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 13th Jun 2011, 12:31
  #8081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Cacophonix, how about trotting out some facts bolstering what you state? Your unqualified opinions don't form facts, by the way.

What is it with the AGW'ers? When asked for facts to support what they state, all you get is hot air and rhetoric!

Who's stopping you debating your side objectively with facts and data?
rvv500 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 12:35
  #8082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
There are sites that cover both sides of the argument that could be described as tendentious. A general reading indicates that very few sites seem to use the basic tenets of scientific method and rather appeal to whatever authority suits their point of view.

I am not going to get into see your site (or expert) and raise you one mode. I just reject this kind of approach completely, as I have noted before to cries of foul and castigation from some posters here, but hey this is JB so I guess all is fair in love and posting and I am not complaining about that.

Personally I am apt to be interested in academic institutions and agencies with a global reach and the ability to capture and crunch the numbers without any particular affinity for a specific outcome.

I note with interest that those well know “kooks” at NASA (for example) seem to be moving the direction of accepting the concept of AGW (although there are scientists within NASA who are not convinced). Such divergence of opinion in one organisation is indicative of open and honest debate and I am apt to read the papers from some of these folks with more attention than what is posted on the Watt’s Up (for example).

I understand why many people are deeply cynical about the way the AGW concept has become an agenda item for politicians etc. and the way it provides an excuse for direct and indirect taxation, but this issue is a different one to asking (in purely scientific terms) whether or not the concept is a real.

I tend to agree with people like Chuks that on the balance of evidence and probabilities AGW is happening and that we should take a long look at the way we are going about managing our planet before we screw things up too much. Maybe my African perspective has had an influence on my thinking about this and I may be dead wrong but…!


Your unqualified opinions don't form facts, by the way.

Is my opinion deemed by you to be unqualified because it doesn't accord with yours perhaps? Sadly I suspect your opinion is worth just about as much as mine on this subject and that in fact is not really saying much but hell if saying thus makes you feel better then go right ahead.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 12:45
  #8083 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Cacophonix can I suggest you go and read the website of Dr Judith Curry, chair of Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. she also has a Ph.D. in geophysical sciences, she is a AGW believer and is also on the team doing a completely new analysis of the temperature records at Berkeley. (see: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011) )

Her blogsite is at: Climate Etc.

When you've read a fair number of the things on there you may see where we're coming from.
green granite is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 12:47
  #8084 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
The difference is, Caco, the things I posted above were not claimed on some tinfoil helmet site but were claimed by the very INTERNATIONAL BODY who is supposed to be OBJECTIVE on matters such as Climate Change. These are the very people you are "apt" to believe, despite the small matter of them being heavily politicised.

But now we see your true colours. Many here have linked to clear academic articles disputing AGW, which you dismiss. Instead you are "apt" to believe the very people who have repeatedly been caught lying about the concept of AGW, no matter how ridiculous their lies and data manipulation is. That's a pretty sad thing, to just "accept" things as being true no matter what.



Oh, the "Africa" issue. Got any HARD data that AGW is the cause of things there and it is not some other man-made influence (the diverting of rivers for irrigation, overpopulation, the increase in the amount of "farm" animals grazing over ever larger areas stripping the land of vegetation, etc) that is causing change on the continent? I gave a perfect example above, the shrinking of Lake Chad. You can also look at the changes due to the diverting of water from the Nile for irrigation. That ain't anything to do with "Global Warming", or "Climate Change", or "Global Climate Disruption", or any other name they decide to use when they see that their claims are bogus.....
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 12:54
  #8085 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
GG,

a valiant effort, but perhaps wasted, from the positions asserted it can be determined that the entrenched mindset is 'i've made up my mind, i dont want to listen to or engage in reasoned debate or consider factual data that may conflict with the entrenched mindset and any argument will dismissed if it doesnt correlate.'
stuckgear is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 12:59
  #8086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Thanks GG I definitely will read the paper you have highlighted.
Hellsbrink/Stuck you miss my point completely and take refuge in semantics. So be it. Take refuge in your certainty while I am apt to be open minded.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 13:03
  #8087 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
Stuckgear, that to me describes perfectly the mindset of the strident alarmists who refuse to accept that detected warming (which has reversed in the past decade) may (a) not be anthropogenic and (b) not catastrophic.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 13:05
  #8088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Hellsbrink/Stuck you miss my point completely and take refuge in semantics.
Really?

Explain why AGW is to blame for the changes seen in Africa then.
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 13:09
  #8089 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
Hellsbrink as I said I reject your modus operandi and therefore won't play that game.

I will take time to carefully read what GG has directed me to. I can't say fairer than that.

