PDA

View Full Version : An internet investigation into climate scientists and the scientific consensus on AGW



Pages : [1] 2

danno
13th December 09, 09:14 AM
in this thread i will:


post information found on the internet from what i consider to be reasonably reliable sources in an attempt to establish whether or not there exists a scientific consensus on (a), global warming and (b), anthropogenic global warming;

investigate the backgrounds of key climate scientists. this will basically cover their achievements, number of peer reviewed articles, etc and also anything dodgy like accusations of bad science and credible evidence that they might have vested interests.


that's it.

what i'm NOT trying to do

i'm not going to be discussing the science itself, or making any technical arguments for or against the existence of anthropogenic global warming.
i'm not proposing any particular course of action like spending money or mitigation or adaptation. in fact, i've spent very little time thinking about what course of action to take. i really don't know if we should do anything at all.


i DO NOT consider my internet research to be proof of climate change or anthropogenic global warming. i don't see what i'm doing here as concrete proof that there is a consensus at all. i'm a layman doing the best i can with my spare time and an internet connection.

i'll be using wikipedia a fair bit. this is just because wikipedia is a really fast, convenient way to find well written and succinct information. i won't accept any "but it's wikipedia and it's always wrong" arguments. you need to discredit the sources in the wiki articles for me to pay attention.

"BUT BY LOOKING FOR A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS YOU'RE JUST MAKING AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND THAT'S A LOGICAL FALLACY", i hear you bleat.

in a nutshell, you're wrong.


Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

unless you are an accomplished, respected, peer reviewed scientist, an expert who has been SUBJECTED TO THE MOST STRINGENT CRITICISM AND EXAMINATION BY OTHER EXPERTS IN YOUR FIELD, i couldn't give a flying bunyip what you think about the science. and really, i feel the same way about my OWN opinion of the science. i'm not a scientist, let alone a scientist who specialises in climate research.

it is my opinion that the existence of AGW can't just be decided upon by laypeople. we simply don't have the expertise, knowledge, skill, data, equipment and so on to do this. as another example, we can't have a vote to decide whether or not the higgs boson exists. these things must be investigated by experts, professionals, pre-eminent scientists. people who have devoted their lives and decades of research to that field, and who publish their work, offering it up for peer review.

what's peer review?


Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

ok, that's sorted. so what exactly is a scientific consensus anyway?


Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

it'll be a few days before i start this in earnest, so feel free to discuss/criticise my methods until then.

EDIT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

looks like i might be able to get a little help from my girlfriend who studies biomedical science. she suggested that i look at review articles:


Review articles do not cover original research but rather accumulate the results of many different articles on a particular topic into a coherent narrative about the state of the art in that field. Review articles provide information about the topic and also provide journal references to the original research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal#Types_of_articles

and synthesis reports, which she describes as:


a 'synthesis report' is:

- a comparative analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data provided in several different reports (studies) on the topic.

- an exercise in compiling national statistical data on the topic.

in other words, basically a collation of all the known/relevant material on a topic. Synthesis just means bringing together. It's like a review article but probably a step further and even more concise etc.

Cullion
13th December 09, 09:22 AM
If you refuse to engage with the primary sources because of lack of expertise, how do you propose to judge who is or isn't a trustworthy expert ?

You're right, science isn't decided by a vote, it's decided by testable predictions that applies amongst experts too.

Ajamil
13th December 09, 12:59 PM
By primary source, do you mean we should be looking at the raw data and coming up with our own hypotheses, or do you mean scrutinizing the scientists who already did this (perhaps incorrectly)? Because it sounds like he's doing the latter.

Cullion
13th December 09, 01:03 PM
How is he going to scrutinize people without engaging with whether claims they've made actually stand up ? How is he going to be able to tell if a group of credentialled experts are acting as a special interest group or impartial professionals without examining their actual claims ?

Ajamil
13th December 09, 01:13 PM
in this thread i will:

post information found on the internet from what i consider to be reasonably reliable sources in an attempt to establish whether or not there exists a scientific consensus on (a), global warming and (b), anthropogenic global warming;
investigate the backgrounds of key climate scientists. this will basically cover their achievements, number of peer reviewed articles, etc and also anything dodgy like accusations of bad science and credible evidence that they might have vested interests.We're not looking at whether people are right or wrong on this matter, but how many people are on each side, and who the people are that are on each side.

Cullion
13th December 09, 01:17 PM
He mentions at several points he's going to be using what he considers to be reliable sources. How is he going to be deciding reliability of a source without engaging with the content of what they actually say ?

He's going to have to do it at some point.

Anyway, here's a link to tenured scientists who don't agree with the hypothesis (for a range of different reasons I should add)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming

WarPhalange
13th December 09, 01:23 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

Cullion
13th December 09, 01:30 PM
You shouldn't just post a link without comment poops.

EuropIan
13th December 09, 01:38 PM
He mentions at several points he's going to be using what he considers to be reliable sources. How is he going to be deciding reliability of a source without engaging with the content of what they actually say ?

He's going to have to do it at some point.

Anyway, here's a link to tenured scientists who don't agree with the hypothesis (for a range of different reasons I should add)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
fixed

Cullion
13th December 09, 01:42 PM
OH NO YOU MEAN SOMEBODY WHO AGREES WITH AGW THINKS PEOPLE WHO DON'T ARE CRAZY ? OH SHIT!

EuropIan
13th December 09, 01:46 PM
;-)

<3

WarPhalange
13th December 09, 02:26 PM
You shouldn't just post a link without comment poops.

And you shouldn't just comment without posting a link.

Cullion
13th December 09, 02:47 PM
I gave a link.

danno
14th December 09, 12:02 AM
just been speaking to my girlfriend who is currently in another state visiting family. she gave me a couple of tips and i've updated the original post.


He mentions at several points he's going to be using what he considers to be reliable sources. How is he going to be deciding reliability of a source without engaging with the content of what they actually say?

i'm not infallible. as i said, i'll just be doing the best i can to find the most reliable sources. that means looking at their standing, reputation, performance, peer review, whatever. i need to know that other experts in the field hold them in high regard.

which in my opinion is a bazillion times more reliable, more accurate, smarter, better, manlier, sexier than judging the science myself. because i'm not a scientist.


He's going to have to do it at some point.

i'll tell you what. do some research and debunk this AGW rubbish, then expose yourself to peer review and get published in a journal with high, stringent and thorough standards. then i might post your article here.

danno
14th December 09, 05:19 AM
ok, first port of call will be wikipedia. i'll make a few short quotes with links to give an impression of how things appear in wiki-land.


The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media agree on this virtually unanimous scientific community agreement substantiating human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus


This article is about scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. This article does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions. For recent climate change generally, see Global warming. For debate on scientific consensus, see Climate change consensus. For opinions of individual climate scientists, see List_of_climate_scientists. For opinions of individual scientists opposing the mainstream consensus, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Some organisations hold non-committal positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries[22]. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[23], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[24]

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.[25][26][27]

On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[28] distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents.[29] Many of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list.

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[30] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."[31][32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_controversy

it appears that according to wikipedia, there is a scientific consensus on climate change - warming has certainly occurred, and AGW is "very likey".

Cullion
14th December 09, 05:27 AM
just been speaking to my girlfriend who is currently in another state visiting family. she gave me a couple of tips and i've updated the original post.



i'm not infallible. as i said, i'll just be doing the best i can to find the most reliable sources. that means looking at their standing, reputation, performance, peer review, whatever. i need to know that other experts in the field hold them in high regard.

which in my opinion is a bazillion times more reliable, more accurate, smarter, better, manlier, sexier than judging the science myself. because i'm not a scientist.



i'll tell you what. do some research and debunk this AGW rubbish, then expose yourself to peer review and get published in a journal with high, stringent and thorough standards. then i might post your article here.

Go back to the Hadley CRU thread and re-read the sections where subversion of the peer review process is discussed.

danno
14th December 09, 05:38 AM
here are results from a survey of scientists done in january 2009.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

the general public data comes from a recent gallup poll.

what the results suggest is that the higher your level of expertise in fields relating to the study of the climate, the more peer reviewed articles you've published, and the sexier you are, the more likely you are to agree with the position that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".

the paper concludes that:


It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.

here is the full article:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

the people who worked on this were peter doran:


Peter Doran, Ph.D. is Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago.[1]

Doran specializes in polar regions, especially Antarctic climate and ecosystems. Doran was the lead author of a research paper about Antarctic temperatures that was published in the journal Nature in January 2002. Because he and his colleagues found that some parts of Antarctica had cooled between 1964 and 2000, his paper has been frequently cited by opponents of the global warming theory, such as Ann Coulter and Michael Crichton. In an opinion piece in the July 27, 2006 New York Times, Doran characterized this as a "misinterpretation" and stated, "I have never thought such a thing ... I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming." [2] (The temporary phenomenon is related to the "hole" in the ozone. As the "hole heals" the Antarctic will dramatically warm quickly. )

Doran and his grad student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman also published a paper in the Jan 27, 2009 issue of EOS showing that active climate researchers almost unanimously agree that humans have had a significant impact on the earth's climate.

Both an Antarctic stream and glacier were named for Doran by the U.S. Geological Survey to commemorate his many significant research contributions conducted on the continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doran
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/home.htm

and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. she's a little harder to find information on. but she wrote this:

http://www.lulu.com/content/5595308

i don't have anything else on her at the moment.

danno
14th December 09, 05:40 AM
Go back to the Hadley CRU thread and re-read the sections where subversion of the peer review process is discussed.

care to save me some time and point out the page?

Ajamil
14th December 09, 06:15 AM
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !” This is what Cullion posted from the emails he had looked over. Post #122. One of the most important reveals, and kind of got glossed over, if you ask me.

Cullion
14th December 09, 06:21 AM
An editor criticised in the Hadley mails ended up getting fired.

You have to be careful to research the question of whether or not a group of credentialled experts are acting as a special interest group and making 'peer review' mean 'only people in our AGW believer club are allowed to review our work'.

Another indicator that this is happening is the reason for the Hadley e-mail release: They were trying to thwart FOI requests specifically to prevent their raw data being released to some of their critics, some of whom are certainly formally qualified to review their work from a skeptical perspective.

Ajamil
14th December 09, 06:33 AM
What's needed for this investigation is a look at the editors and see if they were unfairly labeled.

danno
14th December 09, 07:02 AM
i'd like to keep as much of the CRU discussion in the other thread as possible. but we can't avoid just a little crossover i guess.


This is what Cullion posted from the emails he had looked over. Post #122. One of the most important reveals, and kind of got glossed over, if you ask me.

thanks for that.


You have to be careful to research the question of whether or not a group of credentialled experts are acting as a special interest group and making 'peer review' mean 'only people in our AGW believer club are allowed to review our work'.

of course. that's kinda the point of what i'm doing. that's why i'm going to look at key scientists involved and their backgrounds. any controversy from their past i will try to bring to light here.

i want to find the most highly regarded, distilled, critically examined stuff that exists. i'll put more effort into finding out who is reviewing, how many, etc.


What's needed for this investigation is a look at the editors and see if they were unfairly labeled.

that might be a good idea. if you want to look at that please go ahead, i might not do it myself because i feel it's slightly off-centre of what i'm doing.

Ajamil
14th December 09, 07:28 AM
Here's the full email, and a corresponding one. (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt)
There's a link to a list of editors for "Climate REsearch" in them. Dunno if it's still working.


Editor of "CLimate Research" at the time (2003) was Hans von Storch: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html)

One of them is Dr. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State. In a 2003 response to an email complaining about a paper in the journal "Climate Research" which questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Dr. Mann wrote, "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Dr. Mann said Monday that he didn't think there was anything wrong in telling his colleagues that "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."
Police in the U.K. are continuing to investigate the attack, and the university there said Monday that it is conducting its own review.
Hans von Storch, editor at the time of "Climate Research," had his own objections to the paper mentioned by Dr. Mann, and resigned shortly after it was published, citing a breakdown in the peer-review process. But Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg's Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far.
East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."

Interesting, the wiki article on the journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29) puts this in a very different light:



In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas) and Willie Soon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute), was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29#cite_note-Hot-2) The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29#cite_note-3) In reaction half of the journal's editorial board, including chief editor Hans von Storch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch), resigned in protest of deficiences in the peer-review processes in use at the journal. The paper was sent to four reviewers, none of which recommended rejecting the paper.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29#cite_note-sgr-4) Von Storch later stated that climate change sceptics "had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common"

In the first, the quote from von Storch seems to be attacking Mann and his group, but in the second, the accusation of blocking (edit: wrong word, I think subverting fits better) peer-review seems to be on the skeptics.


"Climate Research" has been archived at Inter-Research. (http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/)

danno
14th December 09, 08:23 AM
nice work. this part of the email seems to back up what the wiki article says:


There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt

i've been trying to learn a little more about ins and outs of the peer review process. i came across this which i found interesting:


This article is primarily directed at students who are becoming involved in research. My intention is to help you understand your obligations and responsibilities concerning reviewing. However, several of the issues I discuss are relevant to reviewing practices in general and thus may be of interest to more experienced researchers as well.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.896


Respect confidentiality.
The manuscript that you’re reviewing has been sent to you in confidence. Although there
is no legal requirement for secrecy, it is understood in the research community that
you’re bound to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript. This means that you
cannot use the results of the manuscript in your own research (which would be fraud),
and you cannot divulge the results of the manuscript to other researchers. If you wish to
cite or make use of the results of a manuscript, you can reveal your identity to the authors
and request their permission. However, the authors need not grant such permission.

http://www.ece.osu.edu/~passino/peer_review.pdf

before something is peer reviewed and published, it's pretty standard to be secretive with data (beyond peer review, that is).

