Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1561  
Old 16.10.2013, 12:47
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And...?
Humans have done damage and still do, but a good part of the climate development is independent of mankind
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #1562  
Old 16.10.2013, 13:36
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Humans have done damage and still do, but a good part of the climate development is independent of mankind
Not according to the science.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1563  
Old 16.10.2013, 14:36
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If I see a need to.


No such thing as "proofs" in science.

As I've said, you could start with the IPCC reports, if you want evidence.


Right. So my initial interpretation was right, and you're attacking the principles that form the foundation of the only working model for reality we have, with an ad-hominem.

Or, in simpler terms, you're criticising science itself. By name-calling.


This is like arguing you shouldn't go and see a doctor after breaking your arm because you'll be dead in seventy years.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ural-cycle.htm


I am, indeed, quite tied to reality. I find that makes life easier than relying on fantasy.
So let's sum up...

  • You decide the terms of the debate... When others meet those terms, but the information presented to you is contrary to your own beliefs, you ignore it or dismiss it. FFS...
  • You keep suggesting others do your research for you (this IPCC report thing- why don't YOU link to some relevant reports?).
  • You still don't understand what scientism is (I'm not criticizing science itself, btw)
  • Potentially normal fluctuations in ice levels over an infinitesimal time scale is NOT akin to breaking one's arm.
  • You can't bother to visit anything other than your silly, pop-science website (skeptical science), but yet you present yourself as an unbiased and informed individual.
  • And, the clincher is that you consider yourself to be "quite tied to reality."
Provide independent proof. Stop repeating yourself. Put up or shut up...
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1564  
Old 16.10.2013, 14:38
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Not according to the science.
This statement is unproven. I've provided sources, again and again, to this effect, yet you ignore them. This is not the lie you can keep repeating, as I've told you.
Reply With Quote
  #1565  
Old 16.10.2013, 18:32
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
[...more links...]
You'll have to find someone else with whom to play "link wars" or "chart wars".

Quote:
View Post
I'm not disparaging their credentials...
Bullshit.

You've plainly disparaged their credentials by putting quotation marks around the word scientist to suggest they don't qualify as scientists, and suggesting your so-called "actual climate scientists" have some magic credibility that their critics don't:

Quote:
View Post
...You mean your list of 1,100 non-climate scientists (or "scientists" in a lot of cases) ?

Explain to me again why I should find them more credible than the actual climate scientists ?...

...Their relevance and credibility on a topic outside of their field of expertise is implicitly less credible than those within it.

There's a reason it's always a list of xxx "scientists" and not xxx "climate scientists"...

...when I want to know about how the world's climate works, I ask climate scientists, not geologists or aircraft engineers...
Hmmm. Here's Wikipedia's list of 82 "climate scientists" along with their respective degrees, as found from a Google search [note that the earned degrees of 20% are not disclosed(!)]:
red = disqualified by smithy
green = qualified by smithy