Caco
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 13:16
  #8090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Well, Caco, I ask the question since both you and chuks have used Africa as an example of why AGW "exists", you've said how your experiences there have given you a tendency to believe in the theory called AGW despite all the lies, etc, surrounding that theory.


I think you explaining what you mean is only fair, then we can all discuss what is happening there in regard to what might be AGW/CC/GCD/MCD/whatever and what has been caused by other man-made influences, many of which are well-known.





(The same goes out to Chuks too)
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 14:14
  #8091 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Cacophonix, you'll find a lot of what is on there are her comments on various papers, but you invariably get a link to those papers, an interesting one is her response to the question: Do you think there is growing evidence that human-caused global warming is contributing to an increased incidence of extreme weather ? In 'Is Extreme Weather Linked to Global Warming?'


And an article entitled 'Towards sane policies on natural disasters' is well worth reading.
green granite is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 14:29
  #8092 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Hellsbrink/Stuck you miss my point completely and take refuge in semantics.


so, adressing the refusal to engage in informed discussion and to review factual data is semantics ?


Your response proves the point.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 14:45
  #8093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Caco, unqualified = an opinion offered which is not backed by evidence,

which is exactly what you're doing. But I grant this, you chose your monicker well.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 15:33
  #8094 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
More heated semantics

refuge in semantics
I was, of course referring an attack on my use of the word "apt" which in context was an indication of my measure of doubt about the evidence (either way).

But I grant this, you chose your monicker well.
I think my monicker is very apt indeed but not for the reasons you imply rvv500.

I leave the thread to continue to meander in its rather shrill and unswerving devotion to a confirmation of set of prejudices rather than a more open review of relevant evidence (pro and con). This current thread process, if it is science, is pathological science by any standard!

Caco
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 15:42
  #8095 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
I was, of course referring an attack on my use of the word "apt"
I made no reference to your use of the word 'apt' so don't claim an attack when no reference was even made.

I leave the thread to continue to meander in its rather shrill and unswerving devotion to a confirmation of set of prejudices
Like claiming an attack by a poster over the use of the word 'apt' when none was made? that's pretty shrill and demonstrates an unswerving devotion to a confirmation of set of prejudices in itself.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 15:46
  #8096 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Here's a bit more pathological science for you all.

The Chaos theoretic argument that undermines Climate Change modelling by Dr. Andy Edwards

"This is not intended to be a scientific paper, but a discussion of the disruptive light Chaos Theory can cast on climate change, for non-specialist readers. This will have a focus on the critical assumptions that global warming supporters have made that involve chaos, and their shortcomings. While much of the global warming case in temperature records and other areas has been chipped away, they can and do, still point to their computer models as proof of their assertions. This has been hard to fight, as the warmists can choose their own ground, and move it as they see fit. This discussion looks at the constraints on those models, and shows that from first principles in both chaos theory and the theory of modelling they cannot place reliance on these models."

Full and interesting article: The Chaos theoretic argument that undermines Climate Change modelling | Watts Up With That?
green granite is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 15:49
  #8097 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
I made no reference to your use of the word 'apt' so don't claim an attack when no reference was even made.
Er, no, I was in fact referring to Hellsbrink's contribution about my use of apt but don't let me get in the way of your confusion.

Closing the door gently behind me.

GG, I now have a couple of moments and will respond to your question after a better perusal of that link. Thanks again.
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 16:37
  #8098 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,319
green granite,
Thanks a lot for that link!!

The Chaos theoretic argument that undermines Climate Change modelling | Watts Up With That?

For those who can read, and understand, and know what the argument is about, it's a good article....

For those of you for whom "Chaos" as a mathematical concept doesn't mean anything, have a look at "Chaos" by James Gleick (1988).
(There may be some more recent books on the subject now...)
I found at the time that it covered most of the subject quite well for this 'layman' (engineer)...
I had only just been introduced to the concept by a close friend (university professor).

CJ

Last edited by ChristiaanJ; 13th Jun 2011 at 16:41. Reason: Typos
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 16:39
  #8099 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
Caco, apart from the empty shrillness, could you point out where you've discussed any science in this thread?
rvv500 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2011, 16:48
  #8100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Er, no, I was in fact referring to Hellsbrink's contribution about my use of apt but don't let me get in the way of your confusion.
Since you included stuckgear in your comment re: my use of the word "apt" (which was taken from your own, previous, post) then you can see how stuckgear is wondering why he was being "attacked" by yourself when no "attack" was made by him (or by me, come to think of it).

Methinks he isn't the one "confused".....
hellsbrink is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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