Interesting comment on climate change

[Walsingham]

I thought this was interesting because it's the only time I've ever read a sensible comment on an article. Although needelss to say it was only tangentially on warming. The author was quoted simply as 'Dave'.

 

 

 

In the global instrumental temperature record that began in 1850 there have been three periods of rapid warming, all at identical rates, 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1970-1998. The third of these periods is the only one that humans could have influenced, even in theory, and yet the warming rate during that period is identical to the warming rates in the two earlier periods, which humans could not have influenced. Therefore there is NO anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record at all.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but your efforts to defend your warming nonsense by reference to the Professor Jones interview has already been debunked. So it will save a lot of time if you would just read the following article:

 

 

 

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-pl...he-climate-wars

 

 

 

The main observations from the article are:

 

The warming from the 1950s didn

Edited March 23, 2010 by Walsingham

[Amentep]

Truth is I admit to being skeptical about a good deal of "global warming" stuff, partially because the data seems to be conflicted but also because we only have data for 150 years in an environmental system that is multiple times older.

[Walsingham]

The thing which bothers me is that there seems to be this massive consensus, yet a disturbing lack of understanding. I mean I read a fair bit about it, and I still don't know which way to decide. Yet I've been shouted at for doubting AGW. That's just not healthy.

 

The other problem I have is that if AGW really is as fething dangerous as people say, then that would place it above and beyond any reason for going to war I've ever seen. So I kind of hope it isn't for that reason alone.

[213374U]

Heh, AGW doesn't need to exist for it to be used as a political pretext. Remember those Iraqi WMDs?

 

Yes, I'm wearing my tinfoil hat at the moment.

 

Also, you have claimed to be a scientist. You should know that consensus isn't part of the scientific method. The fact that you don't know which way to decide probably has to do with you not being part of the multidisciplinary teams that work on this for a living. Too much PR and hearsay, too little actual science. Most scientists actually need this thing explained to them in detail, and even then, they would need to defer to other scientists' expertise in matters that are outside of their field (mathematicians don't need to be experts on the role the oceans play in this...).

 

This reminds me of that one time I read how some guy who "held a degree in Biology", assured the audience how the people in some pictures had been killed with WP ordnance.

 

Scientists are, ironically, the priests of our time.

[Enoch]

Take some standard-issue scientific uncertainty, add some interest groups fiercely invested in the answer being "yes" or "no," cycle that through the political system in today's talking-point-centered dialogue, and you get a lot of people (on both sides) with a powerful belief that just happens to support what they wanted to believe before they ever looked at a press report of an executive summary of briefing based on some of the actual evidence.

 

 

I don't know the science all that well, but it seems to me that there is enough out there to confirm that human conduct is having some effect on the global climate. And, if true, this should merit a policy response-- the external costs of production/transportation/whalefarts/etc. should be internalized to the firms making those production decisions so that the proper level of reduction or counter-measures can be taken in the most efficient way possible. But the confidence interval on the magnitude of the effects of human conduct on climate seems to be incredibly wide. (Not surprising, given the enormounsness and complexity of Earth's atmosphere.) That makes for a difficult policy question-- we suspect a negative effect, but we can't really pin down how bad it will be and thus what level of resources to expend on measures to counter said future effect.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Pretty much everything used as proof of global warming has now been discredited, the warmists really don't have a leg left to stand on.

[The Illuminator]

I believe that earth has a natural mechanism to cure itself. If we imagine that the theory of a meteora crashing into earth and made most of the dinosaur species vanished from earth was real, then after that the climate of the earth must have been gotten very hot with the help of the explosion. Maybe some volcanos got also active, but in ages, the earth has cured itself. However I think that cure style might be a little suffering with natural disasters occuring.

 

However I believe that a nuclear war could kill the earth and its cure mechanisms, as radioactive remnants kill everything.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I always said it wasn't a big deal, for the simple fact that the atmosphere is so damn large that our emissions can't logically have that great an effect...

[Walsingham]

I always said it wasn't a big deal, for the simple fact that the atmosphere is so damn large that our emissions can't logically have that great an effect...

 

You can kill a big guy with a piece of shrapnel the size of a pinhead. If you want to talk about small components upsetting a large system.

