|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 8, 2024 22:00:18 GMT
Of course there is data on the consensus otherwise the consensus is only a belief and science is not a belief it is a hypothesis that stands up to all rigorous sceptical questioning. A bland statement that the consensus exists because it you believe it exists has religious connotations that are indeed difficult to counter but stand on their own merits however they are derived. There are rare examples of what you said did not exist. perhaps there is a scientist lying about global warming and having a good old laugh. In order to negate that possibility what you do is apply rigorous scepticism and try to disprove your own belief and hope it fails. So far the consensus ignores that and belittles dismissses any rigorous sceptics withoiut answering their queries which is not science. You should be a product of an education system in the 70s and 80s which prided itself on raising enquiring minds not minds closed to alternative views without addressing those views. It seems I was mistaken. The 'very old' article was to do with how the consensus was measured and many of those who believed the consensus referred to Cook et al when queried on their beliefs. To be clear I have not said the planet is not warming or that humans are not the a driver all I am asking is where is the undisputed evidence. So far there is little and when it is disputed it is those who question who are addressed not the questions they ask. So far you are true to this form. The discussion we are having right now is the only controversy, and it is a political controversy. There is no scientific controversy. If you actually talk to climate scientists, or follow the literature, then it is abundantly clear that there is no controversy. There are all sorts of questions about details, for sure. The science is always developing, and scientists are always trying to improve their models and their theories. But within the scientific community there simply isn't any debate any more. Everybody "accepts AGW". The only time this is ever questioned is in a political context such as this one. There really isn't anything else to discuss. You don't accept the science, but can't admit that you don't accept the science, so you demand evidence of a consensus of rejecting your viewpoint even though you can't supply a single reference to an actual scientist who agrees with you. You are claiming there somehow must be a scientific controversy if I can't prove there isn't one, instead of making any attempt to demonstrate that such a controversy actually exists. Actually talking to, listening to and discussing with climate scientists is what I have done. Hearing what they say, looking at results and understanding their questions and the non answers so often provided by the alarmist lobby goes some way to creating differing opinions. Just saying there is no scientific controversy does not make it so as to date you have provided nothing but your opinion which can be respected as an opinion but not a religious belief. Debate is the process of engaging. If there is nothing to discuss by all means do not discuss it and leave the rest of us to discuss it as we please. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 9, 2024 6:43:29 GMT
Sorry but there is no scientific evidence that man-made CO2 is the "predominant cause of global warming". None at all. There is evidence that CO2 is a (weak) greenhouse gas and that we have increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere but any attempts that have been made to provide correlation with average global temperatures have failed. The IPCC has been forced to resort to changing the data - remember the "pause" in global warming which was removed by deleting data that was too low? And which also removed the ETCW which caused a larger spike in warming than the current one but with no increase in CO2. Moreover any attempts to empirically show warming on Earth (by artificially raising CO2 in an area) have failed to show any. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it is disinformation of the highest order. It has got nothing to do with any actual science. It is politically-motivated nonsense, and 99.9% of climate scientists would agree with me. I get that you completely believe what you are saying, and hold out no hope whatsoever of being able to help you understand what is really going on, but the bottom line is that the actual scientists involved in this work, if you asked them, would tell you that you do not understand the science. All of them. Where do you get your information from, just out of interest? Right wing American sources? I studied physics at Cambridge and spent some time after that working in research on various areas. I've tried to keep up to date with the areas I'm interested in ever since by reading scientific journals - and the occasional BBC scientific programs news paper articles. I've followed the climate change topic for decades. Your problem, Anthropoz, is that you don't understand what science is - and in particular how scientific methodology works. The current theory (which is pushed by politicians and bodies like the IPCC) is that CO2 is the prime driver of the approx 1.5C increase in temperature since 1850. To "validate" this theory you have to establish correlation and causation. Correlation has not been shown except by manipulating data (by filtering the historic data through the model that assumes the hypothesis that CO2 causes global warming  ) - and the "smoothing of the data" has completely eliminated the ETCW (which had a very similar spike in temperature from 1920 on, with no correlation to CO2). So that's a "fail". And there have been several attempts to demonstrate causation on Earth by increasing local areas of CO2 concentration and monitoring temperature, but they've never worked. The only way that CO2 causes warming is if you have a simple system (like John Tyndall's light and a box containing CO2). In a complex buffered system like planet Earth there are too many other factors that intervene to prevent CO2 causing warming - otherwise the planet would have burned up/frozen many millennia ago. For example CO2 also causes cooling (by photosynthesis etc). So the theory doesn't even fit the minimum requirements for a working theory. And if you ask ANY genuine scientist whether he agrees with this daft theory they'll say that we don't know anywhere near enough to know how to model the climate. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 9, 2024 7:28:39 GMT
