The warmers are becoming skeptics

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
Every time you get pinned down to a point, you turn non responsive.
Click to expand...

Pinned down!?!
picture.php


Now, tell me again why they need to do the review?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Pinned down!?!


Now, tell me again why they need to do the review?
Click to expand...

Exhibit A, "Look over there".

Do you understand the purpose of replication in science? Wherin, completely independent bodies rebuild something using completely independent means? It is an integral part of the scientific method, and, of course, the climate scientists have done it with the temperature record.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Exhibit A, "Look over there".

Do you understand the purpose of replication in science? Wherin, completely independent bodies rebuild something using completely independent means? It is an integral part of the scientific method, and, of course, the climate scientists have done it with the temperature record.
Click to expand...

Then why do The Met need to do a review?

And telling me that it's because of public perception proves the point of the OP precisely.

If they are that concerned about public perception, it is because that perception is swaying presumably? Correct?
They also want to also be 100% certain that there data is correct. Right?

So they are either that concerned about public opinion and/OR they have reason to doubt the validity of the data - I don't know which any more than you do.

I do know something, they (The Met) are not complete fools and would have considered the ramifications of their decision prior to making any statements on it. They have left East Anglia high and dry imo and that looks particularly damning on many levels.

Now, you may well be right that the data will show exactly what had been there before, but we wont know until the checks have been completed. Right?

If you think you do know, then apply for the $1m.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Then why do The Met need to do a review?

And telling me that it's because of public perception proves the point of the OP precisely.

If they are that concerned about public perception, it is because that perception is swaying presumably? Correct?
They also want to also be 100% certain that there data is correct. Right?

So they are either that concerned about public opinion and/OR they have reason to doubt the validity of the data - I don't know which any more than you do.

I do know something, they (The Met) are not complete fools and would have considered the ramifications of their decision prior to making any statements on it. They have left East Anglia high and dry imo and that looks particularly damning on many levels.

Now, you may well be right that the data will show exactly what had been there before, but we wont know until the checks have been completed. Right?

If you think you do know, then apply for the $1m.
Click to expand...

The data is already there, collected and presented by two independent teams of researchers. Have you comprehended that yet?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I've said it dozens of times.
I believe the earth is warming. I remain skeptical about humans being the (primary) cause.

My reasons for this are based on what I see, read and hear.
Click to expand...

If one exists, what would be the absolute best peer reviewed paper arguing against AGW?

thanks in advance.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Science threads are thataway >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

UP, You just don't seem to get it. This is a thread dedicated to social issues and current events etc. If you want to discuss the science, go to a science thread and leave us to discuss the OP.
OK?
Click to expand...


So is this supposed to be an evidence-free discussion about AGW?

What are we supposed to discuss on this thread (I am asking you as the OP)
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
WOW! You really don't want to answer the question.
Interesting.

For the rexord, my answer is : NO
Click to expand...
Its a habit of his. He built up a really horrible strawmen of a significant number of posters on this forum and he refuses to support his evidence. He's also complained about his treatment on these forums.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Really? In this thread?
Click to expand...


You should have hilighted the words "on the internet." I was referring to discussions I've see around the internet. The argument typically goes "The data showed that the earth was warming, but the data have been shown to be fudged. Ergo, the earth's not warming."

Not here (in general), and not from me.
Click to expand...

See above.

Steve S
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Understood.

So why the review?
It would help if you followed the previous post when you respond.
Click to expand...

Given that the Times has only paraphrased the press release, and badley at that, since no scientists would ever claim that we can give certainty to anything, I'd like to see what their reasons are in their own words. IMHO, it's just to demonstrate that the answer is pretty much the same, no matter how many times you ask the same question.
 
StuBob said:
If one exists, what would be the absolute best peer reviewed paper arguing against AGW?
thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

You tell me.
We are not discussing the science.
That said, see next few comments...

jimbob said:
So is this supposed to be an evidence-free discussion about AGW?
What are we supposed to discuss on this thread (I am asking you as the OP)
Click to expand...

We are not discussing the science of AGW, we are discussing the 'migration' (for want of another word) of the opinions of some scientists, the press, politics and the public at large to the recent events.

