Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 11th Jun 2011, 22:05
  #8041 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 65
Posts: 215
Chuks as per previous posters, if the emperical data does not agree with the theories then the theories have to be reviewed. For wahtever reasons, this does not seem to happen within the realms of climate science.

As you are doing a degree in Liberal Arts can I suggest that you get hold of a copies of

Quantum by Mannjit Kumar
Being Wrong (Adventures in the Margin of Error) by Kathryn Schulz

and read them. You may get a perspective of the politics in science.
handsfree is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 05:23
  #8042 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
They accuse me, a skeptic, of something more sinister... a "denier"
More proof its simply another ratbag trendy religion - don't forget
you have your "believers" too.

Apart from Pope Gore, have any saints been cannonballised by the
IPCC bishops yet?

Any martyrs?
Slasher is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 06:12
  #8043 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25
Let's be specific Chuks, the scientific method is that if data does not agree with the hypothesis and models then either the hypothesis is wrong or the models are wrong. The data are not wrong.

The AGW theory has not been supported or proven by any empirical evidence. The model predictions have been proven wrong by a long way. So at present, based on the scientific method, the theory and the model are kaput.

But you seemed to state otherwise and opined that AGW theory is solid because of consensus scientists and experts saying so and so we need to give more time for the models to be proven right. That's belief, not science.

Now, to the part of alarmists, you said that the AGW crowd were calm and sane and that all the skeptics were the alarmists. That statement was thrown out by you with no basis.

I showed a few examples of who's alarmist and who made wild predictions and asked you to comment. I asked you to show me even if one of their predictions were proved right.

And your response, more ramblings and stating that you are buggering off. Very scientific, isn't it.

You haven't provided any shred of proof or basis for any of your allegations beyond your belief and yet pretty much stated here that all the skeptical posters are alarmists. And when asked to prove or back up your statements, after I gave you proof supporting what I stated, you turn tail and run.

Now where have we seen that before?
rvv500 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 07:50
  #8044 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
A casual review of these pages, right here, nowhere else, shows pretty clearly that the hot stuff is coming from the anti AGW corner, to the point where scientists are labelled as not just poor scientists but downright evil.

Then we have the Hitler thing... I invoke that there law I forgot the name of to declare this whole misbegotten thing closed, so there! Mwah.

No, sorry, I just cannot take this level of debate seriously, so that I will stick to the mainstream stuff to form my misguided, downright evil opinions. You guys can just carry on shouting, when I shall drop in to see what the shouting is about, but that is about it. No scientist, me, I just think, somehow, that melting ice caps and permafrost, persistent drought in parts of Africa... these things represent climate change so that they are down to something or other besides some greedy and evil plot to steal money by taxation.

There is always another problem. I just do not respond positively to posts written in a shouty, condescending style that are simply deficient in grammar and spelling. I cannot help getting the idea that there is something essential lacking there, that this is someone just lashing out at some half understood system of scientific method, among other things which must trouble their minds. Go kick a mailbox or something, if you need to get even with The Man.
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 08:03
  #8045 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 78
Posts: 3,513
chuks, why not try debating the science instead of rambling on about Hitler and perceived insults? That way you might find you get sensible answers, the problem at the moment is, that like all devouts, you are only using rhetoric as your argument.
green granite is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 08:11
  #8046 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 58
Posts: 211

Chuks is right about the way many people mistake prejudice, belief, opinion, emotion, politics and many other human foibles for science.

Sadly this thread is a microcosm of the state of debate around the AGW issue in the "real" world. There is precious little science here but plenty of sturm und drang but, hey, we have had this discussion before!

Cacophonix is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 08:22
  #8047 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
There is always another problem. I just do not respond positively to posts written in a shouty, condescending style that are simply deficient in grammar and spelling.
You've mastered that 'art'.

