The End Of Matter?

[ERayR]

I do not ignore anything, perhaps you don't read or understand what I present?

I am sorry, but the arguments you present against it are flawed. 

 

Even if GW theory if false, your arguments remain flawed. 

 

 

 

I have compassion for the poor, and I am not 100% convinced that GW theory is correct, but I will take it seriously just in case it is real. 

The consequences will be too big to just ignore it, even if there is only a 5% chance. 

 

Are you 100% convinced that GW theory is false? 

 

With you it is always all or nothing.

[sethpayne]

Well this thread certainly took an unexpected turn.

[ERayR]

Well this thread certainly took an unexpected turn.

 Not so unexpected.  Skeptic thinks GW is the end of matter.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 Not so unexpected.  Skeptic thinks GW is the end of matter.

Well GW is the end of this thread. Any time there is a thread that deals with any thing that is science related and Skeptic comes in it will always end up going to GW.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have compassion for the poor, and I am not 100% convinced that GW theory is correct, but I will take it seriously just in case it is real. 

The consequences will be too big to just ignore it, even if there is only a 5% chance. 

 

Are you 100% convinced that GW theory is false? 

Pretty sure. All of the supposed warming is based on flawed computer models dude. That is not a recipe for certainty. Clearly you are willing to hang your hat on those models I am not. So far they have been proven to be false. For they did not foresee the last 18 years.

 

Even at 5% chance that is too low of probability to be taken serious. I need something more than chance to hang my hat on any way. That is not a very good argument. Sorry. If anything this is an admission from you that your ideology is driving your world view. You claim you are all about science and evidence yet you say something as silly as the above. Oh well. 

 

Djent on this.

 

Edited August 5, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[ERayR]

Pretty sure. All of the supposed warming is based on flawed computer models dude. That is not a recipe for certainty. Clearly you are willing to hang your hat on those models I am not. So far they have been proven to be false. For they did not foresee the last 18 years.

 

Even at 5% chance that is too low of probability to be taken serious. I need something more than chance to hang my hat on any way. That is not a very good argument. Sorry. If anything this is an admission from you that your ideology is driving your world view. You claim you are all about science and evidence yet you say something as silly as the above. Oh well. 

 

 

Perhaps he hasn't heard that figures don't lie but liars sometimes figure.

[Zakuska]

I liked this from Skeptics article.

 

 

  Snowball Effect

Unfortunately, these nuances get lost in the extreme rhetoric on climate change playing out in the mass media. Instead of engaging in cool-headed discussions, some mainstream sympathizers attack anyone who disagrees with the IPCC, while conservatives cherry-pick isolated events and statements to undermine the evidence for global warming.

That was plainly evident late last year, when scientists discovered the IPCC had erroneously stated that all 15,000 Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, which is implausible under even the worst climate scenarios, according to Jeffrey Kargel, the glaciologist at the University of Arizona who first noticed the error. That error was ultimately found to be a clerical mistake (the correct year was supposed to be 2350, Kargel says) appearing first in New Scientist magazine,14 then in a World Wildlife Fund brochure,15 and finally in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report,3 released in 2007.

The media response was nothing short of extraordinary. Every major newspaper in the world reported the error, which dealt a blow to the IPCC’s reputation. Kargel says that’s unfortunate. “This was a very embarrassing, grossly erroneous paragraph in an encyclopedic document,” he wrote in a 22 January 2010 response to an article in The Economist.16 “The IPCC Fourth Assessment is 99.9% correct, as far as science knows . . . and almost all media reporting in the last week is not about that 99.9%; it’s about the 0.1%.” Yet the incident also highlighted the fact that the Fourth Assessment had based this particular conclusion at least in part on “gray literature”—non-peer-reviewed or nonpublished sources.

The IPCC suffered yet another embarrassment when nearly 1,000 hacked e-mails originating from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich, UK, went viral on the Internet. The CRU is one of the IPCC’s main suppliers of trend data on global temperatures. Several exchanges between CRU director Phil Jones and other scientists suggested they were trying to block dissenting evidence from the peer-reviewed literature. During the resulting furor, dubbed “Climategate,” Jones stepped down temporarily from his position as CRU director but was reinstated in July 2010. Skeptical media have since voiced the view that just a few influential scientists control the IPCC and squelch dissenting views.

 

Skeptic should be skeptical of the IPCC report but he's not. Takes it at face value hook line and sinker.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/

Edited August 5, 2015 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

I liked this from Skeptics article.

 

 

 

Skeptic should be skeptical of the IPCC report but he's not. Takes it at face value hook line and sinker.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002211/

 

His insecurities are soothed by numbers even if they are manufactured numbers.

Edited August 5, 2015 by ERayR

[TheSkepticChristian]

Pretty sure. All of the supposed warming is based on flawed computer models dude.

 

Not at all dude, you do not know what you are talking about 

 

 

Even at 5% chance that is too low of probability to be taken serious.

 

We have a lower chance of being in a serious car crash tomorrow, but we still have to put the seat belts.

A 5% chance is high enough, but in reality, GW theory is high likely (about 90%) to be true. 

 

At least I am not 100% certain of the things I am saying. you are completely certain. 

 

 

 For they did not foresee the last 18 years.

 

Sure, how come there are far more record highs than record lows?

Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

Skeptic should be skeptical of the IPCC report but he's not. Takes it at face value hook line and sinker.

 

"this particular conclusion" 

 

about the Himalayan glaciers? So what? LOL some details about the IPCC report are still controversial, but climate researchers agree with the basics. No scientific theory is perfect, but there are simply too many evidences that confirm GW theory. 