I have known for 30 years that it would be politically impossible to stop climate change. So why are politicians (especially on the Left) continually calling for us to bankrupt the economy on the altar of Net Zero?. It is not just the left. The whole mainstream political spectrum is in complete denial about what is really happening. The right can't accept the impossibility of infinite growth, and the left can't accept that we "degrowth" cannot be made fair, especially at the global level. None of them are willing to acknowledge the reality, which is that growth-based capitalism is coming to an end, and that we need to completely rethink both economics and politics. In other words, the existing economic system is doomed whether we go for Net Zero or not, and the climate is fucked whether go for Net Zero or not. Very few people want to hear this message, even though it is the only gateway to meaningful discussion about the future. The only online place I know where I can have serious discussions about what is happening now and what is actually likely to happen in the future is Powerswitch: forum.powerswitch.org.uk/index.php. Most of the people who post there accepted all this at least 15-20 years ago. The difference between the sort of politics that we discuss on Powerswitch, and that which takes place in the mainstream, is that at Powerswitch there is a general acceptance and consensus that we start with science and realism, and the politics and economics only starts after all the anti-scientific bullshit and virtue signalling leftist anti-realism has been eliminated from the discussion. We cannot afford to waste time arguing with people who refuse to accept the scientific reality, and the battle against the pro-immigration globalist liberal-left was won over a 15 years ago. In the end they gave up, because they knew they were arguing disingenuously ("How can you say the UK is full? I'm looking out now over a fields with nothing in but horses!") |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 9, 2024 7:35:20 GMT
Your problem, Anthropoz, is that you don't understand what science is - and in particular how scientific methodology works. I have a degree in philosophy, and specialised in philosophy of science. Before that I was an outspoken public defender of science, and was once the administrator of the forum on Richard Dawkins' website. If you want to talk about what science is, we can do that. The author of this book, and her husband, both climate scientists, are personal friends of mine. In real life. Both their family and ours live on smallholdings in a remote part of Wales, preparing for what is coming. I have discussed this with them in quite some detail. www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Model-Land-Mathematical-Models/dp/1541600983Do mathematical models have limits? Obviously, given the above, they do. However, the author of that book, if she was here, would be 100% agreeing with me (with respect to what we know about climate change). Everything I have written in this post is the truth. I don't lie. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 9, 2024 8:01:35 GMT
As I said, you don't understand scientific methodology. Correlation AND causation. When you have neither you've got nothing.
And there is no such thing as a "Climate scientist". The modelling of climate requires a vast army of scientists of many different disciplines. No one knows it all.
And it's worrying that you're talking about maths. Maths and science are entirely different. I don't think you understand what science is.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 9, 2024 8:27:54 GMT
As I said, you don't understand scientific methodology. Correlation AND causation. When you have neither you've got nothing. And there is no such thing as a "Climate scientist". The modelling of climate requires a vast army of scientists of many different disciplines. No one knows it all. And it's worrying that you're talking about maths. Maths and science are entirely different. I don't think you understand what science is. You say I don't understand scientific methodology. And yet the actual climate scientists agree with me, not you. Funny, that. I'll let them know that when I see them in a couple of weeks. Thanks for clearing that up. :-) The reality is that climatologists (the proper name for climate scientists) predicted global warming 30 years ago, and the prediction was based on a clear understanding of the basic mechanisms. We now know, with the benefit of a great deal of hindsight, that those scientists understated the threat. Not only has global warming happened, but it has happened considerably faster than most climatologists were willing to predict. They did actually suspect things were worse than they were predicting, but they erred on the side of caution so as not to alarm people. This debate is a waste of time. Its only purpose is to delay the inevitable day when everybody has to face up to the truth, not just about the reality of climate change, but about the political and economic "reality" which has prevented us from doing anything significant to stop it. I am considering posting a link to an article I wrote 3 years ago which explains all this in much greater detail. Would blow my anonymity, but this board doesn't look to be inhabited by the sort of leftists that have previously waged online campaigns to try to shut me up. I'll have a think about it while I walk the dog. |
|
|
|
Post by piglet on Apr 9, 2024 8:35:50 GMT
No it isnt pro veritas.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 9, 2024 10:00:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 9, 2024 11:10:14 GMT
Spot on ^^
All predictions have been pretty exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Apr 9, 2024 11:17:26 GMT
As I said, you don't understand scientific methodology. Correlation AND causation. When you have neither you've got nothing. And there is no such thing as a "Climate scientist". The modelling of climate requires a vast army of scientists of many different disciplines. No one knows it all. And it's worrying that you're talking about maths. Maths and science are entirely different. I don't think you understand what science is. You say I don't understand scientific methodology. And yet the actual climate scientists agree with me, not you. Funny, that. Maybe you'd like to name one of these "climate scientists" who agree with you. You're full of BS anthropoz. You don't know enough about science to debate it. But go ahead and post the link you mention. I could do with a laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 9, 2024 17:19:41 GMT
OK. To be honest I came here in search of open, intelligent political debate. I am not interested in debunking climate change denial, simply because it is no longer politically interesting. The BBC used to wheel out Leon Brittan several times a year to defend the denialist viewpoint, and they were rightly criticised for misleading people that his viewpoint was one of several that are legitimate. Nobody has replaced him since -- the denialist position is now restricted to a few wacko right wing echo chambers, and plays no important role in public debate or policy. For example, nobody at COP is still defending the idea that AGW isn't real. And regardless of your claims otherwise, nobody in the scientific community is defending it either.