Any sign of informed debate or discussion based on fact ? No, you've just been shrieking about 'deniers' rhetoric and that your view is right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

there are pages and pages here of reasoned argument, discussion and facts, posted by the likes of flying bhingi, GG, RV et al. have chosen to engage in any reasoned, non emotive discussion ? nope, just shriek, shriek, shriek about rhetoric. you present yourself as the master of it.

When you point a finger chuks, you're pointing three at yourself.

Good luck with the degree and the academic writing.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 08:33
  #8048 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25

You do not respond to any posts laid out clearly with evidence and inviting you to submit counter evidence. You just ramble, play the denier card, throw unsupported allegations and generally waffle with no content.

In terms of facts concerning AGW discussion, you've provided zilch.

I'd recommend you to put up or shut up and stop making denier label accusations. As of now the unsubstantiated noise and accusations are coming from you, not anybody else.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 09:44
  #8049 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Ah, yes...

That is me, 'shrieking' again! I see....

You are quite correct in that, no, I haven't bothered to link to sites that provide data to support my own point of view. Too, I am very light on the basic science side, just alluding to some stuff that is, really, general knowledge, such as loss of ice, permafrost melting, persistent drought across parts of Africa... stuff like that doesn't require any (pretend) specialist knowledge does it?

I cannot say, 'I am right, you are wrong.' What I do want to say is that the tone of the 'debate' here is pretty strident, what with all these allegations of hysteria, evil and what-not coming from just one side, as far as I can see. Is there much there seriously to engage with? Well, not as far as I can see! There is some very curious mechanism at work here, with many of you seeming to be very, very upset at being presented with much of any evidence that there might be a problem associated with rising levels of various greenhouse gases, due to our own activities. That the science of this is debatable, well, yes. It is the blind, seemingly willfully ignorant denial of any of that science that strikes me as interesting and worthy of comment here.

Counter-evidence to what many of you posit is easily available. If I do not bother to lead you to it, please do not take that as a failure on my part to engage with you. In the same way, when I read something supposedly dealing with science that leads off with 'evil, ignorant, stupid' or anything along those lines, I just lose interest somehow, no idea why. Perhaps it is that telling me what to think about something suggests a weak case? Here I am not telling any of you what to think, just that you might want to think about both sides of the argument.

Thanks for the good wishes on my further studies. So far, so good, including the basics of English as she is wrote, when it is 'I drank,' but 'I have not drunk,' for reasons which are beyond the scope of the present discussion. That much I know for sure....
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 10:14
  #8050 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: EGNX country
Age: 65
Posts: 215
Strikes me Chuks that the best thing you could do is pack in the liberal arts degree and do a degree in physics instead. You may then see the case for AGW in a very different light. How you can argue the correctness of climate science while confessing to knowing very little about science is problematical in itself.
The huge, huge problem with the climate models is that they do not agree with reality. Yes the climate is changing. It always has and always will but sacrificing your economy on the altar of the scientific illiterate is not the answer.
handsfree is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 10:19
  #8051 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25
Nobody is disputing the GHG theory. What people dispute is the " enhanced " GHG theory by which CO2 is supposed to enhance the warming by positive feedbacks due to water vapour. The actual empirical evidence shows that the cloud feedback is most likely negative. The role of clouds, convections, aerosols, sunspot activity and a host of other things haven't been understood at all by the scientists, as per their own admissions. So why still hold the theory valid when it omits so many causes.

Nobody is disputing the fact that CO2 levels have gone up.

What people are disputing is the cause effect relationship claimed by the pro-AGW crowd which says that increased CO2 = Increased Temperatures due to manmade CO2 = CAGW.

Neither the increased temperatures have happened as predicted nor have any catastrophies related to increased temperatures happened.

The temperature trends in the past decades are similar to trends of the past with warming and cooling happening in cycles. It warmed from 1910-1940, cooled from 19-40-1970, warmed again from 1970-1998 and from them in the past 13 years the trend is a cooling trend. So how can one state that the warming of 1910-1940 was not due to man made CO2 but the warming from 1970 onward alone is due to man made CO2?