Cullion
14th December 09, 10:03 AM
The data which was being requested by FOI was regarding papers which had already been published, and Jones initially pretended that he'd deleted the data years before.

Cullion
14th December 09, 10:05 AM
In the first, the quote from von Storch seems to be attacking Mann and his group, but in the second, the accusation of blocking (edit: wrong word, I think subverting fits better) peer-review seems to be on the skeptics.

By 'subverting' you mean that an editor was bought off?

What you're describing is AGW proponents alleging a conspiracy theory against a journal because it published something they disagreed with.

Ajamil
14th December 09, 10:20 AM
By subverting I meant doing anything that would damage the peer-review process or make it moot, so yes - buying off an editor would do that. This should go in the Hadley thread, though. I just wanted to bring links that gave any viewing this thread access to the journal and the articles/authors/editors in question.

The specific editor for the article in question was Chris de Freitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas). I found a complete professional biography (http://www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/the_school/our_people/defreitas_chris/index.shtm) for him, and a quasi-debate between him and Jean Paultikof on warming trends that was exchanged in 2003 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/aug/16/comment.weather).

Phrost
14th December 09, 11:51 AM
I honestly don't have a horse in this race, for the most part. But what disturbs me is the near-religious mindset amongst the scientific community on the subject that results in actions that are no different than Christians trying to "defend the faith"; suppression of evidence, marginalization and mockery of dissenting viewpoints, etc.

Not to mention the fact that climatologists have a highly vested interest in the story of AGW, being that their funding would slow to a relative trickle if the situation went from "CODE RED EMERGENCY" to "meh".

And to boot, there is so much money and ideological bullshit wrapped up in this on both sides of the issue. The Socialists/Anti-Corporatists have latched on to the environmental movement as a means of attacking corporations and/or regulating them out of business. The corporations (fucking duh) would prefer to use fossil fuels until the absolute last possible minute and leave their grandkids to fend for themselves.

None of this would fucking matter if we just put up well-regulated nuclear power plants, had electric cars that performed well and didn't look retarded, and got the fuck out into the universe to colonize other planets.

KO'd N DOA
14th December 09, 03:34 PM
I have a problem with AGW, either side of the debate. (and my big pony in the race is my job)

The debate and argument in this debate, focuses the attention on this level of environment, and leaves the other topics and issues. The money pulled out of real environmental research is sent to theoretical research, and the net benifit is no improvement on any side.

To hear scientist plug away with engineers on the colossal carbon trapping and sinking projects, will make the movie Darkman, more of a reality. The arguments are going to give evidence to the proposals, and therefore the money will flow.

Big finance, gove, and business will be there, to spend your money on a white elephant. Science needs dialogue for it to be science. Once it becomes orthodox and established, nigh near impossible to overturn. Ask Galileo Galilei what happens when you come down on the wrong side of the science establishment.

danno
14th December 09, 06:53 PM
But what disturbs me is the near-religious mindset amongst the scientific community on the subject that results in actions that are no different than Christians trying to "defend the faith"; suppression of evidence, marginalization and mockery of dissenting viewpoints, etc.

just like the evolution debate?

this isn't religion, it's science. it's the most efficacious and self regulating method of investigating the universe we have come up with.

if all the scientists in the entire fucking world are wrong, we really have no hope of getting anything done. in any field.

if science really were that weak we'd still be in the dark ages.


None of this would fucking matter if we just put up well-regulated nuclear power plants, had electric cars that performed well and didn't look retarded, and got the fuck out into the universe to colonize other planets.

none of this would exist in the first place if science worked the way you think it does.

but the cars are coming soon. and the other ideas are possibly good whether there is warming or not.

danno
14th December 09, 06:58 PM
The debate and argument in this debate, focuses the attention on this level of environment, and leaves the other topics and issues.

i have no idea... what you mean.


The money pulled out of real environmental research is sent to theoretical research, and the net benifit is no improvement on any side.

rubbish.


Science needs dialogue for it to be science. Once it becomes orthodox and established, nigh near impossible to overturn.

ARGH... everything about science, all the systems and methods put in place are designed to stop this exact thing from happening. in fact, it happens less in science than any other system of investigation or belief. everything is questioned and examined. it's emprical, that's the point.


Ask Galileo Galilei what happens when you come down on the wrong side of the science establishment.

aren't you confusing the scientific establishment with the religious establishment?

Phrost
14th December 09, 06:58 PM
I'm pretty familiar with how science works, considering I've been evangelizing for it for years now. I just think that anyone who pretends to be a scientist, while holding a political/ideological/religious/etc agenda should have their ballsack hammerstapled to a fence post.

Cullion
14th December 09, 07:06 PM
just like the evolution debate?

this isn't religion, it's science. it's the most efficacious and self regulating method of investigating the universe we have come up with.

Sorry, it's politics.



if all the scientists in the entire fucking world are wrong, we really have no hope of getting anything done. in any field.

Already provably not the case, if you think you're defending 'science' here, you're barking up the wrong tree.


I think you'd benefit from doing some research in a university science department to see how.. human the personalities involved are.

Science is a method. It is not a body of knowledge or an expertise. It is not the result of a vote. It is not a coffee-table counterpoint to Islam or Christianity.

It is this, plain and simple:-

The advancement of human knowledge about the world by testing whether propositions are true or not. We test propositions by working out what we could predict about the outcomes of certain circumstances, and then allowing all comers to repeat those circumstances to see if we think the original proposition was reliably true or not.

It's nothing more, nothing less.

Without the aforementioned then no credentials can hide the fact that it isn't 'science' that's occurring.

danno
14th December 09, 07:20 PM
I'm pretty familiar with how science works, considering I've been evangelizing for it for years now. I just think that anyone who pretends to be a scientist, while holding a political/ideological/religious/etc agenda should have their ballsack hammerstapled to a fence post.

i'm right there with you.

danno
14th December 09, 07:23 PM
cullion, if it were that simple, the position of most scientists would be that evolution didn't occur.

instead, what happens is that despite their religious background, the more someone studies a biological science, the more likely they are to believe that evolution is a fact.

edit - when i say "if it were that simple", i mean if our methods were so flimsy and easily corruptible then blah blah.

do you realise how hard it is to get published in a reputable journal? it can take years.

Cullion
14th December 09, 07:26 PM
cullion, if it were that simple, the position of most scientists would be that evolution didn't occur.

That's an absurd point. Go back and rethink it.



instead, what happens is that despite their religious background, the more someone studies a biological science, the more likely they are to believe that evolution is a fact.

That's because evolutionary biology makes testable predictions. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to lay claim to scientific truth.

EuropIan
14th December 09, 07:40 PM
It's Cullion's contention that any pro AGW articles published in peer reviewed journals must be either fraudulent or badly construed or both.


On purpose.


His proof?

ZOMG EMAILS

Cullion
14th December 09, 07:43 PM
It's Cullion's contention that any pro AGW articles published in peer reviewed journals must be either fraudulent or badly construed or both.

No it's not and never has been. But don't, like, let get details get in the way.

danno
14th December 09, 07:44 PM
That's an absurd point. Go back and rethink it.

think about the principle of what i said rather than whether it may or may not happen.


That's because evolutionary biology makes testable predictions. If it didn't, it wouldn't be able to lay claim to scientific truth.

well, you'll find that the same thing happens in climate science (more expertise, study, peer review = greater belief in AGW). i posted a survey demonstrating this.

what i'm doing here is not a matter of saying "AGW is the certain truth". it's a matter of discovering the scientific consensus and the credibility of the scientists involved.

your entire position hinges on your understanding of the science, and your (from what i can tell so far) misguided belief that the science being done and the predictions being made by the global scientific community are intentionally fraudulent.

the fact is, you have a very limited understanding of the actual science, and a very strong political position.

as i stated before, i'm just doing my best to understand the mainstream position of scientific opinion on the issue. if i were to discover that this position is that AGW is "very unlikely", i would honestly breathe a sigh of relief, because that's really what i want to hear.

EuropIan
14th December 09, 07:48 PM
Throughout this entire climate debate (past threads on Sociocide and BS included) you stance has switched between "There isn't any warming really, they just want your money" and "Ok, so there is warming but it is natural but they still want your money".

Sometimes this switch happens several times in the same thread.


So, Cullion... Are all the scientific journals in on it?

Cullion
14th December 09, 07:50 PM
think about the principle of what i said rather than whether it may or may not happen.

I have, and it's still an absurd point.



well, you'll find that the same thing happens in climate science (more expertise, study, peer review = greater belief in AGW). i posted a survey demonstrating this.

That's not how scientific truth is decided. Drawing such a graph is a dumb way of trying to find out the truth.



what i'm doing here is not a matter of saying "AGW is the certain truth". it's a matter of discovering the scientific consensus and the credibility of the scientists involved.

All you've done so far is post wiki articles. Step up your game and advance the debate beyond that already discussed in multiple threads.



your entire position hinges on your understanding of the science, and your misguided belief that the science being done and the predictions being made by the global scientific community are intentionally fraudulent.

I already know the predictions made by some scientists are wrong. There is no gestalt consciousness you can call 'the global scientific community'. It's a fundamentally dumb way of looking at science.



the fact is, you have a very limited understanding of the actual science, and a very strong political position.

The fact is, I have a massively stronger understanding of the science and the politics than you, and all you're doing is reposting stuff posted in other threads months ago whilst saying 'look at me, I made my own special thread aren't I objective' because you're too intellectually lazy to read what other people have already said on the subject on this site. So far, you're asking to be re-spoon fed that which has already been laid at your feet.

You aren't going to reach any noteworthy or useful conclusion by posting journalistic and wiki articles whilst saying 'I'm too good to try and understand or engage with the content of the science look at the votes'.

It's an idiotic way to try and approach scientific truth.



as i stated before, i'm just doing my best to understand the mainstream position of scientific opinion on the issue. if i were to discover that this position is that AGW is "very unlikely", i would honestly breathe a sigh of relief, because that's really what i want to hear.

Don't be so dishonest.

Cullion
14th December 09, 07:56 PM
Throughout this entire climate debate (past threads on Sociocide and BS included) you stance has switched between "There isn't any warming really, they just want your money" and "Ok, so there is warming but it is natural but they still want your money".

Sometimes this switch happens several times in the same thread.

Willfull misrepresentation on your part. Not that you're anywhere to be seen when the science itself is being debated.



So, Cullion... Are all the scientific journals in on it?

Which journals?

Is your grasp of detail so sloppy that you think 'science' is like, one big gestalt of well advertised magazines which agree with each other? Have you already forgotten the evidence presented to you about what actually happened in the peer-review circles on this site ?

or is it like 'mmm... this sounds liek a CONSPIRACY THEORY, he must think THEY R _ALL_ IN ON IT. I WILL CATCH HIM OUT WITH MY POLEMIC!!!1'

Don't be so dumb.

P.S. You're not even vaguely objective enough to be on staff.

danno
14th December 09, 07:56 PM
It's an idiotic way to try and approach scientific truth.

i've said from the start that this isn't scientific truth.

i've decided to stop debating with you and spend more time finding information.

Cullion
14th December 09, 07:58 PM
If it's not scientific truth, what is it?

You haven't actually debated with me yet at all. All you've done is post journalistic articles and then act surprised when I point out specifically where the sources are suspect or were proven to have contradicted themselves in private, followed by you retrenching to 'WELL NEITHER OF US ARE SCIENTISTS!!'

Why are you so worried about debating on the content of a scientific article? It's not, like, magic, you know ?

danno
14th December 09, 08:04 PM
what is it?

it's me using the internet to figure out as best i can what the majority of credible specialist scientists believe.

i don't think you really know what you're talking about when it comes to climate science.

i want information and opinions from people who do.

Cullion
14th December 09, 08:06 PM
But you've side-stepped the original point how will you judge who does and who doesn't without engaging with the content of what they say ?

You're employing a dumb form of circular logic which can come to only one conclusion if not broken:

'I found some long lists of people who agree with each other, the longest list is probably true.'

That's a fundamentally sloppy and inaccurate way of assessing a scientific position.

P.S. I'm one of the best qualified people you're ever likely to meet when it comes to the subject of computer simulation of complex natural systems. Not that that should matter.

danno
14th December 09, 08:11 PM
That's a fundamentally sloppy and inaccurate way of assessing a scientific position.

but it's so much better than listening to the opinion of 1 guy on the internet who isn't even a reputable expert in the field of climate science.


P.S. I'm one of the best qualified people you're ever likely to meet when it comes to the subject of computer simulation of complex natural systems. Not that that should matter.

it's true, you're one clever cookie. i'm not being sarcastic.

EuropIan
14th December 09, 08:11 PM
Willfull misrepresentation on your part. Not that you're anywhere to be seen when the science itself is being debated.


Wat?
No.
Selective memory much?



Which journals?