[Oblarg]

Oh noes, a single anonymous post is going to topple the general consensus of the entire scientific community and render years of data collection meaningless!

 

The sheer amount of ignorance in this thread is depressing. There is no unified group of "warmists" conspiring to hold a giant fearmongering campaign to scare everyone into being treehuggers, there are simply people who look at the data and draw logical conclusions. Sure, on any issue there will be a few people who blow it out of proportion (I recently met a particularly dense woman who was convinced that global warming caused hurricane Katrina and was sure that it would bring about the end of the world as we know it, or something to that effect), but that's no reason to discredit an observable phenomenon with plenty of data to back it up.

 

What I personally have yet to see is a prediction of where the climate will eventually level out. If the global average temperature raises slightly, sure, people who live in places barely above sea level are out of luck, but it's not going to end the world.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Oblarg

[213374U]

Huh. If a single anonymous post can raise reasonable doubts, then perhaps the foundations of this theory aren't quite as solid as you'd like to think.

 

I'm really in no mood to dig up a bazillon links that show that this "consensus" is not only irrelevant, but also not as complete as you claim. Use the search function if you're interested. Been there done that, etc.

[Gorgon]

Pretty much everything used as proof of global warming has now been discredited, the warmists really don't have a leg left to stand on.

The 'Warmists'.

 

 

 

lol...

 

 

 

 

I don't know very much about the science so I just go by majority rule. Most of scientific community, to the tune of about 90% say that it is real. Now of course they could be wrong, but it's not like I'm going to be the one to prove it one way or the other.

[Oblarg]

Huh. If a single anonymous post can raise reasonable doubts, then perhaps the foundations of this theory aren't quite as solid as you'd like to think.

 

I'm really in no mood to dig up a bazillon links that show that this "consensus" is not only irrelevant, but also not as complete as you claim. Use the search function if you're interested. Been there done that, etc.

 

You don't know what a theory is, do you?

 

And a single anonymous post won't raise any serious doubts except in people who don't know enough about the issue to have meaningful opinions, anyway.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Oblarg

[213374U]

Oh, ho ho. Enlighten me.

 

edit: ah, of course. So go ahead and post your doctorate credentials (as well as your current working assignments and past published research on the subject), so we can take you seriously instead of assuming you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

Edited March 24, 2010 by 213374U

[Tigranes]

you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

 

I thought you were their representative...

[213374U]

I take usurpation very seriously, thank you very much.

[Gorth]

Guys, don't make me come and pull your ears...

 

 

Disagree, don't insult. I was just about to say, that goes for everybody, but that would mean including me then.

[Oblarg]

Oh, ho ho. Enlighten me.

 

edit: ah, of course. So go ahead and post your doctorate credentials (as well as your current working assignments and past published research on the subject), so we can take you seriously instead of assuming you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

 

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter.

[213374U]

Oh, ho ho. Enlighten me.

 

edit: ah, of course. So go ahead and post your doctorate credentials (as well as your current working assignments and past published research on the subject), so we can take you seriously instead of assuming you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

 

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter.

 

I recommend you start reading the link posted by Walsingham in the first post, then, if all you need are basic reading comprehension skills. Right, because who needs critical thinking anyway?

 

<snip>

 

I may have misused the word "theory", in a strictly scientific sense. Let me rephrase: what we have are a bunch of models. But those are even weaker than a theory, as far as establishing a basis for what is known goes. Models are used to simulate systems for convenience of observations sake, but they don't actually explain anything and are at the complete mercy of the assumptions of the scientists that built them. The "theory" that this increase in temperature is a result of human activity is in no way scientific... it's more like guesswork.

 

Further, the ability to read and "basic knowledge" of the workings of science will get you nowhere (or rather, it will get you where others want you to be), as this issue is one of the most complex topics tackled by science, ever. I speak on a regular basis with actual scientists... you know, folks that advance science for a living. And a common theme among them is ignorance of the details and technical aspects involved. This is hardly surprising, as scientists don't do "general science", and most don't have the time nor the inclination to go through specialized literature and journals in their spare time, just for the hell of it.