It is therefore being used here to perpetuate the denial of the individuals who post here, and to block sensible debate about what we should do given the reality. Maybe if hundreds of people are likely to read this I'd bother, but that isn't going to happen.
TL;DR this debate is boring and irrelevant, and I can't be bothered to get RSI trying to educate people who have no interest in learning. The link I was going to post wasn't in defence of AGW. It takes that for granted and goes on to analyse why we haven't been able to stop climate change and what is going to happen next. It would be of no interest to you, because you still haven't accepted what the whole of mainstream politics and all of the scientific community accepts.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 9, 2024 17:38:49 GMT
OK. To be honest I came here in search of open, intelligent political debate. I am not interested in debunking climate change denial, simply because it is no longer politically interesting. The BBC used to wheel out Leon Brittan several times a year to defend the denialist viewpoint, and they were rightly criticised for misleading people that his viewpoint was one of several that are legitimate. Nobody has replaced him since -- the denialist position is now restricted to a few wacko right wing echo chambers, and plays no important role in public debate or policy. For example, nobody at COP is still defending the idea that AGW isn't real. And regardless of your claims otherwise, nobody in the scientific community is defending it either. It is therefore being used here to perpetuate the denial of the individuals who post here, and to block sensible debate about what we should do given the reality. Maybe if hundreds of people are likely to read this I'd bother, but that isn't going to happen. TL;DR this debate is boring and irrelevant, and I can't be bothered to get RSI trying to educate people who have no interest in learning. The link I was going to post wasn't in defence of AGW. It takes that for granted and goes on to analyse why we haven't been able to stop climate change and what is going to happen next. It would be of no interest to you, because you still haven't accepted what the whole of mainstream politics and all of the scientific community accepts. You did not come for intelligent debate as your demeanour eschews that purpose. Intelligent people are always willing to listen and learn to instructive debate and try and change those who they suspect may have closed minds. Most people accepted 'the science' many years ago and have found out their trust in 'the science' is seriously misplaced. No one has any idea how many people may dip in here from time to time and when they see 'alarmists' with such disdain for any alternative point of view, which seems to be a common trait, then if just one indulges in further research that is a positive outcome. I can only say keep up the good work. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Apr 9, 2024 18:47:02 GMT
I see the ECHR has decided Switzerland have a duty to tackle climate change to avoid the elderly dying in heatwaves and thus traducing their right to life. So far we have over a thousand excess deaths per week, we have large numbers of the elderly dying of the cold in the winter time and any CO2 would, according to 'the science', mitigate that effect by raising winter temperatures and reduce the number of winter deaths with a wholly insignificant rise in the summer deaths. This seems like a political decision totally unrelated to the Article 8 reference of the convention.
We are indeed being taken for mugs as this ruling will have a knock on effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 9, 2024 18:47:53 GMT
Your problem, Anthropoz, is that you don't understand what science is - and in particular how scientific methodology works. I have a degree in philosophy... Which rather proves Steppenwolf's point. ...The author of this book, and her husband, both climate scientists, are personal friends of mine. In real life. Both their family and ours live on smallholdings in a remote part of Wales, preparing for what is coming... Oh dear, a religionist. Do mathematical models have limits? Obviously, given the above, they do. However, the author of that book, if she was here, would be 100% agreeing with me (with respect to what we know about climate change). Well of course she would.  Everything I have written in this post is the truth. I don't lie. I'm sure that you don't lie but just because you believe it doesn't mean it's the truth. FWIW, all of my formal qualifications are in science and law. Hence I look for evidence that proves the hypothesis and I understand that correlation and causation are not the same - something that "Climate change scientists" appear to struggle with. |
|
|
|
Post by anthropoz on Apr 9, 2024 18:50:08 GMT
So to be clear, you think "most people" (more than 50%) accepted years ago that humans were causing global warming, mainly with CO2 emissions, but that since then more than 50% have discovered that this science was wrong? You actually believe that the tide is turning away from this scientific orthodoxy, towards skepticism that CO2 emissions are causing warming? |
|
) - and the "smoothing of the data" has completely eliminated the ETCW (which had a very similar spike in temperature from 1920 on, with no correlation to CO2). So that's a "fail". 
