Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1581  
Old 17.10.2013, 12:43
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
On what basis do you claim that list on Wikipedia to be representative ?
I have no reason to believe Wikipedia's list is not representative. If you'd like to suggest that it is not representative, by all means, feel free to explain exactly why. Otherwise, kindly stop with all the weasel words.

Quote:
View Post
At what point did I say that the only, or deciding, factor, was formal qualifications ?
This thread documents unequivocally that you've been whining about 'qualifications' and 'field of expertise' — if you haven't been referring to formal qualifications, perhaps you should have qualified your (false) claims by pointing out exactly which informal scientific qualifications you had in mind.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #1582  
Old 17.10.2013, 13:18
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
I have no reason to believe Wikipedia's list is not representative. If you'd like to suggest that it is not representative, by all means, feel free to explain exactly why. Otherwise, kindly stop with all the weasel words.
"This list of climate scientists contains famous or otherwise notable persons who have contributed to the study of climate science. The list is not complete or up to date. The list includes scientists from several specialities or disciplines."

It's like quoting a list of high-profile business leaders, and saying they are representative of the workforce as a whole.

Quote:
This thread documents unequivocally that you've been whining about 'qualifications' and 'field of expertise' — if you haven't been referring to formal qualifications, perhaps you should have qualified your (false) claims by pointing out exactly which informal scientific qualifications you had in mind.
The thread documents quite clearly that I consider qualifications in the relevant fields to be one factor - "a good place to start". I does nothing to support your false accusation that I consider them the only factor.

So, "kindly stop with the weasel words".
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1583  
Old 17.10.2013, 13:57
TidakApa's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Top of a Triangle
Posts: 2,992
Groaned at 38 Times in 29 Posts
Thanked 5,673 Times in 2,039 Posts
TidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond reputeTidakApa has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
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

Just an FYI for you.

a) Everyone in this thread is probably too preoccupied with God knows what to take too much notice of your post.... and given the 'tone' of most of the replies so far, it's perhaps for the best.

b) Bushfires aren't exactly in the 'ball park' of Global warming, so unfortunately your post is a little bit irrelevant to this thread.
"Incidence" of bushfires do correlate with "El nino", but the Severity of a fire has more to do with forestry management and response times.
Australia is currently in a 'neutral' ENSO phase, so again, this doesn't matter.
October is early for the bushfire season yes, but don't get your knickers in a knot about it. Fires don't "start" in January, this is just a typical peak in the fire season. Fires can occur at any time when the conditions are right.

c) Thredbo is actually closer to Melbourne than Sydney (as the crow flies). Parks /Forbes is about 300km west of Sydney, but Thredbo is about 400mk South West..... but yes, the snow is strange. Nor is it the first time unseasonal snow has fallen.

d) Your link suggests that these fires are "as bad as it gets".
These fires are bad yes, but the 2009 fires that killed over 170 people should put 'bad' into perspective.
These current Sydney fires are just a LOT closer to the city so it impacts more people. Don't let the media hype blow this out of proportion.
Over the weekend things will get worse, but if the fire fighters can control this bushfire and it doesn't kill anyone, then we can all be grateful for it.


Anyway,
Sorry to interupt. Let the online arguing contine..... besides, there is enough 'exothermic' energy within the tension of some of these replies that could contribute to global warming.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank TidakApa for this useful post:
  #1584  
Old 17.10.2013, 15:18
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
...It's like quoting a list of high-profile business leaders, and saying they are representative of the workforce as a whole.
False.

It's a 3rd party's list of 'climate scientists'. Now you want to arbitrarily cherry-pick 'climate scientists' because the list is imperfect?

I don't think so.

Quote:
View Post
The thread documents quite clearly that I consider qualifications in the relevant fields to be one factor - "a good place to start". I does nothing to support your false accusation that I consider them the only factor.
False.

Having (conspicuously) provided no other criteria, now even your own criterion is apparently inadequate — that's no 'false accusation' (I couldn't make this stuff up even if I wanted to). Nothing like moving the goal posts to make your 'point'!

Last edited by Texaner; 17.10.2013 at 17:03. Reason: clarification
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #1585  
Old 17.10.2013, 16:39
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
False.

It's a 3rd party's list of 'climate scientists'. Now you want to arbitrarily cherry-pick 'climate scientists' because the list is imperfect?

I don't think so.


False.