Is your grasp of detail so sloppy that you think 'science' is like, one big gestalt of well advertised magazines which agree with each other? Have you already forgotten the evidence presented to you about what actually happened in the peer-review circles on this site ?



Single scientific journal =/= all scientific journals.



or is it like 'mmm... this sounds liek a CONSPIRACY THEORY, he must think THEY R _ALL_ IN ON IT. I WILL CATCH HIM OUT WITH MY POLEMIC!!!1'
Don't be so dumb.
No, this is what I have constantly gone after when we've debated ACC due to the fact you enjoy a hit and run style when debating the scientifics 700 year gap- > sunspots ->global fraud -> ok it's cooling right now so no actual warming -> ok warming but it's part of a cycle-> final refuge by denying scientific materialism.

It's tiring and I'd much rather attack your stance as to the why you disagree.

Cullion
14th December 09, 08:14 PM
But who is a reputable expert?

That's what you're stumbling over. If you refuse to engage with the science, all you have to work with are dudes on the Internet who claim to be experts, some of whom have certificates, and friends who agree with them, yet have repeatedly made bad predictions and have been shown to have acted dishonestly.

Your mechanism for assessing authority is fatally flawed and until you correct it, you'll be wasting your time. Correcting it will involve enaging with the subject matter itself and deciding whether or not you think testable predictions have actually be verified and data presented to you has been collected and handled honestly. That's all you really have to work with

Cullion
14th December 09, 08:16 PM
Wat?
No.
Selective memory much?

No, no selective memory Ian.



Single scientific journal =/= all scientific journals.

Then which scientific journals?



No, this is what I have constantly gone after when we've debated ACC due to the fact you enjoy a hit and run style when debating the scientifics 700 year gap- > sunspots ->global fraud -> ok it's cooling right now so no actual warming -> ok warming but it's part of a cycle-> final refuge by denying scientific materialism.

It's tiring and I'd much rather attack your stance as to the why you disagree.

It's tiring for you because you can't keep up with the level of detail and you don't actually have a point to make that you're confident in stating in a way that can be falsified.

I do.

Your attempts at argument just go in a circle where you claim I've said things I haven't and then claim massive victory! when you point out that carbon dioxide does in fact tend to stop infrared from escaping in a simple laboratory system whilst pretending you haven't heard when I explain to you that you cannot extrapolate that neatly to a system as complex as the Earth's biosphere.

Essentially, you act like a jaded and bored troll whenever this subject comes up and it's unbecoming of a mod.

danno
14th December 09, 08:23 PM
But who is a reputable expert?

That's what you're stumbling over. If you refuse to engage with the science, all you have to work with are dudes on the Internet who claim to be experts, some of whom have certificates, and friends who agree with them, yet have repeatedly made bad predictions and have been shown to have acted dishonestly.

Your mechanism for assessing authority is fatally flawed and until you correct it, you'll be wasting your time. Correcting it will involve enaging with the subject matter itself and deciding whether or not you think testable predictions have actually be verified and data presented to you has been collected and handled honestly. That's all you really have to work with

i really believe that if i were to try and analyse the science myself, repeat their results and so on, i'd completely fuck it up and would end up further from reality than ever before.

i will only look at those who are pre-eminent in their field, and i'm looking at the scientific consensus. not individual tool job hippies. i'm not assuming any individual is infallible. i'm trying to find the most respected people, journals, synthesis reports and so on.

you're asking me, a guy who studied fine art and multimedia, to look at a scientific paper and decide if it's right or not. who in the world could take that seriously?

Cullion
14th December 09, 08:28 PM
i really believe that if i were to try and analyse the science myself, repeat their results and so on, i'd completely fuck it up and would end up further from reality than ever before.

If you looked at the predictive record, you'd actually struggle to do worse than the people you currently see as experts.



i will only look at those who are pre-eminent in their field

I'll ask again, how will you judge pre-eminence?



and i'm looking at the scientific consensus. not individual tool job hippies. i'm not assuming any individual is infallible. i'm trying to find the most respected people, journals, synthesis reports and so on.

How is consensus distinguishable from a tight-nit special interest group?

There must be a way.. oh yes, you have to examine what they're actually claiming.



you're asking me, a guy who studied fine art and multimedia, to look at a scientific paper and decide if it's right or not. who in the world could take that seriously?

It's entirely dependent on the content of what you say. Don't you trust yourself to be able to raise logical queries when you read something that doesn't make sense ?

If you really believe that, then your vote should be taken away. You aren't qualified to decide on any economic, legal or foreign policy question either. Nor are you qualified to choose people to represent you in such debates, because you don't have a means of judging their qualifications or the psychological qualifications to assess their character.

Of course, that's an absurd way of looking at the world (though I truly wonder how long it will be before people start thinking we should live in a technocracy).

To draw a martial arts analogy, you're arguing from the same perspective as some guy in Bullshido's newbietown saying a guy must know how to fight because he's in the black belt hall of fame.

danno
14th December 09, 08:34 PM
I'll ask again, how will you judge pre-eminence?

How is consensus distinguishable from a tight-nit special interest group?

that's the point of my frikkin' research, fool.


It's entirely dependent on the content of what you say. Don't you trust yourself to be able to raise logical queries when you read something that doesn't make sense ?

no, because in reality i'd really have no idea what i was looking at. i'd misinterpret things, and those misinterpretations would probably do nothing but reaffirm my own bias.


To draw a martial arts analogy, you're arguing from the same perspective as some guy in Bullshido's newbietown saying a guy must know how to fight because he's in the black belt hall of fame.

HA!

no, it's more like i say someone knows how to fight better than me because they're the heavyweight champ of the UFC. and i have no business telling him how to fight apart from "make it more exciting!"

Cullion
14th December 09, 08:35 PM
that's the point of my frikkin' research, fool.

ur doing it wrong then.



no, because in reality i'd really have no idea what i was looking at. i'd misinterpret things, and those misinterpretations would probably do nothing but reaffirm my own bias.

That's precisely how it is for 'experts' too. All you have to do is read when you don't understand the meaning of a technical term.

danno
14th December 09, 08:40 PM
That's precisely how it is for 'experts' too. All you have to do is read when you don't understand the meaning of a technical term.

really? it's that easy?

i'll be building my own space ship to mars in no time!

danno
14th December 09, 08:40 PM
cullion is so awesome.

Cullion
14th December 09, 08:41 PM
I'm glad we got that straight.

Ajamil
15th December 09, 01:31 PM
So...has anyone looked at the archives of the journal that started the email discussion about blackballing them? I gave links to the specific entry that caused people to resign/get fired.

Cullion
15th December 09, 03:17 PM
link plz.

Ajamil
15th December 09, 03:23 PM
"Climate Research" has been archived at Inter-Research. (http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/)
The article was written in 2003, there's a few pdfs for that year, and I'll admit I did not look into them so I'm not certain which it is.

Here we are. (http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v23/n2/) Top article. I'm DLing now, and will glance over it tonight.

It's abstract:

ABSTRACT: The 1000 yr climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions,
the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2nd millennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium. And why I think it's this one:

In 2003, a paper written by Sallie Baliunas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas) and Willie Soon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) and partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Petroleum_Institute), was published in the journal after being accepted by editor Chris de Freitas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_de_Freitas).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29#cite_note-Hot-2) The article reviewed 240 previous papers and concluded that "Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest or a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Research_%28journal%29#cite_note-3) In reaction half of the journal's editorial board, including chief editor Hans von Storch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch), resigned in protest of deficiences in the peer-review processes in use at the journal.

Cullion
15th December 09, 03:28 PM
Well, you better dig it out.

Cullion
15th December 09, 03:35 PM
Resigning because they didn't like somebody's source of funding is absurd. That's my point, they're essentially claiming that ad-hominem and attack of motives is only allowed in one direction.

If we're going to depart from analysing scientific content and just go 'nuh-uhh u work for t3h JR Ewing/the sekret world gummint' then this is going to degenerate into 'commie! goldman sachs-sponsored phoney liberal!' vs 'corporate-whore!' really fast.

KO'd N DOA
15th December 09, 04:03 PM
[quote=danno]i have no idea... what you mean.

Originally Posted by KO'd N DOA
The debate and argument in this debate, focuses the attention on this level of environment, and leaves the other topics and issues.

i have no idea... what you mean.

KO'd translation = The limited resources given to environment could go much further if they were not dealing with psudo- environment
Quote:
Originally Posted by KO'd N DOA
The money pulled out of real environmental research is sent to theoretical research, and the net benifit is no improvement on any side.


rubbish.

KO says " NO YOU." I have to apply for funds to carry out actually projects and work on environmental protection...but everyone is so concerned with the doomsday Gore Scenario that actual proven work is shelved so some hippy can get a research grant, a thinktank can go over budget on some government study, and engineers and scientist can come up with the magic bullet to solve everything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KO'd N DOA
Science needs dialogue for it to be science. Once it becomes orthodox and established, nigh near impossible to overturn.


ARGH... everything about science, all the systems and methods put in place are designed to stop this exact thing from happening. in fact, it happens less in science than any other system of investigation or belief. everything is questioned and examined. it's emprical, that's the point.

KO'd Says - the enshrining of norms and standards by regulatory bodies is the new Acid Rain, Sustainable Development, mantra. It is very much religious in its tone, and any opposition or question is dismissed as Neanderthalic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KO'd N DOA
Ask Galileo Galilei what happens when you come down on the wrong side of the science establishment.


aren't you confusing the scientific establishment with the religious establishment?

KO'd -- I'm not the one confused. The environment is the new religion of the masses, something to believe in. Western Religion uses prophacy to inspire/terrify the masses into Building Cathedrals, Pilgramages, Holy Wars, Space Exploration, and now Carbon Containment.

The fixing of carbon in the ground to ' repaire' the damage of GHG and toxics is simply a massive great infrastructure project, like Roosevelts New Deal, or now Obamas Stimulus Packages. A great evil has been found, devotion to this is important, not carry it out is the new shame and sin. This is a proven approach to manipulating and shepharding the masses.

[quote]

Ajamil
15th December 09, 04:29 PM
Resigning because they didn't like somebody's source of funding is absurd. That's my point, they're essentially claiming that ad-hominem and attack of motives is only allowed in one direction.

If we're going to depart from analysing scientific content and just go 'nuh-uhh u work for t3h JR Ewing/the sekret world gummint' then this is going to degenerate into 'commie! goldman sachs-sponsored phoney liberal!' vs 'corporate-whore!' really fast.
I'm really really sorry to use such an internet cliche, but did you read my post? No, I know you did, you responded to it. Anyway, why not look into seein which side of this is true? Did he resign because of the article, or because of the reaction to the article from pro-AGW groups?

I think we've found our first important quest.

Edit: Quest over! Which simple reading on my part, I have been awarded the title of fool.

EvilSteve
15th December 09, 04:30 PM
Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because these threads tend to be even bigger flame-fests than Bullshido vegetarian-carnivore threads.

...but right now I feel like roasting my nuts by the fire...

So, having skimmed the East Anglia emails and read the excerpts posted here, the big proof of a conspiracy was that the E.A. folks decided to blacklist the journal Climate Research because they thought it was biased and a covert mouth piece for opponents of AGW?

Okay, having spent some time in research science, I know how bigoted and biased it can be, but how is this different than evolutionary biologists blacklisting a journal that they believed was a front for the Discovery institute?

Ajamil
15th December 09, 04:38 PM
Hopefully there will be more to this thread than just what I was looking into (cuz fool, see above). I was specifically trying to see if the blacklisting was warranted i.e. is/was Climate Research a non-AGW apologist journal.

Since I can't really say (my only climatology education being a community college class), I decided to show others links to the articles.

EvilSteve
15th December 09, 04:41 PM
cuz fool, see above

Excuse me? Exactly what did I say to merit that?

Feryk
15th December 09, 04:48 PM
He meant HE was the fool. Not you.

EvilSteve
15th December 09, 04:52 PM
Oh. I guess this is a good example of how expectations shape one's view of reality. But I can't see how that's pertinent to this debate, or to the empirical method in general. </sarcasm>

Cullion
15th December 09, 05:02 PM
Okay, I've stayed out of this so far because these threads tend to be even bigger flame-fests than Bullshido vegetarian-carnivore threads.

...but right now I feel like roasting my nuts by the fire...

So, having skimmed the East Anglia emails and read the excerpts posted here, the big proof of a conspiracy was that the E.A. folks decided to blacklist the journal Climate Research because they thought it was biased and a covert mouth piece for opponents of AGW?

No, go back and read more.

Feryk
15th December 09, 05:16 PM
My impression is that they did a hell of a lot more than blacklist a journal, including but not limited to questionable methodology on their assumptions when the data did not match their expectations, deliberate avoidance of FOI requests, etc., and collusion.

Wounded Ronin
15th December 09, 07:56 PM
if all the scientists in the entire fucking world are wrong, we really have no hope of getting anything done. in any field.


There was a time when most medical people were wrong about certain things. Remember how in the US' civil war they thought that if you removed a damaged bone from somebody it would grow back? There was a time when virtually all astronomers were wrong, and everyone thought the sun rotated the earth.

Even experts can fall victim to self-righteous groupthink.

nihilist
16th December 09, 04:23 AM
I think that it's in rather poor form that Cullion starts dragging his bag of science into the NO SIENCE ALLOWD thread.

bob
16th December 09, 05:35 AM
There was a time when most medical people were wrong about certain things. Remember how in the US' civil war they thought that if you removed a damaged bone from somebody it would grow back?

