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 17th Jun 2011, 09:21
  #8221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
I believe I used the word correctly.

Definition for denialism:
Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event.".
Re-entry is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 09:31
  #8222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
A mind-reader writes...

I think the posts here come across as more than 'merely skeptical,' but that might just be me. You know why someone used a term, do you? Well, same way you know what is happening with AGW and those who think it's a likely hypothesis, I suppose....

As to if, or why anyone would try to make those who are against the hypothesis of AGW to be the same as people who deny the Holocaust... you lost me with that one.

The Holocaust is a well-documented, historical, undeniable fact, to the point that it's flat illegal in Germany to deny it. Freedom of speech runs into a brick wall over that one and democracy ends.

AGW is just an hypothesis. To me it makes sense to agree with that hypothesis but, in the final analysis it is just that, an hypothesis. If someone doesn't agree with it, well...

The problem, as here, is positing that those who support the AGW hypothesis are dishonest, stupid, incompetent, etcetera. That is incorrect, verging on irrational, I think. Of course some politicians and business interests are going to try to hitch a ride on AGW; that is what they do. How that totally discredits AGW, though, has not been shown here in numerous, highly intemperate posts.

There is a lot more to science than just posting little graphs and excerpts from various papers and articles. You can start with the basic understanding of what proper science is, which many of you simply seem to lack. I don't think most of the AGW faction would really want to elevate the arguable wrong in arguing the anti-AGW case to the unarguably wrong level of denying the Holocause; I certainly don't!

Last edited by chuks; 17th Jun 2011 at 10:52.
chuks is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 09:44
  #8223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 57
Posts: 211
We don't deny anything, we are merely sceptical that CO2 is wholly responsible for the apparent recent temperature increase
I tend to read your we for I and your position is clearly a very reasonable one GG.

Unfortunately there are others, who for a myriad of reasons, use every tactic under the sun (image intended) to refute and demean any other position other than outright rejection of the possibility that AGW is a possibility. These hardliners, safe in the previous assumption, suggest we can blithely ignore some of the very real evidence that CO2 levels are up and will continue to rise and that there is also credible evidence that global warming is occuring.

Of course there is a reasonable possibility that there may be causation here and while keeping open minds we should investigate these issues clearly, carefully and scienifically.

Caco
Cacophonix is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 09:59
  #8224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
Denialism is choosing to deny reality
No-one is denying climate, no-one is denying climate change, as both are real. What many people are sceptical about is the hypothesis of CAGW. How does that mean that those sceptics are climate denialists?
MagnusP is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 10:25
  #8225 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event."
Re-entry
Will you point me to a published, peer reviewed paper that empirically verifies CAGW, rather than the hundreds that merely rely on models.
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 10:55
  #8226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Oh! dear another own goal by the IPCC

"The claim by the IPCCin the report was that: 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…

Unfortunately, it has been revealed that this claim is similar to the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 fiasco, with nothing independent to back it up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCC per se, but rather that of Greenpeace. It gets worse.
The IPCC are in a catch-22 situation with stuff like that. They want the leading scientists to be authors on the working group reports, but at the same time they don't want the reports to indulge in self-citation by the authors. However, if the authors are the leading scientists in that field (which may or may not be true in this case) then of course they'll have to self-cite, there's nothing else they can do: the authors are the ones doing the research!
But on the plus side, after all the controversy about the glacier claim I think (and hope) that the IPCC are gonig to be much more careful about their citations in the next, AR5, report.


Why don't you read your own post. You said " WGI and WGIII were composed more of proper scientists, so I'd be a bit more willing to listen to their conclusions than I would WGII.", in this very page.
Right, so where in that quote do I say that they're infallible?

Which scientist wrote the WG 3 renewable report then?
Hopefully you realise it's more than one author. You can find a handy list of all of them at the front of each chapter of the AR4 synthesis report.