Having (conspicuously) provided no other criteria, now even your own criterion is inadequate. Nothing like moving goal posts to make your 'point'!
Man, he's just a dogmatic apologist for the Church of Global Warming... Like any religious zealot, he's had too much of the Kool-aid to be persuaded of anything other than his own myopic POV.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1586  
Old 17.10.2013, 16:58
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
The first four points there are wrong. I didn't bother reading any further.
Here's the link to which this refers.

And here's the four points to which he refers:

  1. Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_NotGlobal.htm
  2. It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfer...oling-is-here/
  3. Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/...c-temperature/
  4. Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards. I could not find the actual report for this one, and I won't link to something else.


Okay, boss, your turn to back up your claim. Let's play "he-said, she-said"...
Reply With Quote
  #1587  
Old 19.10.2013, 02:56
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
False.

It's a 3rd party's list of 'climate scientists'. Now you want to arbitrarily cherry-pick 'climate scientists' because the list is imperfect?
It's a Wikipedia page.

Quote:
Having (conspicuously) provided no other criteria, now even your own criterion is apparently inadequate — that's no 'false accusation' (I couldn't make this stuff up even if I wanted to). Nothing like moving the goal posts to make your 'point'!
I haven't moved the goalposts one iota. You asked what criteria I might use. I said qualifications in the field would be one.

Another would be peer-reviewed research published in a credible journal.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1588  
Old 19.10.2013, 03:19
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=Jobsrobertsharpii;1999213]Here's the link to which this refers.

Quote:
Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/43444
http://www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Clim...mperature.aspx

Quote:
It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...nuary-2008.htm

(Aside: using Forbes as a reference ? Seriously ?)

Quote:
Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2...pic-fails.html

Quote:
Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards. I could not find the actual report for this one, and I won't link to something else.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surf...asurements.htm
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1589  
Old 19.10.2013, 08:35
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
It's a Wikipedia page.
Excellent observation.

Quote:
View Post
I haven't moved the goalposts one iota...
False.

You've been making much of 'climate scientists', but when the top list of 'climate scientists' in a Google search is examined, most of them are disqualified by your own criterion ('qualifications in the field'). So you arbitrarily and unilaterally disparage the 3rd party list of 'climate scientists' and change your emphasis to another criterion.

Quote:
View Post
...You asked what criteria I might use. I said qualifications in the field would be one...
And (surprise!) a random 3rd party list of 'climate scientists' reveals that most of them have no 'qualifications in the field'.

Quote:
View Post
...Another would be peer-reviewed research published in a credible journal.
Ri-i-i-ight. And can you name one or more 'journals' with enough 'credibility' to have regularly published research on both sides of the debate — or are you going to arbitrarily and unilaterally claim that 'credible journals' don't publish research on both sides of the debate?
__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #1590  
Old 19.10.2013, 09:10
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 from the first link:
Quote:
Svante Björck has gone through the global climate archives and looked for evidence that any of the climate events that have occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 20,000 years ago could have generated similar effects on both the northern and southern hemispheres simultaneously. It has not, however, been possible to verify this. Instead, he has found that when, for example, the temperature rises in one hemisphere, it falls or remains unchanged in the other.
Your own link proves the first point, which you dismissed as false.
The second link shows data regarding Australia only- which isn't even framed to the debate about "global" climate change.




Quote:
View Post
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...nuary-2008.htm

(Aside: using Forbes as a reference ? Seriously ?)
Again with the skeptical science swill... You *say* you can provide other proof, but you haven't yet... And what proof do you have that the Forbes article is any better or worse than your own?

Massive personal attack against a scientist that won't follow the dogma...

There was this one blurb, however, that was interesting:

Quote:
Surely this result, which I doubt is anything new to modelers, says more work on modeling and understanding climate is needed. (Remember, that is the whole point of all this: understanding climate and its changes.)
Your own source again proves the point that the models are incomplete, inaccurate, and not reflective on reality. Yet you continue to claim that ACC/AGW is one of the most proven theories in science...


Skeptical Science again... pfft.

Nice try, Grasshopper. Go back to the drawing board.
Reply With Quote
  #1591  
Old 19.10.2013, 09:49
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
Excellent observation.
I didn't think anyone would consider a Wikipedia page - especially one that itself professes to be "not complete or up to date" and "includes scientists from several specialities or disciplines" - to be an authoritative source on climate scientists.

Quote:
You've been making much of 'climate scientists', but when the top list of 'climate scientists' in a Google search is examined, most of them are disqualified by your own criterion ('qualifications in the field'). So you arbitrarily and unilaterally disparage the 3rd party list of 'climate scientists' and change your emphasis to another criterion.
No, I did not.

And are you really arguing that Wikipedia page is an authoritative source of "the top list of climate scientists" ? Seriously ?

