What do you think of climate change?

[Theo520]

So is computer science. But if you want to go back to the very first inquires identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you would have to go back to 1862.

Physicists have contributed much to the field, Michael Mann is a physicist yet you dismiss outright the opinions of other physicists, many with equal or better pedigrees.

I find it disingenuous (self serving) when you chose to now dismiss their (name removed by moderator)ut out of hand, simply because they disagree with your position.

 

[Ender]

I looks like you are confirm’s phaster’s point too.

No, I am agreeing with Sftyvlv1 that simply because someone has the right scientific pedigree doesn’t mean his opinions are to be trusted. There are disagreements about the science, and accepting one position over another without regard to the science simply because you prefer one set of credentials over another is fine if you are unable to understand any of the science, but begins to look pretty shallow otherwise.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I looks like you are confirm’s phaster’s point too.

No, I am agreeing with Sftyvlv1 that simply because someone has the right scientific pedigree doesn’t mean his opinions are to be trusted.

But Sftyvlv1 is claiming more than that - namely that conclusions reached by a majority of scientists may be countered with non-expert and indeed non-profession analyses, such as the one given in this post. The conclusion was draw by Stfyvlv1, not by any expert or professional, or even a TV weatherman.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

So is computer science. But if you want to go back to the very first inquires identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas, you would have to go back to 1862.

Physicists have contributed much to the field, Michael Mann is a physicist yet you dismiss outright the opinions of other physicists, many with equal or better pedigrees.

I find it disingenuous (self serving) when you chose to now dismiss their (name removed by moderator)ut out of hand, simply because they disagree with your position.

I am not dismissing all physicists. Indeed, most physicists agree with the mainstream theory.

 

[Theo520]

I am not dismissing all physicists. Indeed, most physicists agree with the mainstream theory.

Right, you just dismiss the ones who disagree with your position.
You are being very shallow, you dismiss rather than refute.

 

[Theo520]

LOL, a good read.
Yale actually proves the cartoon to be true.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/dilbert-cartoon-climate-change-prompts-rebuttal-yale/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I am not dismissing all physicists. Indeed, most physicists agree with the mainstream theory.

Right, you just dismiss the ones who disagree with your position.
You are being very shallow, you dismiss rather than refute.

Count them up. What percentage of working (not retired) physicists am I dismissing?

 

[Theo520]

Count them up. What percentage of working (not retired) physicists am I dismissing?

It’s about their arguments, not how many signed a declaration of vague feel good posturing.
And why your bias against the retired?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Count them up. What percentage of working (not retired) physicists am I dismissing?

It’s about their arguments, not how many signed a declaration of vague feel good posturing.
And why your bias against the retired?

Nope. You can’t evaluate their arguments unless you are in the field yourself. (Unless you discount the value of that field of science entirely.)

And the “bias” against the retired is in recognition of your observation the “this is a fairly new field of science.” How can you expect a retired physicist to up on a field in science that is so young?

 

[Ender]

But Sftyvlv1 is claiming more than that - namely that conclusions reached by a majority of scientists may be countered with non-expert and indeed non-profession analyses, such as the one given in this post. The conclusion was draw by Stfyvlv1, not by any expert or professional, or even a TV weatherman.

No, he didn’t claim any of that in the post you cited - you embellished his comments - and whether or not his reasons are as sound as they could be, his instincts are certainly right on.

 

[Sftyvlv1]

I believe what I do because aside from all the theories presented (and remember I don’t dispute climate change, but the cause of) sometimes you get a gut instinct that some things just don’t add up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But Sftyvlv1 is claiming more than that - namely that conclusions reached by a majority of scientists may be countered with non-expert and indeed non-profession analyses, such as the one given in this post. The conclusion was draw by Stfyvlv1, not by any expert or professional, or even a TV weatherman.

No, he didn’t claim any of that in the post you cited - you embellished his comments - and whether or not his reasons are as sound as they could be, his instincts are certainly right on.