Hansen gave scenario A, B and C in his climate models on how temperatures are expected to move with different levels of CO2 concentration, with scenario A being high increase of CO2, scenario B being business as usual levels of CO2 and scenario C being reduced levels of CO2. He made these predictions in the 80's based on his models.

Today, the CO2 levels are at scenario A predictions and temperatures are at less than scenario C predictions.

Result = Epic Fail

And yet, these models are being used as a basis by pro-AGW scientists, activists and governments saying that the debate is over, the science is settled etc. Policies and taxes have been levied affecting millions adversely and costing billions to the economy, based on these failed model predictions / projections which is costing every living being. These are what we rail against as it is being rammed against our throats against our will based on failed science which has not been validated by empirical evidence.

That, in a nutshell, is all what's wrong with AGW and the pro-AGW supporting clique as they have landed the world into this mess.

And by the way, till date, there's been nobody who has been able to pinpoint what is the signal of man made CO2 being the cause of warming. Yet, policy decisions are being made upon such poor science.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 10:22
  #8052 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Well Chuks, this is all very fine and indeed you may have a point in relation to overly emotive reactions and broad brush simplistic, unscientific comment. But that charge is easily levelled at all sides, you cannot ignore the frequent portentious, doom laden scenarios AGW proponents and indeed scientists, frequently trot out in order to scare us into joyfully paying our carbon taxes in order to save the planet from ourselves. On the other hand I don't buy into the global, red/green conspiracy, world government paranoia either.

But you give the impression like one or two other who have popped up lately that you are fence sitting when it comes to AGW. May I respectfully suggest this is not a subject for fence sitting and is not simply an academic (or hysterical) internet debate on an esoteric subject.

This is as serious issue which affects all our lives right now and will continue to do so. This is quite fundamental to our society as we live it now. In as sense the conspiracy theorists are right, generally there is a consensus among governments, politicians, greens etc that AGW is real, is happening now and something must be done about it. The practical effects of these measures include increased taxes, restrictions on our lives and our freedom to do thing we now take for granted. Because whatever the science and it's accuracy or whether we accept it or not. Our lives will be changed because of it.

If you believe in AGW then you must accept this and run with it. If not and you are skeptical about all this, you take a view and attempt to stop it.

You may not like the anti science tone of some skeptics but you cannot ignore the genuine, scientific objections of many well qualified people.

It's difficult to be objective in this debate, simply because the stakes are so high. This was easily seen in the Climategate situation. If there was thing that struck me from reading the leaked emails was that the scientists involved lost all objectivity and spent great deal of time an effort to see off other scientists who had a more skeptical view of their work.

So much for science rising above the grubbyness of ordinary life!

Last edited by corsair; 12th Jun 2011 at 13:15.
corsair is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 11:49
  #8053 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Good point...

I have seen some interesting aspects of science as she is taught, recently, when that made me anything but a blind believer in all science delivering absolute truth. It is simply that, no, I do not believe that all or most scientists in this AGW squabble have the morals of Arthur Daley, say, while none can really be said to be 'evil.' Well, Doctor Evil, yes, but isn't he a fictional character?

Part of it is that most of what I have read that reads as convincing (not that that makes it correct) comes from the pro-AGW side. Here, not to be unfair, we seem to get some anti-AGW stuff that is a wee bit unbalanced, rather strident, not to say downright poorly written. This gets us back to the old argument for writing (and, of course, speaking) proper English; what you say may automatically be suspect if its language is shaky.

Never mind, I shall creep off now to lick my wounds and do a bit of reading on both sides of the argument.

I am going out now; I may be some time.... (That one had to do with climate change, didn't it? Just not the sort that bolsters my side of the argument.)
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 12:11
  #8054 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,177
via chuks: ...most of what I have read that reads as convincing (not that that makes it correct) comes from the pro-AGW side...
chuks, when yer get back, it would be interesting to see a few references/links to those "convincing" reads..

Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 12:45
  #8055 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25
And proper english / poorly written, Chuks!! Maybe you could point me in that direction of what do you think is proper english and what is it that I or others here have written poorly, especially about the scientific rationale behind AGW. And I absolutely welcome any article or publication or viewpoint you can bring in to refute what I've stated. I'll be glad to see what you can produce.

You know what Chuks, if you drop the condescending approach and be a bit more factual about what you feel is strident and what specifically your grievances are with whose posts, it would help a lot. Right now you still continue to throw a lot of lofty condescending accusations without backing up any of your statements.

I'm rather getting tired of this approach from you which is in fact is the strident approach here at present. Drop the ad-hominems, drop the condescension and post with substance please. Right now you're consistently overstepping your mark and coming on with a lot of accusations and hot air.

When I have to say something to you I say it clearly and specifically. Kindly reciprocate the same way. When Jane-DoH, GG or Corsair respond to anyone's post, they address the person and the points specifically and state their points. You, on the other hand, are throwing around general accusations encompassing everyone. That's not on.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 13:12
  #8056 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25
Classic BBC, one more global warming prediction falls flat. There's snow on Snowdon

BBC snowed by the whims of nature | Watts Up With That?
rvv500 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 14:17
  #8057 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Actually, I have had my knuckles rapped for responding too personally, hence the nonspecific approach. If I wanted to, I could probably make any one of you come apart like a North Korean suit, but I have been told, repeatedly, not to do that.

When you read some of this stuff, doesn't it come across as a teensy bit, ah, demented? You know, visions of Al Gore as the anti-Christ, scientists as 'evil,' that sort of thing? Perhaps that is just me. Anyway, it suggests to me that with a bit of prodding I could provoke some sort of spectacular eruption.

It's too bad if you don't like the tone of my posts, but then I don't much like the tone of some of the others here; I think that makes it about 50/50.

I suppose it is just the combination of what I have seen directly, out there boring holes in African skies, what I have read in respectable publications read by main-stream, educated readers, my late love affair with science, and the general tone of the posts here over the last 20 or so 'pages' or whatever you call these things, when I just wanted to break a lance for the opposite point of view to the one prevalent. It certainly is nothing personal!

I always come away from these encounters knowing more than when I started (often my ignorance is sublimely vast, a fact I only discover once I engage someone in argument; then I simply have to make smoke and steam off in a different direction lest I get shelled to little, tiny pieces); many points here are well taken even if my tone is deliberately dismissive, so that I shall be reading up on both sides of the AGW argument.

On the other hand, I don't think I will bother to try and have a reasoned discussion with you lot once I have done that! No, by then I should be back at college, when I can bounce some ideas off our captive scientists to see what they have to say about all this.
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 14:23
  #8058 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 58
Posts: 25

You're flattering yourself. You haven't had a reasoned argument as yet on the issues I've put forward to you. You've just rambled. I can't speak for the others but can speak for myself. Go ahead and make my arguments come apart like a North Korean suit. I'd like to see what you put up, other than hot air.

And yes, I can see from where the teensy weensy demented arguments are coming in. For answer, look at the mirror.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 14:27
  #8059 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 72
Posts: 1,561
Wanna bet?

Sorry, Mate, but the ROE forbid the sort of tactics that would require. (Have you ever listened to that 'You kicked my dog!' thing? Works like a charm on the slightly imbalanced...)

Anyway it would mean 'lots of heat, not much light,' as with many of the previous posts here; the only difference would be the side the invective should be coming from.
chuks is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2011, 15:03
  #8060 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 52
Posts: 794
Then, Chuks, do explain why the IPCC have been caught out making false claims, explain why Mann's "research" is not flawed, explain the manipulation a-of data by the pro-AGW camp, etc.

You haven't come out with anything that says that these things are false, that the people involved have not been caught with their pants round their ankles, that the claims they have made are not downright lies or that there is any actual SOLID proof that man-made Climate Change actually exists. I see allegations, rhetoric and veiled attacks on people, but nothing of substance.

That is the issue people have.
hellsbrink is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.