Really? That seems very strange considering they'd been amputating limbs for centuries. Do you have a link to this?

danno
16th December 09, 05:41 AM
There was a time when most medical people were wrong about certain things.

and now is the time when we transplant hearts and fly to the moon.

danno
16th December 09, 05:47 AM
the NO SIENCE ALLOWD thread.

that's correct.

i'll say it:

in this thread, no science allowed.

that is, no half-arsed science conducted by forum members.

Feryk
16th December 09, 10:36 AM
Consider this. Most scientists agree that the earth is warming. They did this by (I'm assuming) by analyzing a mountain of data from various parts of the world. One of the largest contributors to this pile of data was Hadley.

Hadley has now been proven to be unreliable. I wonder if the same conclusions would be reached WITHOUT any of their data/interpretations of said data. Unfortunately, it will be nearly impossible to tell. Their data was referenced, or papers using the data were by almost everyone in the field.

I know that they are not the only data collection centre in the world. So two things should happen:

1.) All raw data should immediately be made available to everyone.

2.) Anyone gathering climate data should be audited/scrutinized by governments/independent bodies to ensure that no more bullshit shenanigans are involved.

This will be a giant pain in the ass, but the climatology profession has brought it on itself. Partisanship in science is not new, but if we are going to spend literally TRILLIONS of dollars to fix this problem, we need to ensure that the data we are using is as free of bias as possible.

Having said all of that, it is certainly true that the earth is warming. That is not good for the world's population no matter what the cause.l

nihilist
16th December 09, 12:07 PM
It does not take a scientist to determine whether or not we should develop green energy or decrease dependence on terrorists.

EuropIan
16th December 09, 12:12 PM
Yes, but that's the agenda shadowy government overlords want.

nihilist
16th December 09, 12:59 PM
Agendas concocted by entrenched oilmen? Nah, that's a conspiracy theory and it isn't backed up by r3al sci3nc3.

KO'd N DOA
16th December 09, 02:09 PM
I know that they are not the only data collection centre in the world. So two things should happen:

1.) All raw data should immediately be made available to everyone.

2.) Anyone gathering climate data should be audited/scrutinized by governments/independent bodies to ensure that no more bullshit shenanigans are involved.

l

The problem with environmental scientists, is that they routinely rip each others methodology apart, and will not accept the 'raw data' of someone else, because they could never trust the methodology.

I work with this everyday. I proudly am not a scientist, I hire them, manage and herd them like the cats they are. Then I take the salient arguments, from a policy prospective, and that is what becomes law.

Environmental Scientists are almost as bad as engineers, in the if we didn't do it, we don't trust it - point of view.

Cullion
16th December 09, 02:11 PM
It does not take a scientist to determine whether or not we should develop green energy or decrease dependence on terrorists.

America has vast coal reserves. If you go for a joyride on the loon-wagon you won't be able to use it.

danno
16th December 09, 04:24 PM
Science is awesome. Unless it's climate science. Then it's wrong. And more like a religion. In fact, they are the Taliban.

Ajamil
16th December 09, 04:25 PM
Cullion makes a good point and here's a way to compromise. Determine what our estimates of effect would be if we used up all the coal and oil we currently know about. Then start using them and use any money saved from this course of action to fund a way out of any hypothesized danger of said climate change effects - like funding green energy.

EuropIan
16th December 09, 04:27 PM
America has vast coal reserves. If you go for a joyride on the loon-wagon you won't be able to use it.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/2599XXX/acid.gif

Cullion
16th December 09, 05:37 PM
Depends on the sulphur content of the coal and how it's used. You can synthesize other hydrocarbon fuels from coal using hydrogen. It's what the Germans used for fuel in WWII.

But like, don't let details like confusing the AGW hypothesis with acid rain effects or anything matter. As long as you, like, get to stick it to the man.

Cullion
16th December 09, 06:14 PM
and now is the time when we transplant hearts and fly to the moon.

You mean the scientists changed their minds after more study?

Holy Smokes! That means that if lots of scientists believe something to be true today, they might actually be full of shit.

nihilist
16th December 09, 08:33 PM
America has vast coal reserves. If you go for a joyride on the loon-wagon you won't be able to use it.
Your agenda is showing.

Cullion
16th December 09, 08:35 PM
I'm totally in the pocket of 'Big Coal'. Totally. The UK has a massive coal industry supplying me with hookers and weed as we speak.

nihilist
16th December 09, 08:40 PM
What kind of idiot burns stuff when there's sun and wind and water moving all around him?

Cullion
16th December 09, 08:46 PM
What kind of idiot builds solar panels and windmills that take more energy to build than they can collect in their useful lifespan when they have a safe and more convenient source of fuel to hand ? What's the plan? build loads of fission plants to enable you to build more energy-sink solar panels just because ?

Why would you even worry about such a thing unless you'd been persuaded to believe a false premise by simple repetition from fools with access to the media-levers ?

Next you'll be worrying about the carbon footprint of eating meat.

nihilist
16th December 09, 08:51 PM
First I'm going to have to ask for sources for your assertions Secondly, I want to know how much real research and funds have gone into developing solar and wind energy.

Cullion
16th December 09, 08:57 PM
Compared to coal and oil ?

You'd have to ask the counter question: 'Why have oil and coal appeared so promising compared to this apparently 'free' source of fuel you're so excited about'.

If you cite a conspiracy theory about capitalists obsessed with being able to control the supply of fuel whilst simultaneously suppressing all the 'better' alternatives I'm going to cum in your mouth.

nihilist
16th December 09, 09:05 PM
Move out of the stoneage and develop safe, pollution free renewable energy.
Don't do it because Matt Damon VS Corporageddon.
Do it because it is safe, pollution free and renewable.

nihilist
16th December 09, 09:07 PM
Think long and hard about what I just said as you sit in your house breathing asbestos and lead dust while the x-rays emanate from your tv.

KO'd N DOA
17th December 09, 09:46 AM
The gooberment wants my wood stove -- something about carbon bla bla.

I love my wood stove. I would burn silica and metal...but wood has a much higher BTU. How does Santa come in the geo-thermal unit? People please.

nihilist
17th December 09, 12:54 PM
Have Santa meet you on the rooftop in imagination land.

KO'd N DOA
17th December 09, 01:56 PM
Santa is still in imaganaria land - in Copenhagen - trying desperately to give huge contracts "to save the planet" to engineering firms.

EuropIan
17th December 09, 02:15 PM
But like, don't let details like confusing the AGW hypothesis with acid rain effects or anything matter. As long as you, like, get to stick it to the man.
I love how you keep thinking I'm that retarded.

don't ever change <3

nihilist
17th December 09, 02:32 PM
The planet will be just fine long after mankind finds a way to make himself extinct.

Feryk
17th December 09, 02:53 PM
I love how you keep thinking I'm that retarded.

don't ever change <3

Welcome to my world :smile:

Cullion
17th December 09, 06:38 PM
Move out of the stoneage and develop safe, pollution free renewable energy.
Don't do it because Matt Damon VS Corporageddon.
Do it because it is safe, pollution free and renewable.

What pollution free, safe energy?

OH YOU MEAN WHY DON'T WE JUST INVENT SOMETHING COOL THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET?

well, people are trying. Do some reading on fusion research. But, like, don't bet the future on a scientific breakthrough. We have to plan with what we have now.

Cullion
17th December 09, 06:39 PM
I love how you keep thinking I'm that retarded.

don't ever change <3

You don't give me any choice when you respond with pictures of 'trees in pain'.

nihilist
18th December 09, 01:37 AM
What pollution free, safe energy?

OH YOU MEAN WHY DON'T WE JUST INVENT SOMETHING COOL THAT DOESN'T EXIST YET?

well, people are trying. Do some reading on fusion research. But, like, don't bet the future on a scientific breakthrough. DRILL BABY, DRILL!

danno
18th December 09, 05:27 AM
i'm on holidays and stuff, can't spend much time on sociocide. but i'm still reading. might be a couple of weeks before i can really sit down and put this stuff together.

bob
18th December 09, 06:22 AM
You faggots can argue all you want. I'm building a rocket to send my baby to a planet with a yellow sun.

Cullion
18th December 09, 07:49 PM
Australians try that every year, and Calel always ends up trying to run an IT consultancy in central London that folds within a few months and/or working behind a bar.

bob
18th December 09, 11:38 PM
That's probably because of the lack of a yellow sun. Or any sun.

Keith
19th December 09, 01:31 AM
First I'm going to have to ask for sources for your assertions Secondly, I want to know how much real research and funds have gone into developing solar and wind energy.

I work as an engineering technician at a clean energy company and I've heard myself from one of the engineers that the energy require to manufacture solar pannels exceeds the energy return over the life of the panel. Granted this is hearsay. A quick internet search only turns up one article about this subject http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm which says energy payback is possible, but even then it takes a few years of constant power production even at optimum conditions.

Remember a solar panel is mostly made of glass, which is basically melted sand. You have to get sand crazy hot to melt it, which consumes crazy amounts of energy.

I don't know about wind turbines, but it wouldn't surprise me if they operated at an energy deficiency, or a very long payback scale, compared to what it takes to manufacture them. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is a harsh mistress.

nihilist
19th December 09, 02:00 AM
I work as an engineering technician at a clean energy company and I've heard myself from one of the engineers that the energy require to manufacture solar pannels exceeds the energy return over the life of the panel. Granted this is hearsay. A quick internet search only turns up one article about this subject http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm which says energy payback is possible, but even then it takes a few years of constant power production even at optimum conditions.

Remember a solar panel is mostly made of glass, which is basically melted sand. You have to get sand crazy hot to melt it, which consumes crazy amounts of energy.

I don't know about wind turbines, but it wouldn't surprise me if they operated at an energy deficiency, or a very long payback scale, compared to what it takes to manufacture them. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is a harsh mistress.
Oh for fuck's sake.
This is why it needs to be DEVELOPED.
How much horsepower do you think a Model T generated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_solar_cells

Keith
19th December 09, 02:34 AM
Oh for fuck's sake.


Right back at ya.

Do you actually know something about electro-chemistry that makes you think throwing more money into solar development will create cells with notably better efficiencies, or are you just hoping that those smart scientist guys will think of something if we just push them a little more?

Cullion
19th December 09, 04:52 AM
Reese, you're too used to getting what you want by pushing big bundles of dirty bills into trembling outstretched hands. Science doesn't work like that.

nihilist
19th December 09, 07:41 AM
Right back at ya.

Do you actually know something about electro-chemistry that makes you think throwing more money into solar development will create cells with notably better efficiencies, or are you just hoping that those smart scientist guys will think of something if we just push them a little more?

Do you know enough about chemistry to know that you don't need glass to build a solar cell?

nihilist
19th December 09, 07:42 AM
Reese, you're too used to getting what you want by pushing big bundles of dirty bills into trembling outstretched hands. Science doesn't work like that.
Science only works if you decide to employ it.
You're too used to getting what you want by pushing people's buttons.
Homey don't play dat.

Cullion
19th December 09, 11:30 AM
Reese, you're convinced of the importance of 'renewable' sources, to the degree that you believe you can predict the outcome of future research if sufficient money is handed over.

Why don't you explain all the advantages and flaws and see how they compare to coal and oil?

taijiamn
19th December 09, 11:58 AM
My big question with renewable energy is, what will happen to the climate? Once we start taking energy out of wind currents, and creating large areas of concentrated heat from solar power plants, it's almost gauranteed to make changes to weather systems right?

nihilist
19th December 09, 02:31 PM
Reese, you're convinced of the importance of 'renewable' sources, to the degree that you believe you can predict the outcome of future research if sufficient money is handed over.

Why don't you explain all the advantages and flaws and see how they compare to coal and oil?

Coal and oil are finite.

Coal and oil brings disease and death.

Hell, if we can make safe nukulur [sic] power plants and store the waste on Mars then I'm all for it.

My paternal grandfather spent most of his life attempting to develop steam power.
I know all too well that some research will be a dead end.

And on the subject if "throwing money" at an energy source, how's that Iraq war coming along?

No offense, but fuck you. :)

Cullion
19th December 09, 02:37 PM
Coal could last a few hundred years more, to buy everybody some time. Coal and oil don't have to bring disease and death. You can't assume that the renewable sources could be developed into sufficient, energy-positive means of powering our civilisation yet. It may just not work. Fusion research may just not work out either.

We've got practical fossil fuels for some time yet. I think we should use them, and just make sure we control emissions of the smog-making compounds that can make cities shitty places to live.

I'm not sure why you're bringing Iraq into this, that wasn't my idea, nor was it necessary to keep the flow of oil going, because, like, they were prepared to just sell it, you know?

nihilist
19th December 09, 02:49 PM
Coal and oil don't have to bring disease and death.

That may be true, IN FANTASYLAND.





You can't assume that the renewable sources could be developed into sufficient, energy-positive means of powering our civilisation yet. It may just not work. Fusion research may just not work out either.Let's go with the plan that gives miners black lungs, collapsing tunnels and cancer.
Let's go with the plan that could lead to complete decimation of the world economy if the people who control oil decide to fuck us.


We've got practical fossil fuels for some time yet. Not "we, "they".


I'm not sure why you're bringing Iraq into this, that wasn't my idea, nor was it necessary to keep the flow of oil going, because, like, they were prepared to just sell it, you know?

They could sell it to whomever they wanted to...or NOT.

EuropIan
19th December 09, 02:55 PM
I like how coal as a means of power still relies on a 19th century method.

Cullion
19th December 09, 03:13 PM
That may be true, IN FANTASYLAND.
Let's go with the plan that gives miners black lungs, collapsing tunnels and cancer.

Death and injury rates in mining accidents in the US continue their downward trend are now account for fewer fatalities in a year than there are killed in road accidents daily.



Let's go with the plan that could lead to complete decimation of the world economy if the people who control oil decide to fuck us.

You mean people who've got nothing else to sell decide to stop selling it? That's quite a paranoid view. I'd worry more about people deciding to stop lending you money because you'd crippled the industries that were your best chance of paying them back.



They could sell it to whomever they wanted to...or NOT.

Sure. And then they'd, umm.. do what exactly ?

nihilist
19th December 09, 03:14 PM
My favorite is "clean coal technology"

W-_U1Z0vezw

Cullion
19th December 09, 03:15 PM
I've thought about this more and I've decided that you're a hippy.

EuropIan
19th December 09, 03:18 PM
and you're so old school, you're 19th century.

nihilist
19th December 09, 03:19 PM
Death and injury rates in mining accidents in the US continue their downward trend are now account for fewer fatalities in a year than there are killed in road accidents daily.
I like how there's an acceptable of number of dead people and widows.
Please check your meaningless stats at the door labeled "meaningless stats".




You mean people who've got nothing else to sell decide to stop selling it? That's quite a paranoid view. I'd worry more about people deciding to stop lending you money because you'd crippled the industries that were your best chance of paying them back.



Sure. And then they'd, umm.. do what exactly ?

$1,000 a barrel.

nihilist
19th December 09, 03:21 PM
I've thought about this more and I've decided that you're a hippy.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Cullion
19th December 09, 03:35 PM
I like how there's an acceptable of number of dead people and widows.

Oh you're right, there's not. BAN THE AUTOMOBILE!



$1,000 a barrel.

Well, if you'd just stop spitting those greenbacks out of a printing press they'd be worth more, and you and I wouldn't have to have this difficult conversation.

nihilist
19th December 09, 03:38 PM
Oh you're right, there's not. BAN THE AUTOMOBILE!



Well, if you'd just stop spitting those greenbacks out of a printing press they'd be worth more, and you and I wouldn't have to have this difficult conversation.

Come back, herring, when your color changes.

Cullion
19th December 09, 03:42 PM
and you're so old school, you're 19th century.

Thanks man, that means a lot.

Ajamil
19th December 09, 04:55 PM
We have the coal, and we could use the money for research into newer extraction tech, rather than new energy tech.

We also have oil, but we're afraid of damaging the other resource we have to give up to get it. I agree we should wait until the opponent's oil is too costly ("too" can be defined later), and then tap our resource.

Or, alternatively we could hit that now, and preempt the (I think, please correct if in error) drop in oil price. Keep the oil prices the same, though, by an "energy research" tax. And then - I know, it's weird - actually use the money for what we said we would.

All of this, of course, depends on whether there is adequate evidence to believe that coal/oil are worth abandoning. That can be due to health, ecological, or simply deciding we've reached peak oil/coal. Hell, business might simply decide "alternate energy" and "carbon trading" are nice new markets to exploit.

Why stop at carbon dioxide? We can put a cap on how much mercury or lead or sulfur dioxide any business can produce and start a whole new stocks opportunity!

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:09 PM
I like the idea of cloning a race of slaves with no frontal lobe.

They would all look like Salma Hayek.

I could hook up a cart to her for transportation.
She could serve as a heat source in wintertime.
She could hand wash the laundry and clean me with her tongue.
She could eat my leftovers.
She could generate power for me by riding my generator-bike naked.

For people like Cullion we could clone Nicoal Kidman.

Cullion
19th December 09, 05:14 PM
Come back, herring, when your color changes.

Do you really believe that oil price fluctuations are largely determined by the demand for oil for immediate delivery and use vs the supply of physical oil these days ?

Hell no, speculative capital flows are much more important.

Cullion
19th December 09, 05:15 PM
I like the idea of cloning a race of slaves with no frontal lobe.

They would all look like Salma Hayek.

I could hook up a cart to her for transportation.
She could serve as a heat source in wintertime.
She could hand wash the laundry and clean me with her tongue.
She could eat my leftovers.
She could generate power for me by riding my generator-bike naked.

For people like Cullion we could clone Nicoal Kidman.

I'm not interested in 'tard-Kidman. 'tard-Kidman would be a pain in the ass.

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:26 PM
Right now the Saudis are selling oil.
What if that changed?

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:27 PM
I'm not interested in 'tard-Kidman. 'tard-Kidman would be a pain in the ass.
You get an Olive Oyl clone then.

Cullion
19th December 09, 05:30 PM
Right now the Saudis are selling oil.
What if that changed?

Then we'll have to synthesize it from coal if we haven't got sufficiently developed fuel cells to charge from some nuclear or renewable electricity source by then.

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:34 PM
Coal could last a few hundred years more, to buy everybody some time.

Time to do what?
Time to find out how to use the remaining vegetation in some sort of super-advanced woodstove car?

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:41 PM
Then we'll have to synthesize it from coal if we haven't got sufficiently developed fuel cells to charge from some nuclear or renewable electricity source by then.Now why would you want to go throwing money at renewable energy? (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/cheap_3d_solar_cells_are_6x_more_efficient_work_un derground.php)

Cullion
19th December 09, 05:42 PM
No, time to find an alternative that worked. We haven't got one yet. That's why it's a bad idea to throw something solid that we know will last for a few centuries away. Solar cells are not viable as a replacement yet, nor is fusion, or wind or wave power, or fission, or any combination thereof.

EuropIan
19th December 09, 05:45 PM
Then we'll have to synthesize it from coal if we haven't got sufficiently developed fuel cells to charge from some nuclear or renewable electricity source by then.
Doesn't that defeat your entire point about the current energy efficiency superiority?

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:52 PM
No, time to find an alternative that worked. We haven't got one yet. That's why it's a bad idea to throw something solid that we know will last for a few centuries away. Solar cells are not viable as a replacement yet, nor is fusion, or wind or wave power, or fission, or any combination thereof.

Homes need to be more efficient. incandescent lighting is a HUGE energy drain.

Most of the energy produced today is horribly misused.

Hell, I knew what the priorities should have been during the 1970s gas "crisis".

Cullion
19th December 09, 05:54 PM
Sure, we can change the subject.

Homes being more efficient doesn't have much to do with whatever source you're using for the domestic electricity and heating.

I'm happy to make my home more efficient from simple, selfish perspective because it saves me money.

nihilist
19th December 09, 05:58 PM
Sure, we can change the subject.

Homes being more efficient doesn't have much to do with whatever source you're using for the domestic electricity and heating.

I'm happy to make my home more efficient from simple, selfish perspective because it saves me money.
I'm not changing the subject.
The subject is how to "bridge the gap" which requires more than merely producing alternative energy to the levels of current petroleum-based sources.

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:00 PM
Right now, my natural gas furnace cycles on only a couple times a day.
That's how fluffed my house is.

Cullion
19th December 09, 06:00 PM
Well, you've stopped trolling about bullshit science fiction renewable energy plans.

If you change your proposition until I agree, then I'll agree.

I'm sorry if that leaves you feeling painfully hard and unsatisfied.

EuropIan
19th December 09, 06:01 PM
Reese brings up a good point as to how the US&Uk dealt with the oil Crisis in the 70's.

basically it was a wasted opportunity.

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:04 PM
Well, you've stopped trolling about bullshit science fiction renewable energy plans.

If you change your proposition until I agree, then I'll agree.

I'm sorry if that leaves you feeling painfully hard and unsatisfied.


You've made quite a few assumptions along the way.

That kept me turgid for quite a while, but alas, I must now turn back to petroleum products (http://greenandchic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/vaseline.jpg)

Cullion
19th December 09, 06:06 PM
In what sense Ian ? An opportunity to spaz out chasing technologies that couldn't fill the gap even with 21st century technology? A chance to cripple our economies by rejecting the fuel sources that have made transportation of people and goods so convenient ?

You're too detached from the real energy economy that enables your, historically speaking, sumptuous, lifestyles. Get real about this.

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:08 PM
Reese brings up a good point as to how the US&Uk dealt with the oil Crisis in the 70's.

basically it was a wasted opportunity.

Well it wasn't a business opportunity that had enough instant profitability.

EuropIan
19th December 09, 06:13 PM
In what sense Ian ? An opportunity to spaz out chasing technologies that couldn't fill the gap even with 21st century technology? A chance to cripple our economies by rejecting the fuel sources that have made transportation of people and goods so convenient ?

You're too detached from the real energy economy that enables your, historically speaking, sumptuous, lifestyles. Get real about this.
I don't know, maybe I have a point. (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=4E702936DCF944B26EC7 6BEFD7276CD3?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1683039)

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:14 PM
In what sense Ian ? An opportunity to spaz out chasing technologies that couldn't fill the gap even with 21st century technology? A chance to cripple our economies by rejecting the fuel sources that have made transportation of people and goods so convenient ?

You're too detached from the real energy economy that enables your, historically speaking, sumptuous, lifestyles. Get real about this.


More like an opportunity to start planning for the future and prioritizing rather than building some of the most opulent cars and poorly insulated homes in history while turning a blind eye to pollution.

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:16 PM
I am beginning to suspect that Cullion secretly likes sucking Arab cock.

Cullion
19th December 09, 06:24 PM
More like an opportunity to start planning for the future and prioritizing rather than building some of the most opulent cars and poorly insulated homes in history while turning a blind eye to pollution.

What pollution? American and British cities are cleaner than they've ever been despite massive increase in car usage and population density.

It sounds like your idea of planning for the future is about jumping at things that sound good because they're quiet and pretty and don't make chugging noises or emit any smoke. That's just not a serious analysis of how we live and what we need.

Cullion
19th December 09, 06:24 PM
I am beginning to suspect that Cullion secretly likes sucking Arab cock.

That became not any of your business once you decided to get all up in my face like this.

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:30 PM
What pollution?

Vehicle exhaust contributes roughly 60% of all carbon monoxide emissions nationwide, and up to 95% in cities.

This does not even take into account the petroleum-based pollution that is discharged into the oceans.

nihilist
19th December 09, 06:33 PM
We're so sorry Uncle Cullion
But we haven't done a bloody thing all day
We're so sorry Uncle Cullion
But the kettle's on the boil and we're so easily called away...

EuropIan
19th December 09, 06:35 PM
yeah, but making the oceans more acidic via co2 just means more lobsters for everyone!

bob
20th December 09, 03:14 AM
Oi vey...

danno
20th December 09, 04:51 AM
i can't wait until i find the time to re-rail this thread.

nihilist
20th December 09, 05:51 AM
Shhh, Cullion needs daily attention.

Cullion
20th December 09, 05:53 AM
I need daily attention? Au contraire mon frere. You started this little exchange. I think you miss being on stage.

nihilist
20th December 09, 06:02 AM
Newsflash: I AM onstage.

Cullion
20th December 09, 06:12 AM
pics or gtfo.

Arhetton
20th December 09, 06:18 AM
No, time to find an alternative that worked. We haven't got one yet. That's why it's a bad idea to throw something solid that we know will last for a few centuries away. Solar cells are not viable as a replacement yet, nor is fusion, or wind or wave power, or fission, or any combination thereof.

I just went looking for the thread I created on solar thermal, but because the search function is broken I've been looking for over an hour and can't find it. Fuck.

nihilist
20th December 09, 06:31 AM
pics or gtfo.


Don't make me show you what my metaphor, beotch.

danno
30th January 10, 12:03 AM
to reiterate what i dug up earlier in this thread - the best i can tell from the information i found is that there does seem to be a scientific consensus on climate change; and, the higher one's expertise in climate science, the more likely one is to think that climate change is a reality, and that it is caused by human activity. according to a poll of scientists in 2009, that is.

next i'm going to look at michael e. mann, of controversial "hockey stick graph" fame. he has also been named in the controversial emails which were unearthed by a hacker.

first, his credentials:


In 2009 he was appointed Professor at Pennsylvania State University, in the Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute and since 2005 has been Director of the university's interdepartmental Earth System Science Center.[1] He previously taught at the University of Virginia, in the Department of Environmental Sciences (1999 - 2005).

He was a Lead Author on the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Report (2001). He has been organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences ‘Frontiers of Science’ and has served as a committee member or advisor for other National Academy of Sciences panels. He served as editor for the Journal of Climate and has been a member of numerous international and U.S. scientific advisory panels and steering groups.

Mann has been the recipient of several fellowships and prizes, including selection as one of the 50 leading visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American, the outstanding scientific publication award of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and recognition by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) for notable citation of his refereed scientific research. Mann is one of several climate scientists who contribute to the RealClimate blog.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

he is also the author of 80 peer reviewed articles.

let me put that in perspective - talking to my girlfriend who studies biomedical science, she said that it could take a number of years to complete your research before submitting an article, then it could take any amount of peer review time to get it published. like, 2, 3, 4, 5 years. or after peer review it might be returned. then you have to fix your research and resubmit the article.

she said that 10 peer reviewed articles is a pretty respectable number.

looking at that alone, it would seem that michael is a highly accomplished and respected scientist.

an interview with him on the email scandal can be viewed here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6718183/Climategate-Phil-Jones-accused-of-making-error-of-judgment-by-colleague.html

if anyone wants to discuss that, it might be better to bring it up in cullion's thread.