And the scientists must be debating really quietly in " private ". Wonder who they are. The IPCC insider coterie scientists who did the dodgy work are all bust blogging in places like Realclimate and Tamino's blog, spreading unscientific bullshit and claiming there is no doubt about their science and eveything is perfect.
I get the feeling from your posts that you don't actually understand the science at all. I see lots of bitching and moaning, but absolutely nothing to suggest you have any idea what you're talking about. So perhaps, for a change, you could quit insulting everyone within range and actually discuss something scientific.
That's you discussing, by the way. Not linking to blogs, not copy-pasting, but actually giving your own opinions and views on something other than the professionalism of a bunch of people you've never met.

Only one, Dr.Judith Curry has stood up and said enough is enough and criticised the climate scientists and associated organisations that are misbehaving. And she is more respected as a climate scientist and know much more well than unknown you. All you have been doing is being an apologist for bad science and bad scientific practices.
I'm not a climate scientist, so I'd be worried if I knew more than someone who trained in the subject.
That said, you appear to automatically accept and respect the views of anyone anti-AGW. You may think that the pro-AGW scientists are all cranks, but I'm sure there's loads of cranks in the other camp (as small as it may be) as well.

- there is some evidence of warming, but it has reversed;
Says who? I was under the impression that 2010 was the joint-warmest year on record (despite last year being a la-nina year, which are typically cooler).

- correlation with CO2 is not causation;
A better expression is that correlation does not imply causation. Correlations also don't work very well with complex non-linear datasets.

- imminent catastrophe is utterly unproven, and only comes from models that are discredited by real data.
I'm not sure anyone sensible is claiming there will be a 'catastrophe'. That sounds somewhat hysterical, and as far as I can tell has only been used by the press and greenpeace-types, not by scientists.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 11:09
  #8227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
No. I cannot because they all rely on models. We only have one earth and therefore cannot try out different experiments on the climate system. We have to use models, which are ever more sophisticated. You seem to imply that using models somehow invalidates the conclusions.

As Dr. Richard Alley said, "If this were a video game, I would push the button and see what happens cuz it'd be really exciting, but it's not a video game."
Re-entry is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 11:26
  #8228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
I'm not sure anyone sensible is claiming there will be a 'catastrophe'. That sounds somewhat hysterical, and as far as I can tell has only been used by the press and greenpeace-types, not by scientists.
Dr Keith Allott is head of WWF-UK Climate Change programme.

" The commitments made so far will not keep the world under 2C of warming, which is the threshold of unacceptable risks of runaway catastrophic climate change."
MagnusP is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 11:56
  #8229 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
No. I cannot because they all rely on models.
Therefore you cannot call us deniers, period.

You seem to imply that using models somehow invalidates the conclusions.
Models merely reflect the values of the parameters that the person creating that model thinks are right, also of course they can of course be tweaked to produce whatever result you want by altering the various forcings.

If anything empirical testing has tended to disprove the theory as the upper atmosphere hot spot, predicted by the models cannot be found.
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 12:19
  #8230 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
It appears that Dr Keith Allott is purely a political animal, he also seems to have managed to purge the net of any basic info about him such as which discipline his degree and doctorate was in. All I can find is:

"Dr Keith Allott is head of WWF-UK's Climate Change Programme, leading a team that works on issues including the international climate change negotiations, implementation of the UK Climate Change Act, UK energy policy, emissions trading, climate change adaptation and aviation.
Before joining WWF, Keith spent most of his career working as Deputy Editor at ENDS, the leading publisher of information and analysis on UK and EU environmental policy. He also worked for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and contributed to its 2000 report on Energy & Environment - the source of the Government's original target to reduce the UK's CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050."
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 12:28
  #8231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 306
Dr Keith Allott is head of WWF-UK Climate Change programme.
Thereby falling under the heading of 'greenpeace-type'
The modus-operandi of organisations such as greenpeace and the WWF seems to be: Make as much hysterical noise as possible.