Myles Allen - not disclosed
Richard Alley - geology
Kevin Anderson - not disclosed
Svante Arrhenius - physics, chemistry
Sallie Baliunas - astrophysics
Robert Balling - geography
Édouard Bard - geological engineering
Richard A. Betts - physics, meteorology
Vilhelm Bjerknes - physics, meteorology
Raymond S. Bradley - not disclosed
Keith Briffa - not disclosed
Wallace Smith Broecker - not disclosed
Harold E. Brooks - meteorologist
Ken Caldeira - atmospheric science
Guy Stewart Callendar - steam engineering
Mark Cane - mathematics, computer science
John Christy - mathematics, atmospheric science
William Connolley - software engineering
Paul J. Crutzen - civil engineering
Kerry Emanuel - not disclosed
Matthew England - oceanography
Joe Farman - 'natural sciences'
Joseph Fourier - mathematics, physics (18th-19th centuries)
Inez Fung - applied mathematics, meteorology
Peter Gleick - energy and resources
Jonathan M. Gregory - not disclosed
Jean M. Grove - glaciology
Joanna Haigh - physics, meteorology, philosophy
James E. Hansen - physics, mathematics, astronomy
Ann Henderson-Sellers - physics, meteorology, climate science
John T. Houghton - not disclosed
Phil Jones - environmental science, hydrology
Jean Jouzel - chemical engineering
Thomas R. Karl - meteorology
Charles David Keeling - chemistry
David W. Keith - not disclosed
Kurt Lambeck - philosophy
Richard Lindzen - meteorology
Edward Norton Lorenz - mathematics, meteorology
James Lovelock - chemistry, medicine
Syukuro Manabe - geophysics
Gordon Manley - engineering, geography
Michael E. Mann - mathematics, physics, geophysics
Patrick Michaels - biology, ecological climatology
Gordon McBean - physics, oceanography
Milutin Milanković - civil engineering
John F. B. Mitchell - not disclosed
Mario J. Molina - atmospheric chemistry
Richard A. Muller - physics
Abraham H Oort - not disclosed
David E. Parker - not disclosed
William Richard Peltier - physics
Roger A. Pielke, Sr. - mathematics, meteorology
Raymond Pierrehumbert - not disclosed
Vicky Pope - meteorology
Stefan Rahmstorf - oceanography
Veerabhadran Ramanathan - atmospheric chemistry
Roger Revelle - chemical oceanography
Joseph J. Romm - physics
William Ruddiman - geology, marine geology
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber - mathematics, physics
Gavin A. Schmidt - mathematics
Stephen H. Schneider - mechanical engineering, plasma physics
Stephen E. Schwartz - chemistry
Richard C. J. Somerville - theoretical meteorology, atmospheric physics
Thomas Stocker - 'natural sciences'
Susan Solomon - chemistry
J. Curt Stager - biology, geology
Peter A. Stott - mathematics, atmospheric modeling, stratospheric ozone
Hans E. Suess - radiocarbon dating
Simon Tett - mathematical physics, Parallel Algorithms for Atmospheric Modeling
Peter Thejll - physics, astrophysics
Lonnie Thompson - geology
Micha Tomkiewicz - physical chemistry
Kevin E. Trenberth - meteorology
David Vaughan - not disclosed
Peter Wadhams - physics
John Michael Wallace - not disclosed
Andrew Watson - marine and atmospheric sciences
Andrew J. Weaver - not disclosed
Penny Whetton - not disclosed
Carl Wunsch - physical oceanography
Now here's Wikipedia's list of 38 "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" along with their respective degrees, as found from a Google search [note that the earned degrees of only 2% are not disclosed]:
red = disqualified by smithy
green = qualified by smithy

Khabibullo Abdusamatov - astrophysics
Syun-Ichi Akasofu - geophysics
Claude Allègre - geophysics
Sallie Baliunas - astrophysics
Robert C. Balling, Jr. - geography
Ian Clark - isotope hydrogeology
John Christy - mathematics, atmospheric sciences
Petr Chylek - physics
Judith Curry - geography, geophysical sciences
Freeman Dyson - physics, mathematics
Chris de Freitas - climatology
David Deming - geology, geophysics
David Douglass - physics
Don Easterbrook - geology
Ivar Giaever - mechanical engineering, physics
William M. Gray - geography, meteorology, geophysical sciences
Craig D. Idso - geography, agronomy
Sherwood Idso - physics, soil science, meteorology
William Happer - physics
William Kininmonth - meteorology
David Legates - mathematics, geography, climatology
Richard Lindzen - physics, mathematics
Patrick Michaels - biology, ecological climatology
Nils-Axel Mörner - quaternary geology
Tad Murty - oceanography, meteorology
Garth Paltridge - physics, atmospheric electricity
Tim Patterson - biology, geology
Ian Plimer - mining engineering, geology
Nicola Scafetta - physics
Tom Segalstad - geology, geochemistry
Fred Singer - electrical engineering, physics
Willie Soon - aerospace engineering
Roy Spencer - atmospheric sciences, meteorology
Philip Stott - not disclosed
Henrik Svensmark - engineering, physics
Hendrik Tennekes - human nutrition, shell toxicology, agricultural sciences
Jan Veizer - isotope geology, sedimentology
Antonino Zichichi - physics
The mix of qualifications of the two groups looks very similar from where I sit. And according to my Google search (using mostly Wikipedia results), they've all done research in climate science (which is why any of them think they have something to say about the subject).

[It's also rather curious, to say the least, that the qualifications (academic degrees) of 20% of the so-called "climate scientists" are very difficult, if not impossible, to find via Google.]

Based on the above, I suggest that nothing but arrogance and willful ignorance could lead you to dismiss one group as less qualified than the other.

Quote:
View Post
...Qualifications and research in the field of climate science is usually a good start...
See above.

Quote:
View Post
...Incidentally, it's not about them agreeing with me. It's about me agreeing with the majority of experts in the field...
Right, because your brand of "science" functions more like raw democracy than an on-going process of observation, repetition, measurement, objective critical analysis, hypothesis and debate — your having a "majority" entitles you and your ilk to shut down all debate and disparage the minority as disqualified non-scientists, regardless of their qualifications and work.
__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Last edited by Texaner; 16.10.2013 at 20:27.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #1566  
Old 16.10.2013, 20:05
Slaphead's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Zürich
Posts: 3,224
Groaned at 34 Times in 30 Posts
Thanked 9,408 Times in 2,870 Posts
Slaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond reputeSlaphead has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Ugh, this thread is at it again.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what's happening.