---------------------------------


as we all know, the hockey stick graph has been attacked and debated ad infinitum.


The hockey stick controversy was a dispute started in 2003 by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick[1] over the reconstructed estimates of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature changes over the past millennium,[2] especially the particular reconstruction of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes.[3] The authors are frequently referred to by their initials MBH, and this work is often called the MBH98 reconstruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

since they seem to be the principal critics, next i'll look at McIntyre and McKitrick, their backgrounds, and responses to their criticism.

Wounded Ronin
30th January 10, 12:29 PM
It doesn't seem to me like anyone should really think we knew exactly what the temperature was in the year 1000.

Cullion
30th January 10, 12:36 PM
he is also the author of 80 peer reviewed articles.

let me put that in perspective - talking to my girlfriend who studies biomedical science, she said that it could take a number of years to complete your research before submitting an article, then it could take any amount of peer review time to get it published. like, 2, 3, 4, 5 years. or after peer review it might be returned. then you have to fix your research and resubmit the article.

she said that 10 peer reviewed articles is a pretty respectable number.

looking at that alone, it would seem that michael is a highly accomplished and respected scientist.

You haven't forgotten how 'peer review' functions in this field, right?

danno
30th January 10, 06:56 PM
You haven't forgotten how 'peer review' functions in this field, right?

ok, i'll look into how peer review in this field is regarded by other scientists.

i'm also going to read about responses to the graph, and counter responses etc.

danno
30th January 10, 06:58 PM
It doesn't seem to me like anyone should really think we knew exactly what the temperature was in the year 1000.

not sure what you mean. we don't know exactly exactly what is was. there's a margin of error and everyone realises that.

Wounded Ronin
30th January 10, 08:03 PM
not sure what you mean. we don't know exactly exactly what is was. there's a margin of error and everyone realises that.

I think at this point that most people haven't really thought of it. Never mind, it's not really a big point or anything.

Cullion
30th January 10, 08:11 PM
ok, i'll look into how peer review in this field is regarded by other scientists.

Why not read primary sources about how peer review was functioning in this field in the leaked Hadley e-mails?

danno
30th January 10, 09:13 PM
I think at this point that most people haven't really thought of it. Never mind, it's not really a big point or anything.

most people don't have much of an idea about anything to do with science.

EuropIan
30th January 10, 09:16 PM
Why not read primary sources about how peer review was functioning in this field in the leaked Hadley e-mails?
:spanky:

danno
30th January 10, 09:16 PM
Why not read primary sources about how peer review was functioning in this field in the leaked Hadley e-mails?

sure. if you could point me to a few links here or post a summary or whatever i'd really appreciate it.

Cullion
30th January 10, 09:18 PM
it's all in that other thread.

EuropIan
30th January 10, 09:21 PM
It is clear that all climate scientists are in cohoots.

Cullion says so.

danno
30th January 10, 09:28 PM
i'd just like to say that i'm having trouble doing searches for info on how peer review in the fields of climate science in particular are regarded. i mean, there's plenty of stuff from individuals and non-scientists saying the process is corrupt, but that's useless to me. if anyone can help me out, please do.

but i don't really see much criticism from other scientific organisations so far:


Scientific organisations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organisations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* British Antarctic Survey
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Environmental Protection Agency
* Federation of American Scientists
* Geological Society of America
* International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* The Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

* Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academie des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organisations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

*
African Academy of Sciences
*
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
*
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
*
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
*
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts
*
Letters and Sciences
*
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
*
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
*
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
*
Academy of Science of South Africa
*
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
*
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
*
Zambia Academy of Sciences
*
Sudan Academy of Sciences

A survey of peer reviewed research

It is also worthwhile examining peer reviewed journals - scientists can have their opinions but they need to back it up with empirical evidence and research that survives the peer review process. A survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 show that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Cullion
30th January 10, 09:29 PM
Full of shit, certainly. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Danno, it simply doesn't matter how many authority figures tell you that a scientific model of the world is valid if it makes incorrect predictions.

danno
30th January 10, 09:32 PM
it's all in that other thread.

ugh... but there's so much crap to wade through...

what i took from that thread was that the day-to-day bickering between researchers had been held up as evidence that the people involved were basically making stuff up. for some reason.

danno
30th January 10, 09:36 PM
Full of shit, certainly. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Danno, it simply doesn't matter how many authority figures tell you that a scientific model of the world is valid if it makes incorrect predictions.

if that particular mis-prediction really mattered, i don't believe that these organisations would still be backing AGW. if you're right, all these organisations should be scrapped because they're useless and dangerous.

Cullion
30th January 10, 09:39 PM
Danno, most of the organisations that you list don't really have any mandate to make pronouncements on global warming because the majority of their member's aren't climatologists. Climatology isn't a field like medicine where there are hundreds of thousands of practitioners in every country. IPCC reports draw on the work of tens of people, usually with a much smaller core compiling the actual report.

It's not like it's just that one prediction which was wrong.

Here's a more productive avenue for you; start listing testable predictions made by AGW proponents which actually came true.

Cullion
30th January 10, 09:43 PM
ugh... but there's so much crap to wade through...

what i took from that thread was that the day-to-day bickering between researchers had been held up as evidence that the people involved were basically making stuff up. for some reason.

That's because you didn't actually read much of the thread. You're dealing in vague impressions which you're attempting to confirm to yourself by appeals to authority.

danno
30th January 10, 09:51 PM
Danno, most of the organisations that you list don't really have any mandate to make pronouncements on global warming because the majority of their member's aren't climatologists.

but climate scientists are possibly in cahoots, remember? that makes their opinion on the matter void.

i need to look for opinions of their peer review process - from non climate scientists.


Here's a more productive avenue for you; start listing testable predictions made by AGW proponents which actually came true.

i'm not really sure if it would invalidate the theory of AGW at all.

Cullion
30th January 10, 09:53 PM
but climate scientists are possibly in cahoots, remember? that makes their opinion on the matter void.

i need to look for opinions of their peer review process - from non climate scientists.

Luckily for you, you can read what climate scientists said to each other about it when they thought no outsiders could listen in.



i'm not really sure if it would invalidate the theory of AGW at all.

If incorrect predictions cannot invalidate a hypothesis, then what they're engaged in cannot be properly called science.

danno
30th January 10, 09:54 PM
That's because you didn't actually read much of the thread. You're dealing in vague impressions which you're attempting to confirm to yourself by appeals to authority.

you're accusing me of that fallacy again. so i'll quote this again:


Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

whenever i quote any authority, i try to look for another highly regarded authority that opposes their view.

it's just looking very one-sided right now.

Cullion
30th January 10, 09:56 PM
it's just looking very one-sided right now.

You've already been given a list of climate scientists who don't believe in the mainstream AGW hypothesis.

danno
30th January 10, 09:57 PM
Luckily for you, you can read what climate scientists said to each other about it when they thought no outsiders could listen in.

when reading the emails a few months ago and selected "important" parts, i really couldn't make much of it. many quotes seemed to be taken out of context and re-interpreted.


If incorrect predictions cannot invalidate a hypothesis, then what they're engaged in cannot be properly called science.

i think i'll need to look into that also. i'm assuming at this point that any respectable scientist would do a complete turn around if this were true.

danno
30th January 10, 10:04 PM
You've already been given a list of climate scientists who don't believe in the mainstream AGW hypothesis.

i don't remember anyone significant though. no important orgs.

but i'll make sure i look again.

this is gunna take so long...

Cullion
30th January 10, 10:06 PM
i think i'll need to look into that also. i'm assuming at this point that any respectable scientist would do a complete turn around if this were true.

Just look for testable predictions and see how they turned out. I've done this and basically they fail almost all the time. AGW climate theory is essentially a long list of post hoc justifications of why they were wrong last year.

danno
30th January 10, 10:11 PM
Just look for testable predictions and see how they turned out. I've done this and basically they fail almost all the time.

which in your opinion invalidates AGW theory. but however clever you are, you're not an authority on science or even climate science.

Cullion
30th January 10, 10:13 PM
but however clever you are, you're not an authority on science or even climate science.

In what sense ? I have a post-graduate science degree and know more about computer modelling than the chairman of the IPCC (the former railway engineer turned economist).

Besides, you're back to arguing from authority again. Essentially, you're eschewing primary sources for the credentials of the personalities involved. You're not going to be able to decide anything reasonably like that.

danno
30th January 10, 10:35 PM
Essentially, you're eschewing primary sources for the credentials of the personalities involved. You're not going to be able to decide anything reasonably like that.

i'm eschewing you too, don't take it personally.

and i said from the beginning, i won't be analysing any science or anything i'm not qualified to do. we've already discussed this.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 02:06 AM
and i said from the beginning, i won't be analysing any science or anything i'm not qualified to do. we've already discussed this.Then what are you going to do? Count articles?

danno
31st January 10, 02:22 AM
read the thread plz.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 02:29 AM
read the thread plz.I read the thread. You're being an idiot. This issue is inherently decided on the quality of the science.

danno
31st January 10, 02:35 AM
This issue is inherently decided on the quality of the science.

it certainly is. and the scientific consensus is that the earth is warming, and it's probably due to human activity.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 02:38 AM
it certainly is. and the scientific consensus is that the earth is warming, and it's probably due to human activity.Nice talking point. Sadly, you seem determined to ignore the process by which the image of such a consensus was created, or the problems with the underlying theory.

danno
31st January 10, 02:42 AM
Nice talking point.

yes it is.


Sadly, you seem determined to ignore the process by which the image of such a consensus was created, or the problems with the underlying theory.

are you a climate scientist?

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 02:43 AM
yes it is.
Sadly, that's all it is.


are you a climate scientist?
No. Why?

EuropIan
31st January 10, 02:43 AM
there can't be global warming, it's winter

danno
31st January 10, 03:16 AM
Sadly, that's all it is.

i would have thought it was a happy kinda thing.


No. Why?

i'm not either. but you're saying that if you or i were to examine the research done by so many scientists and organisations who are experts in the field - that our investigation would hold more weight? is that correct?

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 07:31 AM
i would have thought it was a happy kinda thing.
If you're happy to be a doubleplusgood duckspeaker, perhaps it is.


i'm not either. but you're saying that if you or i were to examine the research done by so many scientists and organisations who are experts in the field - that our investigation would hold more weight? is that correct?I'm saying that your appeal to authority above disregards a lot of experts who disagree and a lot of logical holes in the research itself.

This is obviously not about science or scientific merit to you, given your reluctance to review the facts of the case. I can only conclude that you have a quasi-religious attachment to the AGW hypothesis itself, and that you will react to questions about its basis as a father who was asked why he took such a lively interest in his wife's children.

Cullion
31st January 10, 08:39 AM
i'm eschewing you too, don't take it personally.

and i said from the beginning, i won't be analysing any science or anything i'm not qualified to do. we've already discussed this.

In which case, there isn't any point you doing this investigation. You won't learn anything and you won't teach anybody else anything.

There is no way for you to find out whether or not a critical mass of climatologists are endorsing each other's unfounded claims because your definition of 'well founded' is 'how many climatologists endorse it'?.

Your whole argument consists of 'but. but.. he's a scientist'. It's absurd.

Sun Wukong
31st January 10, 10:43 AM
I can only conclude that you have a quasi-religious attachment to the AGW hypothesis itself, and that you will react to questions about its basis as a father who was asked why he took such a lively interest in his wife's children.


¿Sí? Tu madre.

Cullion
31st January 10, 03:58 PM
Looks like the panel of climate experts (presided over by a railway engineer turned economist) have been caught talking shit again

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

Ajamil
31st January 10, 06:38 PM
Looks like the panel of climate experts (presided over by a railway engineer turned economist) have been caught talking shit again

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece
I hate to say it, but someone needs to go over to the WWF and lay the Smackdown on them.

danno
31st January 10, 07:06 PM
I'm saying that your appeal to authority above disregards a lot of experts who disagree and a lot of logical holes in the research itself.

rubbish. look it up yourself. there really does seem to be a consensus.


This is obviously not about science or scientific merit to you, given your reluctance to review the facts of the case. I can only conclude that you have a quasi-religious attachment to the AGW hypothesis itself, and that you will react to questions about its basis as a father who was asked why he took such a lively interest in his wife's children.

i'm ONLY interested in scientific merit.

i don't want global warming. i don't want it to exist. i want it to go away. but to the best of our knowledge, the earth is warming and it's likely that it was caused by humans. this is what the majority of preeminent experts, organisations in the field of climate science are saying.

i don't know if that means it's a bad thing or not. i don't know if we should spend any money on it. i actually feel very cautious about doing anything about it. it could be very possible that we're better of continuing as before. i enjoy the wealth and practically unlimited energy that fossil fuels bring us.

i'm just telling you that the science is saying it's almost certainly warming and it's probably due to us. the more i look, the more it seems that way. that's it. as soon as the consensus swings the other way, so will i.

the danger of laypeople examining the science in detail is that they have no idea what they're looking at, and will allow their political bias to make their decisions on the information.

i'm repeating things i've already said in this thread.

danno
31st January 10, 07:10 PM
In which case, there isn't any point you doing this investigation. You won't learn anything and you won't teach anybody else anything.