Quote:
Ri-i-i-ight. And can you name one or more 'journals' with enough 'credibility' to have regularly published research on both sides of the debate — or are you going to arbitrarily and unilaterally claim that 'credible journals' don't publish research on both sides of the debate?
Science is not a "debate" for which "both sides" are presented. Your premise is broken.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1592  
Old 19.10.2013, 10:04
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
Quote from the first link:
Your own link proves the first point, which you dismissed as false.
The second link shows data regarding Australia only- which isn't even framed to the debate about "global" climate change.
The claim made was: "Warming not 'global'", but confined to the northern hemisphere.
My source showed warming in Australia. (Which hopefully I don't need to demonstrate is located in the southern hemisphere.)
Claim refuted.

Quote:
Again with the skeptical science swill... You *say* you can provide other proof, but you haven't yet...
The claim made was: warming has stopped.
The evidence presented shows that warming has continued.
Claim refuted.

Quote:
And what proof do you have that the Forbes article is any better or worse than your own?
Uh, because it's an op-ed piece by someone who takes money to write appropriate op-end pieces that references little (if any) actual research and data, while the skeptical science page is a summary of contemporary research with links to sources ?

Quote:
Massive personal attack against a scientist that won't follow the dogma...
Considering your contributions here consist substantially of "massive personal attacks" against people who don't subscribe to your "dogma", I don't think you're in a position to be presenting a perception of that as some sort of issue.

Quote:
Your own source again proves the point that the models are incomplete, inaccurate, and not reflective on reality. Yet you continue to claim that ACC/AGW is one of the most proven theories in science...
No, stop lying.
I stated climate science was one of the most thoroughly investigated and challenged fields of science in human history.

Now. Claim made: the theories behind climate change are invalid because they have failed to predict and that the data is contaminated.
The evidence shows that the predicted trends are correct in direction, but not in magnitude. This does not represent a failure of the theory, any more than a miscalculation of the magnitude of Newton's gravitational constant would make his theory of gravity a failure.

Quote:
Skeptical Science again... pfft.
Claim made: the data is contaminated.
Evidence says: no "contamination" of the data.
Claim refuted.

Last edited by drsmithy; 19.10.2013 at 10:21.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1593  
Old 19.10.2013, 17:07
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

Science is not a "debate" for which "both sides" are presented. Your premise is broken.
Maybe that's part of your problem...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1594  
Old 19.10.2013, 17:16
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
The claim made was: "Warming not 'global'", but confined to the northern hemisphere.
My source showed warming in Australia. (Which hopefully I don't need to demonstrate is located in the southern hemisphere.)
Claim refuted.
Pointing out limited temperature change demonstrated by a flawed model of one small portion of the Southern Hemisphere does NOT refute the claim...


Quote:
View Post
The claim made was: warming has stopped.
The evidence presented shows that warming has continued.
Claim refuted.
Yet temperatures have been dropping. Again, you're off...


Quote:
View Post
Uh, because it's an op-ed piece by someone who takes money to write appropriate op-end pieces that references little (if any) actual research and data, while the skeptical science page is a summary of contemporary research with links to sources ?
You're pet science page is just more pop-pseudo-science that you can't be bothered to look past. Who pays for skeptical science, btw? Advertisers? Isn't that who also pays for Forbes?



Quote:
View Post
No, stop lying.
I stated climate science was one of the most thoroughly investigated and challenged fields of science in human history.
No, you said it was one of the most proven, that it had withstood criticism moreso than almost any other theory. All of which is massively disingenously untrue. Keep moving the goalposts to suit your views.

Quote:
View Post
Now. Claim made: the theories behind climate change are invalid because they have failed to predict and that the data is contaminated.
The evidence shows that the predicted trends are correct in direction, but not in magnitude. This does not represent a failure of the theory, any more than a miscalculation of the magnitude of Newton's gravitational constant would make his theory of gravity a failure.
So, if I flip a coin and say "heads" and the coin lands heads up, that means that I had an accurate model? Just because all these models happened to coincide in direction, but massively miss what is actually happening in the world, doesn't mean they are good. It actually means they're WRONG.



Quote:
View Post
Claim made: the data is contaminated.
Evidence says: no "contamination" of the data.
Claim refuted.
What evidence? You haven't shown any yet...