I've looked at the for and against arguments and data, and I've come to the conclusion that both sides are bunch of self serving "scientists" manipulating statistics to prove their point and save their career.

Is global warming happening - perhaps, depending on who's supplying the stats

Is global warming not happening - maybe, depending on who's supplying the stats

Is global cooling happening - could be, depending on who's supplying the stats.

The biggest cause of any temperature variation on earth is that of our main sequence star Sol, otherwise known as the sun. Anything else is simply a blip on the cleverly constructed and date limited graphs we see.

To be honest I don't believe either side.
__________________
...allegedly.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank Slaphead for this useful post:
  #1567  
Old 16.10.2013, 20:17
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ugh, this thread is at it again.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what's happening.

I've looked at the for and against arguments and data, and I've come to the conclusion that both sides are bunch of self serving "scientists" manipulating statistics to prove their point and save their career.

Is global warming happening - perhaps, depending on who's supplying the stats

Is global warming not happening - maybe, depending on who's supplying the stats

Is global cooling happening - could be, depending on who's supplying the stats.

The biggest cause of any temperature variation on earth is that of our main sequence star Sol, otherwise known as the sun. Anything else is simply a blip on the cleverly constructed and date limited graphs we see.

To be honest I don't believe either side.
But it is fun to see the emotions displayed? Take a universe wide topic like quantum mechanics & who cares? :-)
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1568  
Old 17.10.2013, 10:46
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
So let's sum up...

[LIST][*]You decide the terms of the debate... When others meet those terms, but the information presented to you is contrary to your own beliefs, you ignore it or dismiss it. FFS...
Nope.

Quote:
[LIST][*]You keep suggesting others do your research for you (this IPCC report thing- why don't YOU link to some relevant reports?).
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=IPCC+Report

Quote:
[LIST][*]You still don't understand what scientism is (I'm not criticizing science itself, btw)
I can only work off the link you gave, which says:

Quote:
Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two equally pejorative senses:[18][19][20]

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[21] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[22] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.

2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry,"[20] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[15] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience."[23][24]
Neither are applicable to climate science.

Quote:
[LIST][*] Potentially normal fluctuations in ice levels over an infinitesimal time scale is NOT akin to breaking one's arm.
On what basis do you assert "potentially normal" ?

Quote:
[LIST][*]You can't bother to visit anything other than your silly, pop-science website (skeptical science), but yet you present yourself as an unbiased and informed individual.
Actually I can and do. There's simply no need to link anything else since all the claims presented thus far are conveniently and clearly answered or refuted by the sceptical science site, typically complete with references to primary sources.

Quote:
  • And, the clincher is that you consider yourself to be "quite tied to reality."
Provide independent proof. Stop repeating yourself. Put up or shut up...
Already have.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1569  
Old 17.10.2013, 10:49
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
This statement is unproven.
This is like saying water is wet. All science is unproven.

The statement is, however, consistent with the research, evidence and conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists.

Quote:
I've provided sources, again and again, to this effect, yet you ignore them. This is not the lie you can keep repeating, as I've told you.
Hypocrite.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1570  
Old 17.10.2013, 10:58
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You'll have to find someone else with whom to play "link wars" or "chart wars".
Then on what terms do you suggest we discuss, if not those backed by evidence ?

Quote:
You've plainly disparaged their credentials by putting quotation marks around the word scientist to suggest they don't qualify as scientists, and suggesting your so-called "actual climate scientists" have some magic credibility that their critics don't:
Actually, I put quotation marks around the word because in many cases they are not scientists (ie: do not hold any sort of science degree), and in many more their degree is not in a relevant field.

That is not to say their credentials are not valid.

Climate scientists have credibility in the field of climate science. Just like Nuclear Physicists have credibility in the field of Nuclear Physics.

But if a Nuclear Physicist disagrees with a Botanist on what a particular plant is, I'm generally going to take the Botanist's opinion at face value.

Quote:
Hmmm. Here's Wikipedia's list of 82 "climate scientists" along with their respective degrees, as found from a Google search [note that the earned degrees of 20% are not disclosed(!)]:
[INDENT]red = disqualified by smithy
green = qualified by smithy
I never said the lack of qualifications in the field was a disqualification. I said it lent less credibility to their opinions compared to someone who did have qualifications in the field.