 

<snip>

Edited March 24, 2010 by Gorth
I snip the Alpha and I snip the Omega, For I shall pull your ear... lets try without the sniping

[Gorth]

...and a few posts snipped. This thread does seem to suffer from a rise in temperature.

[Oblarg]

Oh, ho ho. Enlighten me.

 

edit: ah, of course. So go ahead and post your doctorate credentials (as well as your current working assignments and past published research on the subject), so we can take you seriously instead of assuming you are just another self-important internet gasbag.

 

You don't need a doctorate, you need to be able to read and you need at least a basic understanding of how science works. Your misuse of the word "theory" demonstrates you lack the latter.

 

I recommend you start reading the link posted by Walsingham in the first post, then, if all you need are basic reading comprehension skills. Right, because who needs critical thinking anyway?

 

<snip>

 

I may have misused the word "theory", in a strictly scientific sense. Let me rephrase: what we have are a bunch of models. But those are even weaker than a theory, as far as establishing a basis for what is known goes. Models are used to simulate systems for convenience of observations sake, but they don't actually explain anything and are at the complete mercy of the assumptions of the scientists that built them. The "theory" that this increase in temperature is a result of human activity is in no way scientific... it's more like guesswork.

 

Further, the ability to read and "basic knowledge" of the workings of science will get you nowhere (or rather, it will get you where others want you to be), as this issue is one of the most complex topics tackled by science, ever. I speak on a regular basis with actual scientists... you know, folks that advance science for a living. And a common theme among them is ignorance of the details and technical aspects involved. This is hardly surprising, as scientists don't do "general science", and most don't have the time nor the inclination to go through specialized literature and journals in their spare time, just for the hell of it.

 

<snip>

 

This is just flat out wrong, bud.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Oblarg

[213374U]

"uh... buh... wha... that can't be, you wrong!"

 

Yeah, Obbie. I know it hurts. Why don't you leave the grownups to their grownup discussions? It's obvious that you have no grasp of the science you insist on patronizing about, and by extension, the topic at hand. But that's not nearly as bad (it can be blamed on lazy teachers), as your lack of capacity to form your own opinions and your unwillingness to learn.

Edited March 24, 2010 by 213374U

[Oblarg]

That's got to be the weakest, most unelegant trolling attempt I've seen in a long time. It fits you.

Care to try again, n00b?

 

Talk about clumsy trolling.

[Walsingham]

If I may rephrase my somehwat caustic colleague's objection:

 

1. Correlation does NOT mean causation.

 

Clearly in a lab we try to control variables and often can say without reasonable doubt that causation is implied. But this is not in a lab, squeaky. I come from the land of human factors where this point is well understood and long lamented.

 

This is an important point. Poverty correlates with crime. Crime kills millions every year. Yet there is not one tenth of the consensus on action to directly give away stuff and halt poverty.

 

2. A model is not a hypothesis in itself.

 

For example, Lanchester's square law is very good at predicting the outcome of armed conflict, but it excludes everything except biffing from the calculation. This is important because Lanchester would not have predicted the outcome of Vietnam, or the Soviet Afghan war, or the Falklands. A model may predict but often contains no disprovable component, which you will concede is what makes a strong theory.

 

 

3. If, as the quote suggests, equivalent rises are common without industrialisation, then this must be accounted for. Thus far I see no account. Calling me a fool doesn't do the job. But I have no doubt you will supply the necessary now I point this out.

[213374U]

That's got to be the weakest, most unelegant trolling attempt I've seen in a long time. It fits you.

Care to try again, n00b?

 

Talk about clumsy trolling.

I edited the post, even if you don't really deserve it. So far your contributions to this thread have amounted to calling everyone an ignorant, claiming that any opinions different from your own are irrelevant, and accusing me of being wrong without actually substantiating such claims.

 

This may come as a shock, but your word is not law around these parts, Obbie. We are not your mommy.

 

And yeah, hurt as your pride may be, you are a total n00b at trolling. Not subtle, not funny, not even snobbish enough. Simply... weak.

 

edit: I wouldn't bother, Wals. He's clearly not interested in the link, or even facts that disagree with his prefab opinions. If he was, he would have read it by now, only to have an idea of what the thread is about, don't you think?

Edited March 24, 2010 by 213374U