It appears that Dr Keith Allott is purely a political animal, he also seems to have managed to purge the net of any basic info about him such as which discipline his degree and doctorate was in.
I just did a detailed literature search for him, and only found one publication from his doctorate; The subject looks like it's waste management.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 13:08
  #8232 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
I just did a detailed literature search for him, and only found one publication from his doctorate; The subject looks like it's waste management.
Thanks for that Simonpro, it would appear then he is used to talking garbage.
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 13:59
  #8233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Therefore you cannot call us deniers, period.
Oh yes I can.

DENIERS, DENIERS, DENIERS!!!
Re-entry is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 14:20
  #8234 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Totally pathetic.
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 14:38
  #8235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
re-entry: your faith in models is not confidence inspiring.

That said, the good thing about models is that they are so gorgeous. Wait, that's super models, not climate change models.

OK, the good thing about climate change models is that, if one is careful, as testing is done and data are collected, and the working hypothesis (not the conclusion) is refined, the models can be refined or adjusted, and we might get a testable theory out of it all. That would be great progress.

A lot of models (of any sort) are very sentisitve to initial conditions. There is an art in building a computer model for a complex systsem, an art I do not pretend to understand beyond what I know about flight simulators.

I treat with reservation any pronouncement of the publicity and policy arm of the AGW coalition, since the common utterance is cherry picked. <--------- That's the problem.

When one finds the honest scientists discussing error bounds and variability, and when one gets away from these pithy, and frequently MISLEADING public utterances, you find some very dilligent research going on, and IMO some disturbing findings. All is not going swimmingly, something is going on. We may be able to make a dent in the change rate if we take some measured and careful steps. Basing a behavior change recommendation on the amount of bogus rhetoric coming out of the publicity arm is a non-starter. Use of partial data yields crap decisions.

That certain courses of action are assumed to be invalid (see my comments earlier on population reduction) strikes me as both political and scientific myopia.

In the past 100 years, Science has made it possible, despite a couple of destructive world wars, and despite numerous "wars of liberation" since 1945, and new disease strains cropping up here and there, for humans to breed and increase the population at rates not heretofore seen for our species. That state of play is frequently posited as inherently beneficial. I find that presumption intellectually dishonest. I find that brand of myopia, hinged on an unaddressed assumption, as disturbing in a holistic sense as climate change's macro effects.

What's the outcome of AGW?

Millions of people will likely die, or tens of millions of people will die.

SO WHAT?

A billion could die as a result of AGW, and we'd just be back to what global population level: 1985? 1990?

BFD. Human beings will keep on screwing and making replacements.

That human race can lose half of its numbers in the next ten years, and we won't be going anywhere. In the process, we may learn something.

There are billions of people left over in that case, perhaps being wiser as well as older, and alive, will have a beneficial impact.
Lonewolf_50 is online now  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 14:45
  #8236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: orbital
Posts: 186
Totally pathetic.
Oh come now it's friday. where's the sense of humor?
Re-entry is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 14:48
  #8237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
A billion could die as a result of AGW
And a billion could benefit from the increased crop yields which would result from GW, whether A or not.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 15:16
  #8238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
Definition for denialism:
Denialism is choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: "[it] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event.".
so hiding the decline would be denial then.

If AGW cannot be empiraclly proven, which it cannot, then to refer to sceptics as deniers is denial in itself.


The IPCC are in a catch-22 situation with stuff like that.
So the IPCC are the victims ? they elected to push out fiction and lobby based presentation presented as fact no one else, the only victim the IPCC is, is of its own distortions and manipulations.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 15:17
  #8239 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
Oh come now it's friday. where's the sense of humor?


A billion could die as a result of AGW
Looking at this essay by Don J. Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, a lot more could die from global cooling:

Easterbrook on the potential demise of sunspots | Watts Up With That?
green granite is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2011, 16:05
  #8240 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 72
Posts: 2,394
Historically warming has benefited mankind greatly, cooling, just the opposite, very detrimental to man.

Just sayin'.
con-pilot 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.