Quote:
Right, because your brand of "science" functions more like raw democracy than an on-going process of observation, repetition, measurement, objective critical analysis, hypothesis and debate — your having a "majority" entitles you and your ilk to shut down all debate and disparage the minority as disqualified non-scientists, regardless of their qualifications and work.
False.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1571  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:04
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Nope.


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=IPCC+Report


I can only work off the link you gave, which says:



Neither are applicable to climate science.


On what basis do you assert "potentially normal" ?


Actually I can and do. There's simply no need to link anything else since all the claims presented thus far are conveniently and clearly answered or refuted by the sceptical science site, typically complete with references to primary sources.


Already have.
Quote:
View Post
This is like saying water is wet. All science is unproven.

The statement is, however, consistent with the research, evidence and conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists.


Hypocrite.
Ignore, name call, ignore, deny, blah blah. Seriously, tell me now... Are you just trolling?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/0...onsensus-hoax/

Again and again, a few seconds on Google show the lie.

Further, this "consensus" approach you keep using is inherently flawed; consensus is NOT truth... At one time there was consensus that the Sun and all the planets orbited the Earth... turned out that wasn't true either. Why, oh why, do we keep ignoring history?

Your silly climate scientists don't have the technology to research true global climate behavior; they don't even know the true scope of their subject realm. Yet they run about, naifs that they are, poking and prodding with their woefully inadequate instruments, and making sweeping claims about something they haven't even begun to understand...
Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:13
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ugh, this thread is at it again.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what's happening.

I've looked at the for and against arguments and data, and I've come to the conclusion that both sides are bunch of self serving "scientists" manipulating statistics to prove their point and save their career.
Ah. And the climate science that dates back decades, if not centuries, long before it became politicised, what's their excuse ?

Quote:
Is global warming happening - perhaps, depending on who's supplying the stats

Is global warming not happening - maybe, depending on who's supplying the stats

Is global cooling happening - could be, depending on who's supplying the stats.
No, global warming is happening.

Quote:
The biggest cause of any temperature variation on earth is that of our main sequence star Sol, otherwise known as the sun. Anything else is simply a blip on the cleverly constructed and date limited graphs we see.
So your claim is that no terrestrial effect could have a significant effect on global temperatures ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1573  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:21
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Then on what terms do you suggest we discuss, if not those backed by evidence ?
Is it evidence, if its been statistically extrapolated all to hell and back, with the timescale specifically chosen to create a representation that may not be indicative of a deeper, more long-term trend?

Quote:
View Post
Actually, I put quotation marks around the word because in many cases they are not scientists (ie: do not hold any sort of science degree), and in many more their degree is not in a relevant field.

That is not to say their credentials are not valid.

Climate scientists have credibility in the field of climate science. Just like Nuclear Physicists have credibility in the field of Nuclear Physics.

But if a Nuclear Physicist disagrees with a Botanist on what a particular plant is, I'm generally going to take the Botanist's opinion at face value.
Okay, translation: "I only listen to priests ordained by the Holy Church of Environmentalism and Global Warming. All others are lesser people or even heretics." Again, you ignore the history of science, where numerous landmark discoveries have been made by individuals who do not hold credentials, nor are considered experts, in the field in which they made their contributions. You are so bound to your paradigm of formalized science, its sickening...


Quote:
View Post
I never said the lack of qualifications in the field was a disqualification. I said it lent less credibility to their opinions compared to someone who did have qualifications in the field.
Somebody please hand me the hip-waders to allow me to wallow through this horsecrap...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1574  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:34
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ah. And the climate science that dates back decades, if not centuries, long before it became politicised, what's their excuse ?
Tied to your dogma... Take a look at the "climate science" dating back more than approximately 50 years ago and explain how they could make the appropriate number of observations and then perform the calculations. The answer is that the technology to do so didn't exist. Climate science is an offshoot of the Transportation Age (to allow the means to go make the observations), the Computer Age (to be able to calculate the requisite volume of information), and the Information Age (to be able to make enough information available); before these structures were in place, climate science couldn't exist in a form that could make valid predictions on a global scale.


Quote:
View Post
No, global warming is happening.
Not true. Keep repeating it, as I've said, then maybe you'll puff out enough hot air to warm something...


Quote:
View Post
So your claim is that no terrestrial effect could have a significant effect on global temperatures ?
That's not what was said. Simply put, the Sun is the most significant factor driving global temperatures, so much so that human activity may not significantly change large-scale or long-term climate behavior at all.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1575  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:43
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ignore, name call, ignore, deny, blah blah. Seriously, tell me now... Are you just trolling?
From someone whose first contribution to the discussion was:
Quote:
View Post
"Global Warming" is just another fiction made up by pseudo-scientists extrapolated from heavily contrived data.
And then went on to call anyone who agreed with the scientific consensus "anti-capitalists" and "communists", that's pretty shameless.