Sorry, Padawan. The Force just isn't with you...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1595  
Old 19.10.2013, 21:13
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 didn't think anyone would consider a Wikipedia page - especially one that itself professes to be "not complete or up to date" and "includes scientists from several specialities or disciplines" - to be an authoritative source on climate scientists...
Somebody at Wikipedia disagrees with you. You talk 'climate scientists' — they talk 'climate scientists'. It's a list of 'climate scientists'. At least they supply one instead of just mindlessly parroting the term.

Quote:
View Post
...No, I did not...
False.

Quote:
View Post
...And are you really arguing that Wikipedia page is an authoritative source of "the top list of climate scientists" ? Seriously ?...
My use of "top" referred to Google results rankings, not the status of the list members themselves. Read the post again, Einstein.

Quote:
View Post
...Science is not a "debate" for which "both sides" are presented. Your premise is broken.
Of course, you've already made it clear that 'science'-according-to-smithy is majority rule and no debate allowed.

I clearly asked you whether you can name one or more 'journals' with enough 'credibility' to have regularly published research on both sides of the debate. I take your arbitrary and unilateral claim that "Science is not a 'debate' for which "both sides" are presented" as a 'NO'.

I rest my case. The lunatics are running the asylum.
__________________
"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; 19.10.2013 at 21:24.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #1596  
Old 19.10.2013, 22:26
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: north
Posts: 6,132
Groaned at 219 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 5,100 Times in 2,636 Posts
rob1 has a reputation beyond reputerob1 has a reputation beyond reputerob1 has a reputation beyond reputerob1 has a reputation beyond reputerob1 has a reputation beyond reputerob1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

I scanned thru this last page and my thoughts are...."PLEASE JUST SHOOT ME NOW"
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank rob1 for this useful post:
  #1597  
Old 23.10.2013, 10:25
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
Maybe that's part of your problem...
That I think science is a process for discovering how the world works rather than winning a "debate" ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1598  
Old 23.10.2013, 10:34
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
Pointing out limited temperature change demonstrated by a flawed model of one small portion of the Southern Hemisphere does NOT refute the claim...
If you wish to argue the temperature measurements of the BOM are inaccurate, by all means show us the evidence.

Quote:
Yet temperatures have been dropping. Again, you're off...
No, they haven't.

Quote:
You're pet science page is just more pop-pseudo-science that you can't be bothered to look past. Who pays for skeptical science, btw? Advertisers? Isn't that who also pays for Forbes?
The only person not "looking past" is you. Skeptical science is collating and referencing actual research.

Quote:
No, you said it was one of the most proven, [...]
Quote me.

Quote:
[...] that it had withstood criticism moreso than almost any other theory.
That part, however, is correct.

Quote:
So, if I flip a coin and say "heads" and the coin lands heads up, that means that I had an accurate model?
Your analogy is absurd.

Quote:
Just because all these models happened to coincide in direction, but massively miss what is actually happening in the world, doesn't mean they are good. It actually means they're WRONG.
No, if they were "WRONG" they wouldn't agree with the evidence, which is that temperatures are trending up.

Quote:
What evidence? You haven't shown any yet...
If you want to claim a massive worldwide conspiracy to contaminate data such that it's all showing the same thing, I think the burden of evidence falls on you.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1599  
Old 23.10.2013, 10:38
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
Somebody at Wikipedia disagrees with you. You talk 'climate scientists' — they talk 'climate scientists'. It's a list of 'climate scientists'. At least they supply one instead of just mindlessly parroting the term.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works.

Quote:
My use of "top" referred to Google results rankings, not the status of the list members themselves. Read the post again, Einstein.
I wasn't aware anyone would consider a Google search result to be an authoritative list of the world's climate scientists.

Quote:
Of course, you've already made it clear that 'science'-according-to-smithy is majority rule and no debate allowed.
Actually it's "science-according-to-scientists", it's got nothing to do with majority rule, and people with alternative hypotheses supported by evidence are welcomed.

Quote:
I clearly asked you whether you can name one or more 'journals' with enough 'credibility' to have regularly published research on both sides of the debate.
Yes.

And your premise that there must be "both sides of the debate" is broken. Science is about evidence, not who can make the most popular argument.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1600  
Old 23.10.2013, 10:38
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
If you wish to argue the temperature measurements of the BOM are inaccurate, by all means show us the evidence.


No, they haven't.


The only person not "looking past" is you. Skeptical science is collating and referencing actual research.


Quote me.


That part, however, is correct.


Your analogy is absurd.


No, if they were "WRONG" they wouldn't agree with the evidence, which is that temperatures are trending up.


If you want to claim a massive worldwide conspiracy to contaminate data such that it's all showing the same thing, I think the burden of evidence falls on you.
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 17:05.


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