OP
A.A.Alfie said:
It seems to me that support is swaying. Climategate remains a hot topic on the internet, across politics, economics and public opinion.
Yet the warmers remain in denial over the seriousness of the subject.
Click to expand...


uk_dave said:
So your belief that the earth is warming isn't shaken by 'climategate' and "Hide the decline" at all?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are right, I was a bit flippant with you the first time.
In answer to the question...
At this stage, it makes not a lick of difference to the science at all. That is still in place and it is what it is. That said, there will no doubt be reviews and reconfirmations done, and that is as it should be.
Only time will tell if that reveals anything or not.

technoextreme said:
Its a habit of his. He built up a really horrible strawmen of a significant number of posters on this forum and he refuses to support his evidence. He's also complained about his treatment on these forums.
Click to expand...

picture.php


a_unique_person said:
Given that the Times has only paraphrased the press release, and badley at that, since no scientists would ever claim that we can give certainty to anything, I'd like to see what their reasons are in their own words.
Click to expand...

Two things here:
First
Is Times is lying now?

Second
If no scientist would say anything with absolute certainty, how is "the science settled" a valid argument?

a_unique_person said:
IMHO, it's just to demonstrate that the answer is pretty much the same, (snip)
Click to expand...

You may be right, but it is only your speculation (hope).
It also does not explain why the tone of The Times has come across as it has.
And the point remains - neither of us actually know.
 
Last edited:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394669.stm

Do you want more evidence that the political and social climate is changing?
Here's a BBC interview.
They respectfully interview two scientists about public opinion, the science, scepticism, legitimacy of peer review etc, etc.

The BBC! Respectfully interviewing a skeptical scientist.

Imagine, credible discussions about what us skeptics have been discussing all along.

Anyone still think that public, journalistic and political sentiment isn't changing?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
You tell me.
We are not discussing the science.
That said, see next few comments...



We are not discussing the science of AGW, we are discussing the 'migration' (for want of another word) of the opinions of some scientists, the press, politics and the public at large to the recent events.

OP





Sorry, you are right, I was a bit flippant with you the first time.
In answer to the question...
At this stage, it makes not a lick of difference to the science at all. That is still in place and it is what it is. That said, there will no doubt be reviews and reconfirmations done, and that is as it should be.
Only time will tell if that reveals anything or not.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=1976



Two things here:
First
Is Times is lying now?
Click to expand...

I'm saying the evidence is not there. They have provided no quotes, just their interpretation of a press release.
Second
If no scientist would say anything with absolute certainty, how is "the science settled" a valid argument?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/The_science_is_settled

LOL. I used my powers of scepticism to wonder just what context that phrase was used in. No one knows where it started, but the denialists use it all the time.

You may be right, but it is only your speculation (hope).
It also does not explain why the tone of The Times has come across as it has.
And the point remains - neither of us actually know.
Click to expand...

For gods sake, I stated quite clearly IMHO. Of course it's my speculation. :hb:
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
I'm saying the evidence is not there. They have provided no quotes, just their interpretation of a press release.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I have seen them in "quotation marks" in other sites and blogs, but they are the more polically motivated sites and frankly I don't trust them.

a_unique_person said:
LOL. I used my powers of scepticism to wonder just what context that phrase was used in. No one knows where it started, but the denialists use it all the time.
Click to expand...

Funny, I'd never seen that.
But seriously Wiki?
Moreover, I only use it because it's all I ever hear from the warmers.
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
Fair enough.
I have seen them in "quotation marks" in other sites and blogs, but they are the more polically motivated sites and frankly I don't trust them.



Funny, I'd never seen that.
But seriously Wiki?
Moreover, I only use it because it's all I ever hear from the warmers.
Click to expand...

Show me where? I have only ever seen it used by deniers.
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
Just two real quick ones.
One in this forum
Another from a well known AGWer.

“The science is settled”, Gore told the lawmakers.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642

"That doesn't change the fact that the science is, indeed, settled ...(snip)"
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...5375983&highlight=science+settled#post5375983
Click to expand...

Al Gore said it?

"Undaunted, the vice president was in Kyoto a year later, pushing U.S. negotiators into approving language in a U.N. climate treaty that would require an astonishing 43 percent reduction in fossil fuel-related emissions of greenhouse gases by the year 2010, compared to the emissions we would produce if we remained on the trajectory we have been on for nearly two decades. In preparation for Kyoto, U.S. Undersecretary of State Timothy Wirth (now working for Ted Turner's anti-global warming campaign) repeatedly declared that "the science is settled.""

Scientists didn't say it. What you have is a case of lay people trying to put in a few words what scientists actually said. I too think it is 'settled', if that means that when you evaluate all the evidence, the preponderance of evidence shows that it is most likely that CO2 is the cause of AGW. Certainly, no one has come up with anything to disprove it, despite the best efforts of deniers. That is especially so since the physical basis is so certain that nothing is ever going to change that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom