Global climate change
27-02-2014, 03:46 AM
RE: Global climate change
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: "without immediate action we're all doomed to a global warming apocalypse"
I can work with that: if we can both agree that statement is false and that climate scientists making predictions along those lines are exaggerating, the fundamental disagreement is whether to pour good faith after bad or side with Judith Curry's group of skeptics until such time as their predictions jump the tracks as well (or the "settled science" converges from all sides on a more-or-less common model that doesn't produce False Positives of the Apocalypse).
The "conspiracy" versus "groupthink" argument is going to be a tough one to make if you can't even tell the difference, but here goes: Of "conspiracies" Climategate's Hockey Stick Chart is the only one that really qualifies; the misleading statistics and attempt to cover up and deflect scrutiny were clearly intentional, and Mann had a couple of collaborators, so technically I guess that makes it a "conspiracy".
Of other exaggerations like David Viner's snow-deprived children that looks more like groupthink: good science based on bad assumptions nobody questions results in inaccurate conclusions, no conspiracy required.
I suppose there is a third category, "victims," which would account for those who based an exaggerated prediction of climate doom on a rate of temperature increase projected by a fraudulent study. Rajendra Pachauri of "Glaciergate" fame might not be an intentional fraud if he falls into this category.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: Your pathetic attempts to justify such naturally contained no reference to published scientific literature.
The question of whether statements made by climate scientists "don't count" if they're not made in peer-reviewed literature is something else you continue to fail to understand. Credibility comes from the credential, not the stationery.
"I didn't make that prediction in a science journal so it doesn't count," is as flimsy an excuse for junk science as, "I had my fingers crossed," for a lie. Using the credential to back up ones statements affects credibility whatever the stationery. Most people have never even seen a peer-reviewed science journal, but they trust scientists to make better-than-random predictions because of the credential. I trusted them too before the scrutiny triggered by Climategate showed the deception, exaggeration, and uncertainty being passed off as "settled science".
I've said this before but it went over your head so I'll try again: either the climate scientists talking to the public in the freewheeling pre-Climategate era were intentionally exaggerating the peer-reviewed data, in which case they have no credibility and the field of climate science needs more scrutiny before it can be trusted, or they were honestly explaining deeply flawed peer-reviewed literature, in which case climate science needs more scrutiny before it can be trusted. Skeptics like Judith Curry are providing that scrutiny -- they are saving climate science, not "denying" it.
The problem does -- or at least did -- go as deep as the peer-reviewed literature. The "Hockey Stick Chart", which you pretend is "not a thing" despite its having appeared in Nature, exaggerated an apparent trend of the present by minimizing the changes of the past. Nature is a peer-reviewed science journal.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote: (And your "defenses" are of course still based on de-exaggerated forms of the wild claims ...
That you don't understand how my sources support my arguments doesn't place them beyond understanding. I point to exaggerations by credentialed climate scientists, you take out the exaggerations, claim they were never there, throw some ad hominems, and pat yourself on the back. You still don't seem to understand that tampering with the exaggerated data invalidates your argument, not mine.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: And that you made no attempt whatsoever to provide data to refute specific claims, settling instead for bald assertion.
Okay, 50 million homeless by 2011, there you go, a quantitative measure of fail. Anthony Watts had to cache it because the IPCC tried to bury it completely when 2011 rolled around without the 50 million.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote: Not all of these skeptics are climate scientists, but of those who aren't they're in related fields. (Forbes' source)
Neither did I. Why do you think I cited the original source?
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote: Science does correct itself over time, and so many scientists can't get things so wrong for so many years as happened with climate science without at least a few unbiased scientists like Judith Curry noticing and using their superior understanding of the available evidence to bring other scientists along. In time the erroneous view dies of starvation and science marches on.
Climate science predictions take many years to mature. Like it or not the only way to keep out the junk science is to scrutinize the failures of the past.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: ... you could conduct an actual literature review of modern climate science in order to actually understand it ...
Yes, the great CO2 forcing question. I did mention Judith Curry, right? Prove her wrong, we'll talk.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: before slagging off on it as delusional groupthink because you disagree with the straw man who lives in your head.