Since when has “instincts” been a counter to scientific theory? But is exactly what was happening there. Let’s look closely at the post that I “embellished.”

“300 or so years since the industrial revolution is but a grain of sand in time.”
As if that was any kind of an argument about the impossibility of the activities of the industrial age influencing climate, when scientific observations show that it clearly has.

“How many millions of cubic feet of crap does a volcano spew when it erupts?”
Looks like an armchair assessment that volcanoes explain all the climate changes. No attempt was even made to calculate (or research) what effect volcanoes have had. That have had an effect. Sometimes a very big one. But scientists already know about that.

“Bitumin from the tar sands comes out of the ground and runs into northern Canadian rivers all by itself.”
Sounds like it is an argument from a different thread - possibly one about water pollution? Certainly not an argument about climate change.

No, it was a clear case of a non-scientific analysis being put up against scientific analyses, as I said.

 

[MichaelP3]

Now I have been following this thread and have posted at times but some replies have urged me to pose another question about the thinking and zeal on this thread which still boggles my mind.

I am a Chemical Engineer who works for an Oil and Gas company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. I am personally present in meetings many days of the week where projects are discussed to reduce the release of CO2. I am speaking of millions of dollars that are allocated to projects and initiatives to reduce greenhouse gasses with absolutely none whatsoever financial benefit to the company. But still a company with more resources than fathomable and an R&D department in the top of its class are presenting these projects that I am a part of.

So, my question is. Please present me with the one article to blow these peoples minds and save millions in capital? Please provide me with a sound reason why we do not need to continue with these projects? I am just trying to point out the difference between the armchair scientists and the real world. We live in the real world and Sunday reading about climate change makes it a hobby of yours and not something you should post about.

 

[HarryStotle]

Sftyvlv1:

Phaster
Not buying what you or the “experts” are selling

This is but another excellent illustration of phaster’s point that people have replaced respect for science education and expertise with their own backyard intuition.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed the irony in you lauding @phaster for bringing up an “excellent illustration” using a late night comedian and The Independent’s and Vice’s supposed journalism, while at the same time decrying people’s replaced “respect for science” with their own “backyard intuition.”

Wouldn’t you dismissing high level astrophysicists’ work (Gerlich and Tscheuschner) as “gobbledygook” because you personally don’t understand it and subsequently replacing it with your own “backyard intuition” count as a particularly germane example of precisely what you are complaining about?

Oh, the irony!

 

[Theo520]

Please present me with the one article to blow these peoples minds and save millions in capital?

Articles are irrelevant Michael,
From a PR and fiduciary perspective, your company has no choice but to consider public opinion and direct R&D into reducing emissions.

Also any breakthroughs could very well show a return on R&D as they are adopted by other companies or reduce payments in some future carbon tax. Certainly coal power plants have seen some benefits from reducing emissions, if only to extend the life of their plants.

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

Mann isn’t even a trained ‘climate scientist’.

Those that are trained as climate scientists agree with him more than any skeptic here.

That is precisely what makes this issue so interesting: i.e., The question of why many so-called “climate scientists” do agree with Mann when his work has been repeatedly found to be flawed.

Mann’s hockey stick graph – the basis upon which the entire global warming alarmism has been based – has been demonstrated to be false, being grounded as it was on tree ring data set constructed to “disprove” past warming periods even though tree rings don’t reflect temperature as much as they do precipitation. Then he stopped using the tree ring data set in his graph at the point that it showed continued temperature decline through the twentieth century. He swapped out the tree ring data for modern instrumental records at the opportune time (to corroborate his pre-drawn conclusions).

MacIntyre and McKitrick showed how Mann’s graph was flawed by his using tree ring data alone to minimize warm periods through history. It is true that Mann permitted others (Philip Jones and the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia) to work with his data but this group refused to release the full set of the data to other scientists.

Jones even responded to a request for the data from Warwick Hughes with…

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?

We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work… « Climate Audit

Apparently Philip Jones had lost all sense of what the scientific endeavour is all about.

