How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[CoolSceptic]

One thing that never fails to amuse me is that the IPCC case has been consistent from the start, the only changes have been refinements of the original claims.

The Vatican has been quite consistent on many topics for the last two thousand years or so. So what? It doesn't make them right.

The deniers never quite know which case they should be use to not believe in AGW, but they know they don't accept AGW. Each knew reason someone finds is gleefully jumped on, even if they are mutually self contradictory.

The usual garbage answer. Different sceptics make different claims. This doesn't mean individual sceptics are wrong or inconsistent. (It means they can't all be right, of course. But this applies to both sides) As I noted with the simple link above, pro-AGWers make differing claims. Some say moderate warming, some catastrophic warming, some claim runaway warming, some claim the earth will explode. I could make the same claim you are making - that they are all inconsistent and change weekly - but if I did that I'd be making the same logical fallacy you are committing here.

 

[CapelDodger]

One thing that never fails to amuse me is that the IPCC case has been consistent from the start, the only changes have been refinements of the original claims.

We've certainly had the easy end of the game, and ironically we have less invested in it. If AGW had turned out to be negligible I'd have regarded it as a bullet we'd dodged. Sadly, that has not turned out to be the case.

(I never had any doubt about Peak Oil about now. There was no dodging that one. Coal is King again. Which people are happy about in these parts.)

The other team, on the other hand, has a strong emotional investment - which goes some way to explaining their often hysterical tone. The last few decades must have been terribly frustrating for them.

The deniers never quite know which case they should be use to not believe in AGW, but they know they don't accept AGW.

So they've had to explain the warming ex post facto. Once they admitted it was happening (if it is). Hard and never-ending work.

Each new reason someone finds is gleefully jumped on, even if they are mutually self contradictory. They still can't decide if it's warming or not, and if it is, then it's because of cosmic rays. You can't have it both ways. Is it warming or not? If it's not warming, then why all the fuss about cosmic rays. You can't have it both ways.

mhaze gleefully has it every damn' way, he's bought the base set and every extension pack issued. He has death-knells of AGW like some poor sods have tinnitus.

 

[Megalodon]

That's a good starting-pack for a beginner.

We aim to please...

We've not seen anything new for a while, have we? Cosmic rays were the last effort, as I recall. The back-room boys aren't putting much stuff out. To be fair, they are getting on a bit and fatigue must surely be setting in.

Yes, most of them hanged too much on the January temperatures, and now are taking their time, letting the proverbial egg drip from their faces.

For someone always complaining of alarmism, their hysterics are very peculiar.

Depressing, though...

 

[CapelDodger]

The Vatican has been quite consistent on many topics for the last two thousand years or so. So what? It doesn't make them right.

So what? We're talking about AGW predicted within the last century, raised as a potentially significant issue within the last fifty, pegged as something we really need to look at in the last thirty. What's happened since? Warming.

When did your self-similar hydrological cycles driving the warming come into the picture?

The usual garbage answer. Different sceptics make different claims. This doesn't mean individual sceptics are wrong or inconsistent.

mhaze is blatantly inconsistent, he just wallows in it, shows no shame or even recognition.

There's a wet weekend ahead, so I may go checking out some other people's consistency. Feel free to pick over mine. I'd expect no less.

(It means they can't all be right, of course. But this applies to both sides)

It patently doesn't, since we only have to sit back and watch what we predicted unfold. We can all be right. We might differ in the detail and the timing - I for one didn't expect AGW to feature so soon, and even a few years ago I didn't expect the Arctic scene to make such a lurch. I expected the ice-loss, but not so precipitately.

As I noted with the simple link above, pro-AGWers make differing claims. Some say moderate warming, some catastrophic warming, some claim runaway warming, some claim the earth will explode.

When you hunt for extremophiles you can find almost anything, especially if you've no nose for parody. So what? We don't have to mine reasons for the warming that has happened because all that was in question were the rate and impact.

I could make the same claim you are making - that they are all inconsistent and change weekly - but if I did that I'd be making the same logical fallacy you are committing here.

No, you'd be making the mistake of claiming that you could come up with a weekly claim of new inconsistency in the AGW camp. Bet you can't.

Thursday 19th June 2008. Thursdays are good for me.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, most of them hanged too much on the January temperatures, and now are taking their time, letting the proverbial egg drip from their faces.

Did that shriek desperation, or what? That's all forgotten now. We're in the calm before the Arctic summer ...

For someone always complaining of alarmism, their hysterics are very peculiar.

On the opposite tack, I'll never forget "Moderates Blow Up Communist Party HQ". A real headline. I forget the newspaper (Mail or Express, I think, possibly the Evening Standard) because that was enough to hit my giggle-button. It concerned the Portuguese Revolution, back in my student days.

Depressing, though...

I look at it this way : who gives a toss? They really don't have any influence. Big flat fish in shallow ponds. Nobody important listens to them. The movers and shakers listen to the oil concerns and the car concerns and car-craving public opinion. Which is only to be expected.

What they don't do is deny AGW.

 

[TrueSceptic]

The Vatican has been quite consistent on many topics for the last two thousand years or so. So what? It doesn't make them right.

Attempt at misdirection. Poor show. And, actually, you might want to check on the details.

The usual garbage answer.

No, it is a succinct summation of what actually happens. Your use of the word "garbage" gives you away as someone unable to assess rationally what has been going on for the last 20 years or so.

Different sceptics make different claims. This doesn't mean individual sceptics are wrong or inconsistent. (It means they can't all be right, of course. But this applies to both sides) As I noted with the simple link above, pro-AGWers make differing claims.

I can't believe you meant and understood what you just said.

Some say moderate warming, some catastrophic warming, some claim runaway warming, some claim the earth will explode. I could make the same claim you are making - that they are all inconsistent and change weekly - but if I did that I'd be making the same logical fallacy you are committing here.

This is because of the inherent uncertainty in an extremely noisy system which we can only approximately model. Are you comparing this with the multiple contradictory GWS claims? Really?

And who claims it will explode? Not one of the people involved in the science! Yet you "sceptics" embrace any old tripe!

Does the term "straw man" mean anything to you?

Until today I thought you might have a case, but no, you are just another delusionist, aren't you?

 

[CoolSceptic]

So what? We're talking about AGW predicted within the last century,

Once again, the age doesn't matter, what matters is the accuracy, the significance, the magnitude of the effect and the supporting evidence. Of course, if you're talking about Arrhenius' work, as noted before, his calculations were incorrect.

Nobody makes "predictions" about AGW, not today, not 100 years ago. Not even the IPCC, who are careful to point out their projections are not predictions.

raised as a potentially significant issue within the last fifty, pegged as something we really need to look at in the last thirty. What's happened since? Warming.

Yep. Statistically insignificant warming. This is important to scientists, it means it does not count as evidence. I appreciate that to non-scientists it might look impressive.

When did your self-similar hydrological cycles driving the warming come into the picture?

I'll answer your question out of courtesy, but before doing so I will add the caveat that the date doesn't matter when it came into the picture, but what the evidence is, and all the other stuff I noted above. Self-similar process models were first published by Kolmogorov in 1941, and first observed in the hydrological cycle by Hurst in the early 1950s.

mhaze is blatantly inconsistent, he just wallows in it, shows no shame or even recognition.

I, for one, am glad we're focussed on the science here. I think this comment is about up to the normal JREF standard for AGW debates.

There's a wet weekend ahead, so I may go checking out some other people's consistency. Feel free to pick over mine. I'd expect no less.

No, I'm happy your posts are consistent, and have no desire to go on a fact-checking exercise about it. Good luck on your little hunt. I'll be reading the scientific literature while you're doing that.

It patently doesn't, since we only have to sit back and watch what we predicted unfold.

Sure, I'm up for that. Better keep on pumping out the CO2 though, otherwise the experiment won't be valid.

We can all be right.

Nope. Even those who get the right answer for the wrong reasons are wrong when it comes to science. So we can't all be right, by any stretch of the imagination.

We might differ in the detail and the timing

Science is all about the detail. Differ in the detail and somebody must be wrong.

When you hunt for extremophiles you can find almost anything, especially if you've no nose for parody. So what? We don't have to mine reasons for the warming that has happened because all that was in question were the rate and impact.

The rate and the impact are critical questions, who cares if we get (as an example) 0.5 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2?

No, you'd be making the mistake of claiming that you could come up with a weekly claim of new inconsistency in the AGW camp. Bet you can't.

I've already illustrated inconsistency in the AGW "camp". Of course you are insisting it is a parody. But the guy who published his pro-AGW rant is a serious loony, apparently does all sorts of sCAM and other woo. Either he has devoted his entire life to being a parody (unlikely) or he is serious. So there are loons in both camps. What does this tells us about who is right? Answer: nothing.

 

[Megalodon]

Did that shriek desperation, or what? That's all forgotten now. We're in the calm before the Arctic summer ...

Yes, and all bets are off... The summer will probably not be too warm, but there's a lot of thin ice up there...

On the opposite tack, I'll never forget "Moderates Blow Up Communist Party HQ". A real headline. I forget the newspaper (Mail or Express, I think, possibly the Evening Standard) because that was enough to hit my giggle-button. It concerned the Portuguese Revolution, back in my student days.

Before my time really... I'm actually a Revolution celebration . But some trivia... Durão Barroso, was actually a maoist in those days.

I look at it this way : who gives a toss? They really don't have any influence. Big flat fish in shallow ponds. Nobody important listens to them. The movers and shakers listen to the oil concerns and the car concerns and car-craving public opinion. Which is only to be expected.

What they don't do is deny AGW.

True words, my friend

 

[CoolSceptic]

Attempt at misdirection.

Nope. The age of a scientific theory does not affect its veracity. My point is not a misdirection, it was reductio ad absurdum. I've noticed consistently that you don't "get" reductio ad absurdum answers, and keep complaining about them. Maybe I should find a smiley to help indicate them to you?

No, it is a succinct summation of what actually happens. Your use of the word "garbage" gives you away as someone unable to assess rationally what has been going on for the last 20 years or so.

No, it is a garbage answer, because it is a hasty generalisation from a handful of sceptics who make weak arguments to all sceptics. As noted, many pro-AGW people make weak arguments as well. It would be equally wrong to claim this means all pro-AGW arguments are wrong.

I can't believe you meant and understood what you just said.

I can't believe you're struggling to understand the fallacy of hasty generalisation.

This is because of the inherent uncertainty in an extremely noisy system which we can only approximately model.

Wow, quite an admission. Now, what is the spectrum of the noise characteristic? What is the distribution? You could learn something here.

Are you comparing this with the multiple contradictory GWS claims? Really?

Yes, obviously. If one person claims sea level will rise by 20 feet in the next 100 years, and the next claims 20 inches in the next 100 years, those are two very different predictions. One is right, one is wrong. That is how science works.

And who claims it will explode? Not one of the people involved in the science! Yet you "sceptics" embrace any old tripe!

I just said amongst people who take sides in the debate, not just scientists. Since Capeldodger offered mhaze (an anonymous poster on the internet), I think my example fits in the spirit of the discussion. This seems to be a caveat you've added now to suit your case. I note you do not apply that standard yourself, for example, your last example of a sceptic was to this site: http://globalmicrowave.orgfree.com/. In what way does that meet your definition of "people involved in the science"?

Does the term "straw man" mean anything to you?

You've yet to make that one stick.

Until today I thought you might have a case, but no, you are just another delusionist, aren't you?

Ah, the mud-slinging continues. Standard JREF stuff. Let me know when you've got a definition for the noise spectrum of weather for us to discuss.

 

[CapelDodger]

...which is what the OP is all about

The best one-sentence summation I have seen is

In summary, each and every one of the above has been found to be the true culprit responsible for global warming which does not exist.

from the excellent Wikiality.

That will never get old .

I've noticed there's no new stuff appearing. Are they saving it for the Arctic summer, I wonder? Last year they wanted to talk about the Antarctic, but that can't be depended upon. "Unusual weather conditions" is a double-edged sword. The 60-80 year cycle is obsolete. Fred "Smokin'" Singer's 1000-2000 year cycle was a joke from its inception. Solar Cycle 24 is screwing over everybody involved, and nobody else really cares.

All eyes are drawn toward the Arctic ...

A great-uncle of mine died on an Arctic Convoy 60-80 years ago. By all accounts it was damn' cold up there at the time, and they were hemmed in by the ice. But what the hey, that same winter killed the Nazi Army in front of Moscow.

 

[CapelDodger]

Once again, the age doesn't matter, what matters is the accuracy, the significance, the magnitude of the effect and the supporting evidence. Of course, if you're talking about Arrhenius' work, as noted before, his calculations were incorrect.

Arrhenius for the hundred year, Callendar for the fifty year, lots of folk for the thirty year, and here we are in the right now. Trying to work out how much more of it will happen, and what impact it will have.

Nobody makes "predictions" about AGW, not today, not 100 years ago. Not even the IPCC, who are careful to point out their projections are not predictions.

yet you have preiously claimed

As I noted [sic] with the simple link above, pro-AGWers make differing claims. Some say moderate warming, some catastrophic warming, some claim runaway warming, some claim the earth will explode.

Are you going to argue the difference between "say" and "predict"?

Yep. Statistically insignificant warming. This is important to scientists, it means it does not count as evidence. I appreciate that to non-scientists it might look impressive.

"Statistically insignificant" and "self-serving hydrological cycles". That's some defence against the real world.

I'll answer your question ...

I doubt it.

...out of courtesy, but before doing so I will add the caveat ...

There you go

... that the date doesn't matter when it came into the picture, but what the evidence is, and all the other stuff I noted above. Self-similar process models were first published by Kolmogorov in 1941, and first observed in the hydrological cycle by Hurst in the early 1950s.

Gibberish.

Answer the damn' question.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, and all bets are off... The summer will probably not be too warm, but there's a lot of thin ice up there...

The validity of Arctic sea-ice as a signal is arguable, but it is seriously graphic and stimulates the loins of some serious players. Russia, Canada, Alaska ... remind them, where's the down-side of AGW again? Drought in the Ukraine?

Before my time really... I'm actually a Revolution celebration . But some trivia... Durão Barroso, was actually a maoist in those days.

What's in a label when reality comes knocking? The Revolution has done an amazing job for Portugal - but mostly because it removed the aberrant fascism that was holding it back.

I spent about ten days in Portugal in '88, and what really scares me is Portuguese drivers. Really; it was quitre traumatic. They overtake on bends because they can't see you coming. It would be stupid to do it if they could see you coming .

 

[a_unique_person]

The Vatican has been quite consistent on many topics for the last two thousand years or so. So what? It doesn't make them right.

Comparing the Vatican to the results of scientific research and a theory based on sound scientific evidence?

The usual garbage answer. Different sceptics make different claims. This doesn't mean individual sceptics are wrong or inconsistent. (It means they can't all be right, of course. But this applies to both sides) As I noted with the simple link above, pro-AGWers make differing claims. Some say moderate warming, some catastrophic warming, some claim runaway warming, some claim the earth will explode. I could make the same claim you are making - that they are all inconsistent and change weekly - but if I did that I'd be making the same logical fallacy you are committing here.

The recent conference in New York was quite happy to have any loopy idiot along.

 

[Megalodon]

The validity of Arctic sea-ice as a signal is arguable, but it is seriously graphic and stimulates the loins of some serious players. Russia, Canada, Alaska ... remind them, where's the down-side of AGW again? Drought in the Ukraine?

And that seems to be another of the motivations of delayers: they'll be alright, and it's only those brown persons who'll get the short end of the stick... again.