There is no way for you to find out whether or not a critical mass of climatologists are endorsing each other's unfounded claims because your definition of 'well founded' is 'how many climatologists endorse it'?.

Your whole argument consists of 'but. but.. he's a scientist'. It's absurd.

in a different thread, you're talking about FTL travel. you've looked at the research and opinions of those preeminent in the field. you realise that you aren't capable of fully understanding the research. and despite the fact that you really really want it to be possible, you have aligned yourself with the scientific consensus - more likely than not, it isn't possible. but there's still a small hope and possibility it is.

you defer your opinion to that of the best and brightest who know the most about it.

yet when it comes to climate, you make a firm decision against mainstream science. anytihng else is an appeal to authority.

Cullion
31st January 10, 07:14 PM
rubbish. look it up yourself. there really does seem to be a consensus.

It's not rubbish and you simply haven't read widely enough.



i'm ONLY interested in scientific merit.
i'm repeating things i've already said in this thread.

You're not interested in scientific merit, you're interested in authority and you can't tell the difference between the two.

danno
31st January 10, 07:17 PM
It's not rubbish and you simply haven't read widely enough.

well, i haven't finished here yet. next i'll be looking at critics of the hockey stick graph.


You're not interested in scientific merit, you're interested in authority and you can't tell the difference between the two.

my last post basically responds to this.

Cullion
31st January 10, 07:21 PM
in a different thread, you're talking about FTL travel. you've looked at the research and opinions of those preeminent in the field. and despite the fact that you really really want it to be possible, you have aligned yourself with the scientific consensus - more likely than not, it isn't possible.

yet when it comes to climate, you make a firm decision against mainstream science.

You haven't accurately characterised what I actually said in that other thread, but space travel isn't really relevant here.

My opposition to the AGW hypothesis is for several extremely good reasons:-

i) The AGW hypothesis repeatedly makes bad predictions.

ii) The AGW hypothesis disregards many significant warming events before human industrial activity became significant and doesn't explain them.

iii) Many of the leading proponents have already been caught exaggerating, spinning or outright falsifying claims.

You're seriously misunderstanding the nature of support for AGW in the scientific community if you think it's a settled consensus that all climatologists agree on. I've already given you links to the ones who don't.

What you're doing (as you appeared to have just done regarding the other thread) is skim-reading things without digesting any of the detailed content to form a very vague impression which supports your preconceived notion. An example being that you just rebutted Cy pointing out that many experts disagreed with 'rubbish', when it's clearly documented and you've even been given the links. You just skimmed over them.

If science was always allowed to operate on networks of perceived authority like this, regardless of the absurdity of a position, we'd still think the Sun revolved around the Earth. We'd still be trapped in mediaeval scholasticism.

The reason we moved beyond that is because it all hinges on testable predictions. But you're refusing to actually investigate testable predictions, because you're convinced you wouldn't understand them, or something.

Ajamil
31st January 10, 08:33 PM
Cullion, can you point to or perhaps create a comprehensive list of the testable predictions proponents of AGW have made, and have been wrong about?

danno
31st January 10, 09:35 PM
that would be a red herring. the hypothesis of AGW is that the earth is warming and it's due to human activity. that's what needs to be disproven. a specific prediction about snowfall on a mountain in the next six months that turned out to be false does not disprove AGW one jot.

short on time right now, will reply to the rest later.

Ajamil
31st January 10, 09:55 PM
that would be a red herring. the hypothesis of AGW is that the earth is warming and it's due to human activity. that's what needs to be disproven. a specific prediction about snowfall on a mountain in the next six months that turned out to be false does not disprove AGW one jot.And the hypothesis of ID is that evolution is very complex and caused by a space geneticist. Give me a testable prediction or get it off the table. It doesn't have to be so specific - trends, statistical forecasts count as predictions.

Syntactical Disruptorize
31st January 10, 09:55 PM
rubbish. look it up yourself.Your skill at argumentation awes me.

danno
31st January 10, 10:14 PM
And the hypothesis of ID is that evolution is very complex and caused by a space geneticist. Give me a testable prediction or get it off the table. It doesn't have to be so specific - trends, statistical forecasts count as predictions.

a warming of 1.1 C to 6.4 C by the end of the century.

danno
31st January 10, 10:16 PM
Your skill at argumentation awes me.

sadly, i'm not impressed.

tell me what do you need from me to show a consensus apart from what i've posted in this thread. sadly.

Ajamil
31st January 10, 10:32 PM
a warming of 1.1 C to 6.4 C by the end of the century.So AGW has nothing to prove it wrong except to wait for a hundred years, give or take? Cullion has claimed that they have made predictions, and that they were wrong. So now - if you wish - the tone of my request to Cullion is produce back-up to your claims or admit your lies.

danno
1st February 10, 12:45 AM
You haven't accurately characterised what I actually said in that other thread

i'm still pretty sure i did... feel free to clarify what you thought i got wrong.


but space travel isn't really relevant here.

the point wasn't about space travel, it's about your views of scientific authority. to me it looks like you're being inconsistent when it comes to climate.


My opposition to the AGW hypothesis is for several extremely good reasons:-

i) The AGW hypothesis repeatedly makes bad predictions.

the only explicit prediction the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis makes is anthropogenic global warming.

you're right that particular people do make inaccurate predictions from time to time.


ii) The AGW hypothesis disregards many significant warming events before human industrial activity became significant and doesn't explain them.

the AGWH has nothing to do with the past. it only attempts to predict what will happen within the next century or so, with a very large margin of error.

the people who research the climate of the past are the same who make the AGW prediction - climate scientists. do you think they aren't aware of paleoclimatology?

and if they're so corrupt and incompetent, how do you know they aren't fabricating data about our past as well?


iii) Many of the leading proponents have already been caught exaggerating, spinning or outright falsifying claims.

yep, i'll give you that. but i'd change it to "many of the popular proponents".


You're seriously misunderstanding the nature of support for AGW in the scientific community if you think it's a settled consensus that all climatologists agree on. I've already given you links to the ones who don't.

it's not a 100% agreement. but it gets into the 90% range amongst scientists who actively research and publish data on climate.

i'll make sure i go back over your links.


What you're doing (as you appeared to have just done regarding the other thread) is skim-reading things without digesting any of the detailed content to form a very vague impression which supports your preconceived notion. An example being that you just rebutted Cy pointing out that many experts disagreed with 'rubbish', when it's clearly documented and you've even been given the links. You just skimmed over them.

If science was always allowed to operate on networks of perceived authority like this, regardless of the absurdity of a position, we'd still think the Sun revolved around the Earth. We'd still be trapped in mediaeval scholasticism.

ok. you say i'm not being thorough enough when i look at the skeptics. give me some more time and i'll go back over it.

i must say though, i was planning to start posting about a couple of guys who are skeptics immediately after M. E. Mann.


The reason we moved beyond that is because it all hinges on testable predictions. But you're refusing to actually investigate testable predictions, because you're convinced you wouldn't understand them, or something.

another reason i don't want to go in depth with the science, is that you're quite good at using "proof by verbosity".

danno
1st February 10, 12:55 AM
So AGW has nothing to prove it wrong except to wait for a hundred years, give or take?

it really sucks, but yes. that's basically it. if it warms by even a degree or so then one part of the AGWH is proven. but the anthropogenic part may still be tricky to prove with 100% certainty.

predictions about sea level rise, extinction, refugee crises, etc, are all extrapolations of the warming predictions, and completely depend on degrees of extremity. it's possible that AGW may do very little to harm human civilisation, and it's possible that it could do more harm.

in any case it won't be the end of the world. from what i can tell, i'm pretty sure that even in the worst case scenario, it won't come anywhere near the harm of something like WWII.

and i'll repeat, there is a massive margin for error.

Ajamil
1st February 10, 06:11 AM
If all AGWH does is predict a 5 degree range of warming in approx. 100 years, then how do you tell if plans to reduce CO2 are working? What good is the theory for ten year or even 50 year planning if all it gives us is a wide margin of error for what might happen? How have they confirmed any part of it? Is there no part of it that can be matched with actual evidence to check it's validity?

They've built weather models based off their predictions, yes? Wouldn't seeing if the weather models act like the meteorological record be a good place to start? I mean, we can't just remove the humans from the equation in real life, so first make a model that accurate shows what's happened so far, then tweak it around to see what might happen later.

Is there evidence that the weather models created are accurate? Cullion has posted before that they weren't. I'd like to hear more about it.

Syntactical Disruptorize
1st February 10, 06:18 AM
I think danno is weakening the predictions so they're hard to falsify, but he'll strengthen them again when he's making a case for urgency of action.

Ajamil
1st February 10, 06:42 AM
I googled "testable predictions of AGW." I didn't get what I was looking for, but I did find two opinion (http://fyngyrz.com/?p=492) blogs (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.2890) that state my concern clearly.


Now, the problem with the AGW hypothesis is that the models which are making the predictions are not matching the actual results. These climate models never worked well at both the poles and the mid-latitudes; they failed to predict the current long-lasting stall; the rates of temperature rise predicted don’t match, when rise actually does occur; and so what we have here are hypothesis that are not producing rules that we can use to predict their notional basis. With regard to predictions made of future performance, as that future has not arrived, as the near-term predictions have failed, there is no basis to presume that the models are verified long term.

The issues that the hypothesis deal with are issues of great potential concern: waters rising, temperatures changing in what we think might be an unfriendly manner, and of course the degree, if any, to which we ourselves may be responsible for this and what this implies for the actions we ought to be taking.
But sit back, look at the science, that is to say, the success of the model at hand to generate successful predictions, and ask yourself: Is it time to use this as a basis for major decision making?
Now let's compare AGW with another scientific media storm, cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion):

Cold fusion was a scientific theory. Its progenitors were zealous about sending details of their experiment world-wide. (There was some speculation that they spread this far and wide for fear of their research being classified by the U.S. government.) Other interested researchers could duplicate their work. It made a prediction (neutron emission) that could not otherwise be explained. And it was falsifiable -- other researchers duplicated their work, did not get the same results, and most importantly did not see any neutrons. Even though their theory was wrong, it was scientific.

The work of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), however, is not. First, their work is not verifiable, for the simple reason that they have refused to make available either their raw data (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/#more-13215) or their computer models. Since their work is entirely based on computer modeling of data, you need both in order to verify it. For the same reason -- concealment -- their work can't be directly falsified. Their theory significantly fails to explain historically-known phenomena, and while it does offer a testable prediction (global warming), to the extent that that has been tested, it has fallen flat.

danno
1st February 10, 07:05 AM
If all AGWH does is predict a 5 degree range of warming in approx. 100 years, then how do you tell if plans to reduce CO2 are working?

indeed. as far as i understand, it's all very difficult to know with a high degree of certainty.

it just appears likely that greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 are causing the warming. so in theory reducing emissions will possibly help. again, that's all extrapolation from data.


What good is the theory for ten year or even 50 year planning if all it gives us is a wide margin of error for what might happen? How have they confirmed any part of it? Is there no part of it that can be matched with actual evidence to check it's validity?

there is enough evidence for there to be a high degree of certainty amongst scientists that global average temps are rising and will continue to rise. it's probably, not certainly, caused by human activity.

but predictions about how much it will warm and what the effects will be are really where the scientific debate is at. this is where there is a lot of division.

the margin of error is taking into account a range of models, including best and worst case scenarios and so on, which seems to satisfy most climatologists.


They've built weather models based off their predictions, yes? Wouldn't seeing if the weather models act like the meteorological record be a good place to start? I mean, we can't just remove the humans from the equation in real life, so first make a model that accurate shows what's happened so far, then tweak it around to see what might happen later.

Is there evidence that the weather models created are accurate? Cullion has posted before that they weren't. I'd like to hear more about it.

trust me, people are working on this from every imaginable angle.

the generally accepted prediction with a high margin of error shows just how difficult it is to be very accurate with this stuff. we really need a much higher degree of accuracy to make good decisions - 1 degree increase isn't so bad, but 6 is pretty dangerous. that's why the whole world is debating it right now. we don't know what the fuck is going on. we're trying to bet on the fastest horse.

but by the time we figure it out it might be too late. but if we act and nothing bad happens then we've destroyed economies and killed babies. but what if we do things that don't cost so much. but it might be cheaper to adapt rather than prevent. but what if... blah blah blah.

danno
1st February 10, 07:06 AM
I think danno is weakening the predictions so they're hard to falsify, but he'll strengthen them again when he's making a case for urgency of action.

sadly, i've never done that.

Cullion
1st February 10, 02:50 PM
i'm still pretty sure i did... feel free to clarify what you thought i got wrong.

i) The scientific consensus isn't that it's impossible.

ii) I didn't say in the thread that it was impossible.

That's how you misunderstood it.



the only explicit prediction the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis makes is anthropogenic global warming.

Huh? They've made numerous incorrect predictions using the same models they use to insist it's warming due to human CO2 emissions. You just haven't digested this yet.

