positions, history, occupation, commitment, results gained by doing just that, etc).

I am massively procrastinating because I'm stuck with my work, I should probably get back to that. :P

Anyway. Why are you talking to me about economics in a science thread? Why are you having a whinge at me for the board being flooded with "science debate" instead of economic discussion which I've kept requesting? Why are you having a go at only me for apparently preaching, when I'm not the one starting all these "climate preaching" threads, and my responses are only to the preachers in the first place telling them to stop preaching?

Wow, calm down son, you're becoming a little unhinged. Breathe.

I'm wanting to move away from the science to the policy for the reasons we've agreed on a while back there. Discussions about what we should do just seem a lot more interesting, and it's something we need to make our mind up about and vote on soon.

look at the electrics example, (media supported DC, and it wasn't all that loud when AC took over)

I'm not sure what you mean. BluRay versus HD DVD is not science? .

that in one foul swoop showed how little you know about science and the process

the electric thing was down to DC was thought to be far safer, and cheaper, and was the solution to how best to tackle powering a city, where AC was thought to be vastly less safe, more problematic, and less useful,

maybe research points in scientific history, and what brought about the change, and the challenges faced with change, and bucking the respected theory, it might be enlightening

Um, I really don't think I did.

Let's put that one aside for a moment, because in my view that has nothing to do with anything that I mean by "science" (that being a technology industry war, whereas I'm looking for extensive relatively-modern global peer-reviewed research with strong consensus). Got any others? (especially recent, hard sciences, entire fields on the scale and of the confidence of climate science) I can think of two :D (though, they weren't whole fields being thrown out the window and all algorithms suddenly not working as they did before, but they're good reminders of fairly established science not always being right, even recently).

i think you did

you say my examples are media science and industry war.......but so is climate change, there is an accepted thinking, and it is mostly supported


the accepted scientific thinking at the time was the DC was safer, and was going to be the best solution
but it was AC as shown with time, (but no one ever doubted that electrics would work, just which method was best)

no one (sane) denies that the climate can change, it has after all been doing it for many millions of years
the debate is on how/why/if it is changing

the accepted thinking (notice the wording here) is everything that you have posted links too
but it might not be the right answer,

we are not dealing with science fact here nerfy, we are dealing with science thinking and theory, and science thinking and theory often change (it is kinda the essence of science in itself) and I am unwilling to accept your thinking as fact until it is accepted as fact,

science thinks something, then it because a theory, then if it can be proved, and reliably repeated, it is fact, until that last part, it is all guess work (no matter how smart the people putting it together)

you say my examples are media science and industry war.......but so is climate change.

No, it's not.

Point 1 - The junk studies (which you correctly identified as junk) that the media writes about do not have the same scientific backing that climate change has. The media calls that science, you thus think that that's what science is, but it was never science and does not reflect on science.

Point 2 - Edison may have locally pushed for his product in the public, but that has nothing to do with science or the scientific method, and would not have stood up to science. Scientologists, creationists, and many others may use the word science, but their actions are not science, and do not reflect on the quality of science. I would like you to find one single published document drawing any kind of connection between the war of currents and the term science. It was engineering and business, two of my fields, those are not science. An industry can push for something, but it doesn't control the global scientific process and doesn't "trick" all those nobel prize winners and expert scientific investigators from every field into suddenly being caught in a trap that you can yet somehow see through. If you think that it does, you're pushing conspiracy theories.

There is a world of difference between those two things and science, and an even larger difference between those and where climate science is in terms of validity right now. Using those as examples of science is very disappointing, let alone using them as examples of the mistakes of science (and mistakes in science do exist, but those aren't them). Either way, neither of these fit my criteria for large fields of modern hard science such as climate research, which have fallen apart.

You're underestimating the smart people and how anal they are about being right - particularly before declaring any position - which, given the noise confusing you to what science actually is, is understandable, but I request that you don't call those things anything like science any more than you would scientology because of its name.

we are not dealing with science fact here nerfy, we are dealing with science thinking and theory

You will find this is true of everything. A data point is used to build algorithms, but you can't get data points which are algorithms. Scientific theory does not mean conjecture as it does in every day language. It means an as-of-yet unbreakable algorithm, which is a pretty huge flipping humongous deal in this universe, especially for such an attacked field (similar to why evolution is one of the strongest theories in the world, because nobody can break it scientifically).

Very basic guide to that -

no one (sane) denies that the climate can change, it has after all been doing it for many millions of years
the debate is on how/why/if it is changing

That debate has not being happening for a long time. There is an illusion that there is a debate created by faceman etc (which is my issue), but the scientific community worked past that years ago.

and I am unwilling to accept your thinking as fact until it is accepted as fact

It will never happen, and never could happen in this universe, because a fact in science is simply a repeatable observation.

An algorithm can be built to fit all of those observations though, but that's all it'll ever be, an algorithm (or, scientific theories, as they're formally called, but I don't like that word due to public misunderstanding). Those algorithms though? They're the theory of gravity (we have no idea how it works), theory of relativity, atomic theory, cell theory (one of my friends just spent half a decade doing her PhD in cell theory trying to push the boundaries of understanding on one little tiny thing which I don't even understand which might maybe help address problems such as salmonella), theory of lasers, theory of recombinant DNA, theory of evolution, quantum mechanical theory, etc.

A theory is a big deal, but doesn't prove anything. It just predicts things so that humans can do cool stuff.

(Like get to other planets to the second, despite time dilation, gravity slings, and a jillion other things needing to be taken into account)

If a theory doesn't work to a very high degree, it isn't accepted. Some reading on that.

and science thinking and theory often change

Still need examples of something as large and well backed in modern hard science as climate science coming tumbling down.


---

Remember that, I'm not trying to tell you that you should "believe" anything in science as a truth. I'd love if you'd respect it for the undeniably strong position that it is though, and not mix it up with not-science when judging it.

--

Edit: Ahh screw it, the suspense is killing me. Here is the list of obsolete scientific theories. Many of those wouldn't make my cut for being modern theories (the classical elements? fwah) proven under the modern reinvention of science (which, well, works, basically all the time).