 

So, I am still waiting for a list of climate researchers that disagree with the basics of GW theory? Where is it? Please don't send me another bad senate report LOL (see post 161)

 

A climate researcher had a PhD in climatology (or related field) and does research. He writes scientific papers about climate. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

His insecurities are soothed by numbers even if they are manufactured numbers.

 

but did you notice that Zakuska didn't respond to the criticisms (see post 161)  of his senate report? 

He simply changed the subject. 

 

 

Well GW is the end of this thread. Any time there is a thread that deals with any thing that is science related and Skeptic comes in it will always end up going to GW.

 

I am not the one that started talking about it 

Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

but did you notice that Zakuska didn't respond to the criticisms (see post 161)  of his senate report? 

He simply changed the subject. 

 

 

 

 

I am not the one that started talking about it 

Changed the subject?  Not at all.

 

Going through your source material like you did mine is all.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

"this particular conclusion" 

 

about the Himalayan glaciers? So what? LOL some details about the IPCC report are still controversial, but climate researchers agree with the basics. No scientific theory is perfect, but there are simply too many evidences that confirm GW theory. 

 

So, I am still waiting for a list of climate researchers that disagree with the basics of GW theory? Where is it? Please don't send me another bad senate report LOL (see post 161)

 

A climate researcher had a PhD in climatology (or related field) and does research. He writes scientific papers about climate. 

So what? <giggle>

 

If they where that sloppy on one simple fact how sloppy where they on others?  And how much "Gray" material found its way into other places and supposed "facts"?

 

Lets talk about the 97% concenus... oops minus all the papers we mis-qualified. <giggle> <giggle> <grin>

 

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

The paper, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' searched the Web of Science for the phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" then categorizing these results to their alleged level of endorsement of AGW. These results were then used to allege a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming.

To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

 

Heres an example....  Notice how the IPCC relied upon a "Rocket Scientist" (Dr. Soon) and a misqualification of what he said to boot.

 

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake.Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."

 

Dr. Soons actual position is that CO2 has little baring on climate change and yet his paper is qualified as having said nothing about AGW at all and all because it goes against what the party line on AGW says.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Fully 1/4 of adult American's believe the sun revolves around the earth.

 

Ps; Soon was paid by the energy companies to lie.

SEE http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

Edited August 6, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Zakuska]

Fully 1/4 of adult American's believe the sun revolves around the earth.

 

Ps; Soon was paid by the energy companies to lie.

SEE http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

A Lieing "Rocket Scientist"...?   He has no PHd in Climatology (Skeptics qualifier) so why is the IPCC relying on anything he said in the first place?

 

Let alone hiding the fact that what he said didn't follow the party line.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

If they where that sloppy on one simple fact how sloppy where they on others?  And how much "Gray" material found its way into other places and supposed "facts"?

 

LOL We can verify it in the Scientific literature, it is that simple. 

 

 

Lets talk about the 97%... oops minus all the papers we mis-qualified.

 

because they don't survive scientific scrutiny

 

 

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

 

, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them

 

Changing the subject again? Well, I hope you realize that your Senate report is flawed.

 

As for the blog, he cherry picked they scientists, they are part of the 1% 

 

Tell me, where are their papers? 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

LOL We can verify it in the Scientific literature, it is that simple. 

 

 

 

because they don't survive scientific scrutiny

 

 

 

 

Changing the subject again? Well, I hope you realize that your Senate report is flawed.

 

As for the blog, he cherry picked the scientists and it is funny that the Paper your talking about never cited their papers. 

No more flawed and jaded by bias than the bought and paid for IPCC report you tote.

 

PS>  Why is the IPCC realying upon what a "Rocket Scientist" said about AGW in the first place?

Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

Wow, I wouldn't have predicted this thread would end up on global warming. FWIW, I found the following from a Koch-funded skeptic pretty interesting:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

[TheSkepticChristian]

No more flawed and jaded by bias than the bought and paid for IPCC report you tote.

 

PS>  Why is the IPCC realying upon what a "Rocket Scientist" said about AGW in the first place?

 

I never read the IPCC report, I read the scientific literature. The IPCC is not perfect, but the climate skeptic arguments are light years away from being perfect. 

 

So, do you agree your Senate report is flawed? Why did you link to a blog that cherry picked the scientists? their papers are part of the "0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming" 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Wow, I wouldn't have predicted this thread would end up on global warming. FWIW, I found the following from a Koch-funded skeptic pretty interesting:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

So now instead of the deep oceans eating all the heat... its the rocks and trees.

 

 

Lets just kill all the cows or harvest their methane.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

So now instead of the deep oceans eating all the heat... its the rocks and trees.

 

 

What a bizarre thing to say. Where the heck are you getting that?

[Zakuska]

I never read the IPCC report, I read the scientific literature. The IPCC is not perfect, but the climate skeptic arguments are light years away from being perfect. 

 

So, do you agree your Senate report is flawed? Why did you link to a blog that cherry picked the scientists? their papers are part of the "0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming" 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

I can agree that both sides of the argument arnt perfect. that both sides are being funded by questionable sources etc etc etc.

[Zakuska]

What a bizarre thing to say. Where the heck are you getting that?

 

 

 

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

 

A better explanation for surface temp rise is all the concrete and assphault we humans lay down which traps the heat not green house gases.  

Edited August 6, 2015 by Zakuska

[jkwilliams]

A better explanation for surface temp rise is all the concrete and assphault we humans lay down which traps the heat.

 

How can you say it's a better explanation if you don't engage his data or findings? 

 

You must have missed this:

 

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.

 

BTW, since that piece was published, they've merged the land and ocean data sets. The article in question was about the land data specifically. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I can agree that both sides of the argument arnt perfect. that both sides are being funded by questionable sources etc etc etc.

 

I just proved that the stuff you present is flawed, why don't you respond to that? 

Edited August 6, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian