Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[greybeard]

The senate inquiry does nothing to disprove the science. Heres a link a link to somebody who was called as the only witness for the GOP at a subcommittee hearing on climate science threatening to sue somebody who did a very polite reply to his views on climate science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-tries-to-censor-John-Abraham.html

Delingpole is a political commentator with no scientific background. What did you think posting the blurb for a book of his proved anyway? It is rather telling that he appears on a show promoting conspiracy theories.
Bellamy is at least a respected botanist but very much in the minority of scientists who think that AGW is not happening. Nothing you posted about him added to the discussion in any way.

I seem to have been a bit too easy on Bellamy in this post. There is an article about him here which would be funny if the subject were not so serious. You would think people would at least look into his background before they quote him as a reliable source.

 

[Belz...]

I think a clue to what makes the deniers tick is the references to socialism. communism etc. They seem to think that this is a battle between left and right wing rather than a discussion about science.

You see that a lot in conspiracy discussions, but moreso with climate change. One side of the debate tends to politicize the discussion for some reason, as if reality had political leanings, and as if politics was the main concern of scientists or, for that matter, most people. It really speaks more about the conspiracy theorist mindset, which is usually fueled by government-related paranoia, leading them to extreme right-wing ideas.

 

[Belz...]

Climate Change Research has a unique opportunity for those who enter the field to focus on one conclusion to be found. Most other science does not.

How so ? I'd like an explanation of that, because it's not as if there's big money to be made in those fields.

 

[DC]

Oh sure, special or secret knowledge.... to those who don't want to know about their failures.
You should get out more often.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_Kyoto_Protocol\

You've gone out of your way to call me a "denier",despite not one single statement by myself arguing that climate change is not happening. You've tried to label me a conspiracy theorist despite my repeated clarifications that individuals following ideologies or self interests need no agreements at all.
Now you are trying to associate me with the tobacco industry using what bizarre rationale I don't know nor do I care, but your well demonstrated tactics do not provide an argument that those promoting this issue do so with any form of objectivity.

what would you have done? what was your solution? do you think we are in a position to tell other countries to reduce their CO2 emission when their per capita emissions are so extremely much lower than ours?
what would you have done?

 

[greybeard]

O
You've gone out of your way to call me a "denier",despite not one single statement by myself arguing that climate change is not happening. You've tried to label me a conspiracy theorist despite my repeated clarifications that individuals following ideologies or self interests need no agreements at all.
Now you are trying to associate me with the tobacco industry using what bizarre rationale I don't know nor do I care, but your well demonstrated tactics do not provide an argument that those promoting this issue do so with any form of objectivity.

You are not a denier but you think that climate scientists are making things up to keep their jobs and that Delingpole and Bellamy are reliable sources of information. I think a little more honesty might be in order here.

 

[batvette]

what would you have done? what was your solution? do you think we are in a position to tell other countries to reduce their CO2 emission when their per capita emissions are so extremely much lower than ours?
what would you have done?

what I would not do is implement schemes that encourage corporations and capital to flock to unregulated markets, while allowing a global organization whose very mission is economic and social equality, to handle the architecture of policy.
I told you what my solution was long ago FREEZE C02 EMISSIONS GLOBALLY NOW so stop trolling me with your pointless badgering, okay?
You've made your global socialist ideology quite clear, while you're wallowing around in industrialized nation guilt all wrapped up in "per capita" standards the planet goes to hell.

 

[DC]

what I would not do is implement schemes that encourage corporations and capital to flock to unregulated markets, while allowing a global organization whose very mission is economic and social equality, to handle the architecture of policy.
I told you what my solution was long ago FREEZE C02 EMISSIONS GLOBALLY NOW so stop trolling me with your pointless badgering, okay?
You've made your global socialist ideology quite clear, while you're wallowing around in industrialized nation guilt all wrapped up in "per capita" standards the planet goes to hell.

how do you prevent countries from emitting CO2?
if China would have said, hey stopp emitting CO2 as much you like, we don't, what would you have done?

 

[uke2se]

Oh sure, special or secret knowledge.... to those who don't want to know about their failures.
You should get out more often.

I really should.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_Kyoto_Protocol\

Oh look, irrelevancy.

You've gone out of your way to call me a "denier",despite not one single statement by myself arguing that climate change is not happening.

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You've tried to label me a conspiracy theorist despite my repeated clarifications that individuals following ideologies or self interests need no agreements at all.

Saying something doesn't make it true. Climate denialism requires a conspiracy theory. You're a denier, thus you're a conspiracy theorist.

Now you are trying to associate me with the tobacco industry using what bizarre rationale I don't know nor do I care,

No, I'm not. Learn to read.

but your well demonstrated tactics do not provide an argument that those promoting this issue do so with any form of objectivity.

Nobody is "promoting" AGW. It's typical for deniers to make this mistake. Nobody wants AGW to be real, but rational people are able to accept facts.

 

[lomiller]

Sigh....

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol...

You keep making this claim but you have yet to answer my question "which countries have implemented Kyoto?"

 

[CapelDodger]

Though I have stated I don't argue with the science per se, I'm more concerned about the failed policies promoted by self loathing leftists if it's right. And it may be simply a matter of their self flagellation producing a self fulfilling prophecy of doom. They don't care if their policies make it worse because they feel humans are a cancer which need to be wiped off the earth.

(this sentiment can be well documented)

I find that surprising. The diplomats who negotiated Kyoto, and who fail to negotiate any follow-up at every Climate Convention, have surely never stated publicly that they "feel humans are a cancer which needs to be wiped off the the earth". Apart from anything else that's not very diplomatic language, is it?

Are you sure you're not assigning these beliefs to people who don't happen to share yours, simply because they don't?

Your policy of forbidding China and India from develping through the tried-and-tested fossil-fueled route would wipe out a lot of people in its enforcement (which is bound to be resisted quite fiercely). Or is that not what you mean?

If they can blame Republicans for the mess they helped create this is great for them.

I don't blame US Republicans. I don't even care about them as long as they stay out of my country. British Republicans I'm OK with : frankly, we can do without the monarchy in my opinion. I wouldn't advocate wiping them out, though, just consigning them to the dustbin of history.

 

[GeneMachine]

So we are back to "the whole scientific community is conspiring against the truth" and waffling about "climategate". Well, you could have explicitely stated that from the onset, it would have saved us some pages of wasted posts.

Also, you are constantly insulting the whole scientific community and wonder when you get met by hostility. Gee, why would that be?

I think it really is time to put this back on moderated.

 

[DC]

so he would force developing countries to stay poor and stop increasing CO2 emissions and never told us how much we would reduce ours or anything we would do becides also stoping increasing CO2 emissions.

but then when scientists are upset because a lousy paper that should not have passed peer review , which was used to discredit the many hours or real reasearch around the world into the biggest problem human mankind ever faced, and write a few angry emails its an absolute no go....

 

[CapelDodger]

... the gist of my position, and refuse to acknowledge references I provided like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth:_Fraud_and_Deceit_in_the_Halls_of_Science

A book written by two journalists, one presumably ghosting the popular style and the other a science journalist, famous (well, in certain circles) for a controversy in the field of anthropology. I can certainly see how anthropology, as a science, is on the soft side, but don't see how the same can be said of the physical sciences - which are as hard as they come.

Just as an observation here, this book provides an all-purpose get-out for anyone who wants to reject scientific findings they don't like. There have been (short-lived) frauds in the physical sciences and this could be one of them. Nothing can be trusted, not even independent replication. The people involved may have been attracted to science by their ideologies, which are not those of this hypothetical person affronted by their results.

Given that, this book is not strong support for anything, is it? Anyone leaning on it could easily be one of those lazy hypotheticals avoiding the tedious business of understanding the science and research of the particular case. In this case, climate science, oceanography, glaciology, fluid dynamics and geology (in the main).

Going back to when the games began, you stated :

The earth is likely warming, it is reasonable AGW may be the primary factor but I have a somewhat different take on the solar factor and more importantly assert that the science IS perverted inherently by the line of work involved. (will be elaborated on)

Here you are unequivocal : the science is perverted inherently.

So far in support you have offered that scientists might be attracted to a field of study by their ideologies, but have not shown that this has actually happened in climate science - or oceanography, or glaciology or any other related field. Not much of an elaboration there.

You have also offered a book by two journalists on the existence of fraud in science, which has certainly occurred and has often hit the mainstream news when scientists discover and reveal it. Especially when it's in medicine - fraud at the LHC is a lot harder to perpetrate than one man in his lab with no-one but rats to keep an eye on him. You haven't offered any reason to think fraud has happened in climate science.

As an elaborator you're falling pretty short, I have to say.

Now to the "inherently". What is inherently perverting about atmospheric physics or oceanography or palaeoclimatology or meteorology? Was Arrhenius's work perverted? Or Hadley's, he of Hadley Cell fame? Tyndall's? Callendar's? FitzRoy's? I really don't get this at all.

Kindly elaborate, at least on the "inherently" point. What inherently perverts the study of how the climate works? Frankly, I find the idea utterly bizarre.

 

[CapelDodger]

Seriously, you went from "climate change might be real, but Kyoto doesn't work, thus GLOBAL SOCIALISM" via "all climate scientists lie for profit" to outright "climategate" bat-guano nonsense. And I am now supposed to identify your "position"? How shall I do that when you change your position, hopefully, more often than your underwear?

You might say that. I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's perhaps worth pointing out that all of the national science institutions which have a stated position on AGW take the same line - it is a real and present danger. There are very few issues on which such institutions actually have stated positions, which suggests this one has been the subject of much examination by experienced scientists followed by a decision to risk their institution's reputation on it.

In the light of this, the contention that there is fraud in climate science, let alone that the study is inherently perverting, is seriously out there. Beyond the fringe.

 

[CapelDodger]

but then when scientists are upset because a lousy paper that should not have passed peer review , which was used to discredit the many hours or real reasearch around the world into the biggest problem human mankind ever faced, and write a few angry emails its an absolute no go....

One wonders how history will look back at this from beyond the crisis. Popular belief will probably be that we all believed in SlimeItGate and thought Monckton was a guiding intellectual light. Then suddenly, oops, no Arctic Ice and we're left all of a flutter.

Kyoto and SlimeItGate, and of course breaking the hockey-stick and proving one day, somehow that its all due to the UHI - it's all getting so old. Like most of the deniers.

 

[CapelDodger]

A quote from the book cited earlier :

Our conclusion, in brief, is that science bears little resemblance to its conventional portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it

Not great thinkers these. They can't seem to distinguish between science and individual scientists.

Science bears every resemblance to its conventional portrait as a structure of many mutually supporting bricks, none of which are the product of one man's personal prejudice or some period and place's propaganda. Nullius in Verba, motto of the Royal Society - arguably the very centre of the building project. The mentality, personalities, feuds and prejudices of the individuals involved made no difference to the structure.

Anybody would think we've just chanced upon the modern world on the back of a deeply flawed vehicle. The reason science is held to high standards is that it has those standards.

As for the last line - "Scientists ... have no monopoly on [rational thought]", I find it very revealing. Nobody claims this, but here they are refuting it - they've got issues, or at least the scientific journalist has (the other's probably just unmangling the prose). Couldn't make it as a scientist, I'll be bound, and resents it still.

I can see why the book would draw a certain audience like flies to a sheep-pile.

 

[lomiller]

Why don't you do the research if you don't know this fact? It's not my responsibility to bring you up to speed on the issues.

You made a claim, it's your responsibility to support that claim. You don't get to tell people "do the research" it's up to you to do the research.

Once again, you made an argument that started with "Since Kyoto was implemented..." and I asked you to tell us which countries have implemented Kyoto. It's a simple question, why are you unable to answer it?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by ArmoredDragon
This.

I don't really get all of this hate coming from people like macdoc who hold the status quo as an unquestionable dogmatic truth.

It's simply that many of us here who DO understand the science and understand the reality of AGW, get tired of ill informed drop in's recycling crap we've seen before that has been discounted in all but the minds of the Faux Koolaid drinkers....mostly elderly republicans who have little or no grasp of science let alone climate science.

There is no dogma other than in your adhering to denier mantras.

Our understanding is based on peer reviewed science that we've dealt with for years - some in a professional capacity.
We are happy to answer honest questions. Try it sometime. So far all we've seen is wearisome nonsense and an amazing ignorance of planetary processes.

 

[greybeard]

Because it's not conspiracy theory to point out that the human factor involved in Science can make its conclusions imperfect.

And if all you've got for an argument is falsely labelling me with a derogatory label which does not reflect my statements nor the gist of my position, and refuse to acknowledge references I provided like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth:_Fraud_and_Deceit_in_the_Halls_of_Science



Then I certainly feel no need to attempt to earn your favor or that or your sycophants, and rest easily knowing your cabal does not have such a fascist grip on discussion by the general public and only exists in precious few internet forums.
Not even the Democrat POTUS shares the extremist, crackpot attitudes shared by you people, you're left with nothing but trying to marginalize someone bringing common sense to a discussion when the reality is you're the fringe. You're marginalized. He won't sign on to ruinous one sided policies with dubious possible benefits. You won't even stop to notice this.

The problem I am having with you Batvette is that you don't seem to have any evidence to back up your views. Your views on AGW seem to be derived from your political point of view. If you join the debate in a science forum you will be expected to know what you are talking about unlike denialist blogs were any crackpot idea is accepted without proof required.
There is a scientific consensus that global warming is taking place and it is caused by human activity. The way you deal with that is to say that the scientists are making stuff up because that puts food on the table. You were asked, not unreasonably, for evidence to back that up. What you eventually came up with was a blurb for a book by a political commentator with no scientific background and a Botanist whining because the BBC wont give him a tv programme. I have shown that his views on AGW are laughable and others have shown that the BBC stopped employing him long before he changed his views on global warming.
There is a serious point here Batvette. I am not a scientist, I'm just somebody studying all sides of the argument. I could be persuaded that AGW is not happening. When I study the two sides of the argument though it strikes me that the scientists are doing their job which is doing their best to make sense out of a very complex subject. On the other side I see people who most often have no scientific background, who's views are easily debunked, and who run from any serious debate like Monckton did when he lost his argument with Peter Hadfield on wattsupwiththat.
There is a serious debate to be had here Batvette. Look back at your posts in this forum and see if you can find any credible evidence that would convince anybody to change their point of view. I don't see any.