Look up “climategate.”

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Mann’s refusal to share his data, relative to the blade of the “hockey stick” portion of his graph, was the reason he lost his recent defamation court case against Dr. Tim Ball.

 

[PetraG]

Mann’s hockey stick graph – the basis upon which the entire global warming alarmism has been based…

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. No. The “entire global warming” consensus is NOT based on the work of one scientist and his one graph! That is so ludicrous, I don’t even know where to start!

Where on earth did you get an idea like that? Who told you that? I don’t see how it is possible to investigate this matter independently with any rigor whatsoever and come away with an idea like that.
I don’t even see how it is possible for a knowledgeable person to say that with a straight face!!!

Evidence - NASA Science

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al ( Environ. Res. Lett . 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers ( N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.

Those who don’t believe climate change is happening and can be correlated with human-caused carbon dioxide output are not those who set out with an open mind to find the truth, whatever that might be, but rather those who set out with the goal of disproving that it is happening. That’s what the tobacco companies did, too. If somebody in this “debate” is selling their soul to reach a fixed conclusion–and there is plenty of motive for that agenda, as well, let us not even pretend to kid ourselves about that!–it is very easy for me to know where to put my money.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Mann’s hockey stick graph – the basis upon which the entire global warming alarmism has been based…

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. No. The “entire global warming” consensus is NOT based on the work of one scientist and his one graph! That is so ludicrous, I don’t even know where to start!

Where on earth did you get an idea like that? Who told you that? I don’t see how it is possible to investigate this matter independently with any rigor whatsoever and come away with an idea like that.
I don’t even see how it is possible for a knowledgeable person to say that with a straight face!!!
…

The Cook paper has its own issues.

And when you look a little deeper into why all these supposedly scientific organizations claim that global warming is reaching a crisis level, all references point to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports, such as this "Joint Science Academies statement which repeatedly cites the 2001 IPCC report.

The IPCC was formed in 1988 "to assess “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” So, if human induced climate change due to CO2 was already considered a “fact” in 1988, absent all scientific evidence, that has entailed that all the research it accepts, acknowledges, and supports simply reinforces its initial preordained position.

For an alternative viewpoint you might want to look into the Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of over 30 000 scientists who do not agree with the IPCC’s position, nor its methods.

By the way, the “warming data” continually put forward by the IPCC is very much like Mann’s except that it now ignores anything prior to about the last 150 years, so it doesn’t have to deal with past warmer periods which occurred despite far lower levels of CO2.

 

[PetraG]

I don’t think you know any actual scientists, let alone have any first-hand knowledge of how peer review works or what goes on at national science meetings.
The American Chemical Society is not a “supposedly scientific” organization that is lead around by the nose in the way you seem to imply—while you, let us note, are giving yourself credit for being far more dispassionate in your evaluation of the data, as if you don’t realize you have not seen a fraction of the evidence they have seen and debated.
As the authors note, disbelief in the likelihood of human-caused climate change is inversely proportional to exposure to the actual data and analysis of it.
Does that say something to me? You’d better be sure it does.

 

[HarryStotle]

Those who don’t believe climate change is happening and can be correlated with human-caused carbon dioxide output are not those who set out with an open mind to find the truth, whatever that might be, but rather those who set out with the goal of disproving that it is happening.

What is wrong, scientifically speaking, with “set[ting] out with the goal of disproving that it is happening” given that the consensus, according to you, of scientists have already reached a conclusion?

What is wrong with attempting to prove them wrong, provided the methods used are reliable, accurate and methodologically impeccable? Shouldn’t real scientists relish the thought of someone setting out to disprove their work being unable to do so, despite their best efforts?

Real scientists would then know that their work is irrefutable despite the best efforts of others to prove them wrong.

Isn’t that what science is all about?

You are sounding like Jones is a “good” scientist when he complains to a colleague…

Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?

Isn’t the aim of science precisely to “find something wrong with it” in order to confirm whether or not it stands up to scrutiny?