The first four points there are wrong. I didn't bother reading any further.

Quote:
Further, this "consensus" approach you keep using is inherently flawed; consensus is NOT truth...
I never said consensus was truth.

Quote:
At one time there was consensus that the Sun and all the planets orbited the Earth... turned out that wasn't true either. Why, oh why, do we keep ignoring history?
Firstly, no it wasn't.
Secondly, now that consensus is heliocentricism, do you similarly accuse anyone making an argument based on that assumption of being wrong ?

Quote:
Your silly climate scientists don't have the technology to research true global climate behavior; they don't even know the true scope of their subject realm. Yet they run about, naifs that they are, poking and prodding with their woefully inadequate instruments, and making sweeping claims about something they haven't even begun to understand...
So you're arguing, again, that not completely understanding the entirety of a complex system, inherently precludes understanding and leveraging part of it ?

Why are the people who must do the same thing you "describe" above, but agree with your opinion, credible experts ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1576  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:48
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Tied to your dogma... Take a look at the "climate science" dating back more than approximately 50 years ago and explain how they could make the appropriate number of observations and then perform the calculations. The answer is that the technology to do so didn't exist.
Ah. You mean like the technology to support many of Einstein's theories didn't exist when he was researching, therefore making them invalid ?

Quote:
Climate science is an offshoot of the Transportation Age (to allow the means to go make the observations), the Computer Age (to be able to calculate the requisite volume of information), and the Information Age (to be able to make enough information available); before these structures were in place, climate science couldn't exist in a form that could make valid predictions on a global scale.
One of the basic theories behind climate science, the heating effect of CO2, was demonstrated over a century ago.

Quote:
Not true. Keep repeating it, as I've said, then maybe you'll puff out enough hot air to warm something...
The evidence doesn't lie. Global temperature continues to trend upwards.

Quote:
That's not what was said. Simply put, the Sun is the most significant factor driving global temperatures, so much so that human activity may not significantly change large-scale or long-term climate behavior at all.
"May not" ? Sounded like it was a "will not" to me.

Why does the sun being the most significant factor, preclude human activity from being a significant factor ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1577  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:53
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
...I put quotation marks around the word because in many cases they are not scientists (ie: do not hold any sort of science degree), and in many more their degree is not in a relevant field...
Precisely the same is true of your precious 'climate scientists' (and you have the nerve to go around calling other hypocrites?) . When you start holding your precious 'climate scientists' to the same standard as those you're bent on disparaging, maybe you'll begin to accrue some credibility.

Quote:
View Post
...I never said the lack of qualifications in the field was a disqualification. I said it lent less credibility to their opinions compared to someone who did have qualifications in the field.
You can't backpedal yourself out of the obvious double-standard pit you've dug yourself. The hard data shows that your 'climate scientists' as a general rule have neither more credibility nor more qualification than their critics — even based your own (ever-changing) criteria.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #1578  
Old 17.10.2013, 11:56
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Is it evidence, if its been statistically extrapolated all to hell and back, with the timescale specifically chosen to create a representation that may not be indicative of a deeper, more long-term trend?
Begging the question.

Quote:
Okay, translation: "I only listen to priests ordained by the Holy Church of Environmentalism and Global Warming. All others are lesser people or even heretics."
False.

Quote:
Again, you ignore the history of science, where numerous landmark discoveries have been made by individuals who do not hold credentials, nor are considered experts, in the field in which they made their contributions.
Nope.

I am kind of curious, however, what you think those individuals were doing that was not congruent to the scientific method.

Last edited by drsmithy; 17.10.2013 at 12:18.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1579  
Old 17.10.2013, 12:01
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Precisely the same is true of your precious 'climate scientists' (and you have the nerve to go around calling other hypocrites?) .
False.

Quote:
You can't backpedal yourself out of the obvious double-standard pit you've dug yourself. The hard data shows that your 'climate scientists' as a general rule have neither more credibility nor more qualification than their critics — even based your own (ever-changing) criteria.
On what basis do you claim that list on Wikipedia to be representative ?
At what point did I say that the only, or deciding, factor, was formal qualifications ?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1580  
Old 17.10.2013, 12:04
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Right now, in New South Wales, it burning on the coast and snowing in Thredbo (about 300 kms inland from Sydney. It is only October and Bushfires normally start in January!! http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/latest-nsw...017-2vo14.html

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0