I spent about ten days in Portugal in '88, and what really scares me is Portuguese drivers. Really; it was quitre traumatic. They overtake on bends because they can't see you coming. It would be stupid to do it if they could see you coming .

You should do it again sometime. The roads are safe(ish), and the drivers... well, let's just say that we're not as bad as the italians .

But I understand you. My german friends complain about how chaotic is the traffic in Berlin, but every time I went there, it felt as dangerous and challenging as a merry-go-round... everything is relative, I guess.

 

[CapelDodger]

And that seems to be another of the motivations of delayers: they'll be alright, and it's only those brown persons who'll get the short end of the stick... again.

TANJ ... There Ain't No Justice. But it was ever thus.

People who own a dozen homes in four continents can reasonably feel safe. But I think a lot of ordinary people just aren't recognising the risks to themselves. When bad times come they come worst for the poor, which in these post-imperial days is identified with brown people in distant places. A false perception. AGW (and all the other elements of the cluster-hump) will sort the rich from the poor without reference to creed or colour.

You should do it again sometime. The roads are safe(ish), and the drivers... well, let's just say that we're not as bad as the italians .

My dad had things to say about Greek drivers . He was only there for a day but it freaked him out.

But I understand you. My german friends complain about how chaotic is the traffic in Berlin, but every time I went there, it felt as dangerous and challenging as a merry-go-round... everything is relative, I guess.

I've experienced much the same here. People are wary of driving in London, but it's a damn' sight safer than driving in the country. Your typical rustic drives like a maniac.

 

[CapelDodger]

Comparing the Vatican to the results of scientific research and a theory based on sound scientific evidence?

Remarkable, isn't it?

The recent conference in New York was quite happy to have any loopy idiot along.

The Manhattan Project for the New American Century; wasn't it a scream ? They even had Lord Munchkin as a star turn (they do love a good aristocrat over there).

 

[a_unique_person]

The Manhattan Project for the New American Century; wasn't it a scream ? They even had Lord Munchkin as a star turn (they do love a good aristocrat over there).

Their joint statement was one of the best attempts at beating up a strawman I have seen to date.

When Christopher Monckton, who served as a special adviser to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, ponders the current political push to curb greenhouse gases linked to climate change, he thinks of King Canute.

According to Monckton, Canute -- the Viking who ruled England along with much of Scandinavia nearly a thousand years ago -- took his courtiers to the ocean's edge one day, set down his throne and ordered the tide not to come in. The tide, of course, came in, and the king got his feet wet.

The lesson? The king taught his advisers "humility," Monckton said, by showing them that even he, a king, could not control nature. In the same way, he argued, modern-day politicians should not fool themselves into thinking that humanity is having a big impact on climate.

What a jerk. The IPCC has never said we control climate, what is happening is just an unintended consequnence of releasing carbon that has been stored in the earth for god knows how long. You will never convince them of that, though, they are much happier attacking their own idea of what the IPCC says.

 

[lenny]

hi CS CD,

Yep. Statistically insignificant warming. This is important to scientists, it means it does not count as evidence.

could you expand on that: what exactly ("warming") are you saying is not statistically significant? (which obs, i am not asking what significance means)

Nobody makes "predictions" about AGW, not today, not 100 years ago. Not even the IPCC, who are careful to point out their projections are not predictions.

so how is a projection any different from a prediction conditioned on a particular forcing scenario?

sorry to come in late; yes, a rainy british weekend.

 

[Pixel42]

All eyes are drawn toward the Arctic ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm

Arctic sea ice melt 'even faster'

Arctic sea ice is melting even faster than last year, despite a cold winter.

Data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that the year began with ice covering a larger area than at the beginning of 2007.

But now it is down to levels seen last June, at the beginning of a summer that broke records for sea ice loss.

Scientists on the project say much of the ice is so thin as to melt easily, and the Arctic seas may be ice-free in summer within five to 10 years.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7461707.stm

Yes, I noticed that. Early days yet, though it does seem certain there'll be less ice than in 2005. We might actually see commercial shipping-lanes in the Arctic in five or ten years (especially with fuel the price it is). Startling.