'Anthropogenic Warming' with no other predictions attached isn't a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore isn't science. It's a scary story, nothing more.



the AGWH has nothing to do with the past.

Of course it does, otherwise how would they claim to be able to detect a warming trend?



and if they're so corrupt and incompetent, how do you know they aren't fabricating data about our past as well?

If you'd read the other thread properly, you'd see that they had been.



another reason i don't want to go in depth with the science, is that you're quite good at using "proof by verbosity".

You're going to hate this, but I've simply read more about the subject than you and this is what it feels like to debate somebody who's more knowledgeable about something.

Oh, and um, Danno, even most of the AGW proponents admit that temperatures aren't rising at the moment.

You're basically ignoring failed predictions and reducing the case to one which isn't falsifiable. That's not science. I.e. it's a simple variant on Pascal's wager, with the same refutation.

Feryk
1st February 10, 02:52 PM
but by the time we figure it out it might be too late. but if we act and nothing bad happens then we've destroyed economies and killed babies. but what if we do things that don't cost so much. but it might be cheaper to adapt rather than prevent. but what if... blah blah blah.

Here is the thing. It's going to be argued for a few more decades. If the AGW advocates are right, by the time anything substantial is done, it will be too late.

So. We have to determine how to minimize the impact of living in a world where temperatures are set to keep rising, no matter what the cause. I am seeing NO action on that end by any government or industry anywhere. If we were serious about minimizing the impact, we would not be giving a shit about cap and trade credits. Instead we'd by raising the dykes in New Orleans by 5 meters. Same in the Netherlands, btw. We'd be abandoning entire cities, and rebuilding them on higher ground.

We'd be considering states like Texas, and wondering where it's population will have to be redistributed, and how to replace it's cattle production in a desert.

According to Al Gore, we'd have to evacuate Venice at some point, and bring the canal boats to New York.

No one has said anything about how to prepare for what the consensus says will happen no matter what goes on with emissions from here forward.

Sun Wukong
1st February 10, 05:16 PM
Good news Cullion, apparently Osama bin Laden believes in global warming. So... we could always extend the war on terror to the AGW. You really should re-think this business of opposing subjects on principle and look more closely at gaming your intellectually inferior political cousins for your own exclusive benefit.

That strategy has worked well for England in the past.

PS: the key is having contempt for those who disagree with you even marginally or assuming everyone else is sub-human.

Cullion
1st February 10, 05:21 PM
I just don't want to spend that much time with my 'political cousins'. Prayer breakfasts and golf are not my thing.

Sun Wukong
1st February 10, 05:32 PM
I just don't want to spend that much time with my 'political cousins'. Prayer breakfasts and golf are not my thing.

Yes, that is a sacrifice that sounds daunting. Have you considered shamelessly paying lip service by praising their high moral and ethical character? Keeping a straight face could prove a heavy burden but then you could think about their massacre of fiscal conservatism to keep you grounded.

PS: You could run for office locally. Community organizing put at least one brutha in the Oval office in the states; are there any barriers to joining parliament that would prevent you from seizing power? You're a white guy with a family, kids and best of all you don't have any secret gay lovers. That's prime political real estate right there.

Cullion
1st February 10, 05:56 PM
I also have a minor criminal record and a closet full of other dirty laundry.

Sun Wukong
1st February 10, 05:58 PM
I also have a minor criminal record and a closet full of other dirty laundry.

I know the feeling.

Feryk
1st February 10, 05:59 PM
You're a white guy with a family, kids and best of all you don't have any secret gay lovers. That's prime political real estate right there.

Well, that's a hell of an assumption. His love for HoG is well known.

danno
1st February 10, 07:09 PM
i) The scientific consensus isn't that it's impossible.

ii) I didn't say in the thread that it was impossible.

That's how you misunderstood it.

i) i said "more likely than not, it isn't possible. but there's still a small hope and possibility it is" which doesn't mean impossible. perhaps i should have said "unlikely".

ii) i did not say that you said it was impossible.

iii) you're still deferring your opinion to the scientific consensus. you didn't just make up your mind like you have on AGW.


Huh? They've made numerous incorrect predictions using the same models they use to insist it's warming due to human CO2 emissions. You just haven't digested this yet.

in the context of this thread, this is a red herring. i'm not debating the science with you, and i won't fall into the proof by verbosity" trap.


'Anthropogenic Warming' with no other predictions attached isn't a falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore isn't science. It's a scary story, nothing more.

"Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future greenhouse gas emissions. Most studies focus on the period up to the year 2100."

it's the meat and potatoes of the IPCC report. a startling number of scientists agree with the statement that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

this is all i have been saying the whole time.


Of course it does, otherwise how would they claim to be able to detect a warming trend?

AGWH isn't about making hypotheses about the past, it's about the future. and yes, using evidence from the past.


If you'd read the other thread properly, you'd see that they had been.

then you shouldn't trust anything they say about the past, and should stop using the "but it was hot a million years ago" argument.


You're going to hate this, but I've simply read more about the subject than you and this is what it feels like to debate somebody who's more knowledgeable about something.

i'm pretty sure you've read more too. doesn't mean you're right :D


Oh, and um, Danno, even most of the AGW proponents admit that temperatures aren't rising at the moment.

yes, apparently there may be a period spanning around a decade where warming will stall, and then continue rising afterwards.


You're basically ignoring failed predictions and reducing the case to one which isn't falsifiable. That's not science. I.e. it's a simple variant on Pascal's wager, with the same refutation.

well, i'm not a scientist. i'm just figuring out what the real scientists are saying.

danno
1st February 10, 07:10 PM
i've been looking at your list of AGW skeptics too. i'm gunna have a field day with that one.

Syntactical Disruptorize
1st February 10, 07:37 PM
sadly, i've never done that.Hence the use of the future tense. Grammarians advise us to be careful with verb tenses; ad hoc choices adversely affect one's adequacy of communication.

DO U C WUT I DID THAR

danno
1st February 10, 08:46 PM
hehehe.

seriously though, i won't be doing it in the future either. i've been very uncertain about what action to take for the last couple of years now and my statements have been consistent.

i haven't spent as much time reading about what actions we should take, since most internet debates are about whether AGW is happening in the first place.

Syntactical Disruptorize
1st February 10, 09:10 PM
Actually, most of the arguments I've seen are over related but distinct issues:


Is there enough evidence for AGW to justify continuing the funding for its rearch?
My answer: Yes, as long as it's not too expensive and doesn't compromise more promising research significantly. We pursue a lot of long-shot possibilities on a similar basis. Unless I advocate the Great Day of the Rope (http://www.dayoftherope.blogspot.com/) for the string theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Problems_and_controversy) -- a step I am still unwilling to take -- consistency requires me to continue to fund AGW research, but probably not at the current rate.

Is there enough evidence to consider AGW a solid theory, comparable to special relativity (as you have done)?
My answer: Not even close. Climatology is at best a nascent science, and the prominent role of chaotic equations in their current models make any predictions untrustworthy in the extreme.

Is there evidence of a catastrophic rise in global temperature sufficient to justify immediate action, even if the models are not the best?
My answer: Absolutely not. The hockey-stick graphs are a bad joke. They're constructed through trickery. All available evidence suggests that we are in a period of mild temperature decline for now. There is no harm in waiting for a full and complete answer at this point.

danno
1st February 10, 09:23 PM
Is there enough evidence to consider AGW a solid theory, comparable to special relativity (as you have done)?

i've never compared it to special relativity. i don't know enough about SR to do so.


Is there evidence of a catastrophic rise in global temperature sufficient to justify immediate action, even if the models are not the best? Absolutely not.

that's quite possible.


The hockey-stick graphs are a bad joke

it seems to be highly regarded amongst climatologists. sadly, it's dismissed by cullions and faunces. but i will be looking into that later.

danno
1st February 10, 09:53 PM
i'm not going to post in here for a little while. until i come back, i'll leave you with something to tide ya's over until then.


It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up".


The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.

The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[2][3][4][5] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by more than 75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[14] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[15] the American Meteorological Society,[16] the International Union for Quaternary Research,[17] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[18][19] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.

However, consensus is not unanimous, for example: at least one of the scientists asked to review and comment on the IPCC papers does not agree that humans are responsible for climate change [20][21].

A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[22] Oreskes claimed that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[23] but his attempted refutation is disputed[24][25][26] and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism,[27] also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."[25][28]

A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. "respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change") agree that human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."[1] A summary from the survey states that:
“ It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."[29] ”

In response to claims of a consensus on global warming, some skeptics have compared the theory to a religion,[30][31][32] to scientific support for the eugenics movement,[33][34] and to discredited scientific theories such as phlogiston[35] and miasma.[36]
[edit] List of position statements

Several scientific organizations have issued position statements in which they explicitly used the term "consensus":

* American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[37]
* US National Academy of Science: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[38]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[39]
* Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[40]
* American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[16]
* Network of African Science Academies: “A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.”[41]

* International Union for Quaternary Research, 2008: "INQUA recognizes the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[17]
* Australian Coral Reef Society, 2006: "There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases.... There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming...."[42]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

Cullion
2nd February 10, 03:32 PM
And since 2005, where is the warming? Oops.

You're just arguing from authority by listing names of institutions. Do you understand the real logical implication of what you're doing? 'An inconvenient truth must be good science because Al Gore has a Nobel prize!'.

When impressive sounding institutions endorse something demonstrably stupid it doesn't become true, they just discredit themselves.

Dude, if your investigation is going to consist of posting lists of the same authorities and old quotes from wiki articles everybody else has read, and which have since been demonstrated to be false, just give up now.

EuropIan
3rd February 10, 02:31 AM
Don't you mean since 1998?

danno
3rd February 10, 07:07 AM
And since 2005, where is the warming? Oops.

it amazes me that you actually think this is a good argument. especially since you profess to know so much about climate science. i'm really tempted to explain why this is completely off target as an argument against warming, but maybe i'll wait until this thread is done with.

and you do realise that the data you're talking about comes those very same scientists who report warming - climatologists?


You're just arguing from authority by listing names of institutions. Do you understand the real logical implication of what you're doing? 'An inconvenient truth must be good science because Al Gore has a Nobel prize!'.

When impressive sounding institutions endorse something demonstrably stupid it doesn't become true, they just discredit themselves.

Dude, if your investigation is going to consist of posting lists of the same authorities and old quotes from wiki articles everybody else has read, and which have since been demonstrated to be false, just give up now.

but you have no trust in scientific authority, do you old boy? you take temperature readings from your back yard with an old rectal thermometer. much better than anything those silly old scientists can come up with.

btw, hopefully i'll be jumping into your list of skeptics tomorrow night.

Syntactical Disruptorize
3rd February 10, 11:06 AM
it amazes me that you actually think this is a good argument. especially since you profess to know so much about climate science. i'm really tempted to explain why this is completely off target as an argument against warming, but maybe i'll wait until this thread is done with.Worst. Bluff. EVAR.

danno
3rd February 10, 05:47 PM
i don't think you know me very well.

and i find it hard to believe you've actually read the entire thread.

http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1505660&postcount=76

Cullion
3rd February 10, 05:57 PM
it amazes me that you actually think this is a good argument. especially since you profess to know so much about climate science. i'm really tempted to explain why this is completely off target as an argument against warming, but maybe i'll wait until this thread is done with.

Explain it or admit you don't know what you're talking about.

I can assure you, you'll get another mouthful of something you weren't expecting and don't know what to do with.



and you do realise that the data you're talking about comes those very same scientists who report warming - climatologists?

No, actually, it doesn't. Yet another science fail.



but you have no trust in scientific authority, do you old boy? you take temperature readings from your back yard with an old rectal thermometer. much better than anything those silly old scientists can come up with.

See, you're so behind here it's just boring.

I trust scientific authorities, with an individual coefficient based on the past track record of their predictions and honesty. Now, I can understand why something like this would be complex to handle for a guy like you, but it's what you need to get into if you want to be as fucking cool and right as me. Really you do. Because from here, all you have in front of you is looking like an MTV-quasi environmentalist tool who doesn't read things in enough depth to stand toe-to-toe with me but wants so hard to look like a cosmopolitan that he's willing to gobble down any semen the bien pensants spray into his mouth. Oh yes. This will end badly for you. I can feel it.




btw, hopefully i'll be jumping into your list of skeptics tomorrow night.

By all means. What are you hoping to do? discredit their credentials or funding sources ?

that will be loltastic.

Feryk
3rd February 10, 06:17 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/02/the-lancet-finally-withdraws-i

This has nothing to do with AGW, but is indicative of what happens when a prominent scientist allows his views on a subject to color the issue, and the resulting mess that it makes. Please feel free to draw parallels to East Anglia.

Whether or not you believe in AGW, those fuckers should fry for muddying the water.

danno
3rd February 10, 06:28 PM
Cullion, your ad hominem isn't funny enough to be valid. Please resubmit.

Edit - keep in mind that the point of this thread was not to prove any science, but to show that there is indeed a consenus among climate scientists. You have to concede that there does appear to be a consensus.

Cullion
3rd February 10, 06:33 PM
Oh, you so were actually planning to post here?

See, you gave the impression of a guy who thought he'd ruined my shit and could then just disappear from the Internet for a while, safe in the knowledge that we'd all be stewing in our own juice.

You're just not fucking cowboy enough to ride off into the distance like that, are you?

I think we should have a math-off. in person.