You forgot the failed predictions of climate doom made by credentialed climate scientists. By ignoring them you're creating the strawman. I didn't imagine a credentialed climate scientist predicting the River Platte would run dry, and I certainly didn't predict 50 million people would be made homeless by 2011. I'm just a skeptical observer.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: ... you merely opened with the judgement that all climate scientists were wrong ...
Did they teach you to make absurd generalizations in science class?
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: ... Climategate ... and the "Hockey Stick" ... didn't exactly help your credibility.
You should've seen what it did to Michael Mann ...
So we're back to you pretending the crazy never happened despite documented, published evidence. Welcome to the Church of Warmism.
(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote:(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote: ... the difference between a claim that something is exaggerated versus a claim it does not exist.
Of course. Ironically what that did was prove to me you have no idea what this conversation is about. If my argument is that climate scientists damaged their credibility by making wildly exaggerated claims then you "point out" the difference between exaggeration and outright fabrication you're not only not making a coherent argument, you're not even understanding the argument in the first place. Ironically when you acknowledge the exaggerations in the course of defending the underlying trend you're actually making my point for me. Perhaps now you understand?
(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote: Arguing as if I were claiming global warming is a fabrication...
You must be joking! Let's see ...
(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote: Your "argument" - if I may call it that - seemingly amounts to:
The whole point of an exaggeration hoax is to stretch the truth until the exaggeration effectively becomes a lie; "Sharknado Science" if you will. If I call something an exaggeration and you claim I'm trying to falsify the phenomenon upon which the exaggeration is based ... well, you have it exactly backwards, don't you? We have our first citation. Continuing ...
(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote: And you are aware that being an exaggeration means it's still based on something, right?
Are you aware the premise of your question means we have our second citation? And finally (drum roll):
(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote: You: Climate change, if it exists at all, is not related to human activity.
You: Putting words in my mouth.
I think I've made my point. You're only just now figuring out what this conversation is even about. The problem with climate science is its long history of exaggerations. Addressing that honestly is the first step toward fixing it.
(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote: ... you appear to consider "it still snowed" to disprove the statement "it will snow less in the future ...
Alas, appearances have apparently deceived to you. Let's try again:
"It still snows" -- multiple snowfalls over multiple years within the predicted range in fact -- disproves, "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." (And the clock on this one has expired. Children from the affected date range and area still know quite well what snow is.)
CAGW is an exaggeration hoax; Viner, a credentialed climate scientist, contributed to that hoax when he made his exaggerated snowfall claim. The people who hired him touted his "worldwide reputation", completely unconcerned about his wildly exaggerated claims.
A multi-decade record of accurate predictions, with error that breaks ~50/50 over and under.
A climate science community that responds with skepticism and scrutiny to doomsday predictions and time-pressure sales tactics ("urgent change", "tipping point", etc.) rather than uncritically embracing them.
Judith Curry, John Christy, Richard Linzen, and other skeptics doing real science accepted as reasonable and allowed into the peer-reviewed literature rather than dismissed as "Deniers". It's not so much about the skeptics as it is about those who attack them: religion is as religion does. There's no room for that in real science. (The fallout from Climategate has actually helped a great deal; the progress is encouraging.)
27-02-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: Global climate change
(27-02-2014 03:46 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:(25-02-2014 10:05 AM)cjlr Wrote: "without immediate action we're all doomed to a global warming apocalypse"
It's a possibility. That doesn't mean it will happen.
IMHO, the climate models have shown themselves to be fairly useless in terms of predictive capacity, and maybe they should be scrapped. If they can't predict average world temperatures over a 15 year period, then why would we trust them to be accurate 50 or 100 years from now?
But that doesn't mean that human CO2 has had no impact on the climate, or that whatever impact it has had, won't grow as we continue to pump ever more CO2 into the atmosphere. We just don't know what the result will be. It might be fairly trivial, or it could be catastrophic. A conservative approach would suggest we take modest steps to curb it.
To me though, the primary arguments against oil and coal in particular, are not climate change, but the pollution they produce other than CO2. It's estimated that over 100,000 people die a year from asthma attacks brought on directly by high ground level ozone from auto emissions. The overall quality of life in large cities is greatly diminished by it.
Softly, softly, catchee monkey.