[Closed] Global warming again...........

To be fair, this just confirms that climate change is happening, it doesn't make any statement about what proportion of it is man-made versus natural.

To be fair, this just confirms that climate change is happening, it doesn't make any statement about what proportion of it is man-made versus natural.

Spot on, i don't think anyone disagrees that it is happening, the question is what proportion is man-made and can the planet cope?

Sadly, following the Climategate nonsense, the hardcore sceptics were denying that any climate change was happening at all, saying that the studies were all flawed due to badly placed weather stations and that all global warming stopped ten years ago.

This study aimed to address some of that misdirection and regain some confidence after Climategate.

So this gives the all-clear for proliferation of nuclear energy, yes?

😉

I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Again?

can the planet cope

of course the planet can cope - it has been through much wider swings than this before.

the question is how will it affect humans and how many will die as a result of the changing geomorphological landscapes and weather events that climate change will bring

There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Good point and so many of them can't even imagine that the way we live since the industrial revolution is anything other than the natural state of affairs.

The planet will survive, and humans are the last species that needs to worry about being wiped out. It's every other poor bloody species that will have to deal with our unplanned side effects.

The question that no one can answer is that if humans weren't here, would the planet be going through a natural cycle anyway? Based on the data we should, within the next few thousand years see a global reduction in temperatures in line with the natural cycles of the planet. The big question is, will this happen, or will mans impact upset this?

Nope, just yet one more "truthful" report stating the same scaremongering tosh that's been dealt out and debunked year after year, after year.. ad nausium..

"dozes off"

The Berkeley team has chosen to release the findings initially on its own website.

They are asking for comments and feedback [b]before preparing the manuscripts for formal scientific publication[/b].

So, a non peer reviewed study, using essentially the same dataset, comes out with a result that supports the consensus... can you imagine how much credence it would be given if the result was otherwise?

Just saying like 🙂

z11 youre taking the typical climate denier stance

in an effort to please a main grumble of theirs theyve opened their data up to review before publication
now they are getting flak for not having put it through the hated peer review process

and yes i think it would have been reported in the bbc if theyd found a -ve change (unlike the torygraph which seems to have ignored the story)

Zulu-Eleven - Member
So, a non peer reviewed study, using essentially the same dataset, comes out with a result that supports the consensus... can you imagine how much credence it would be given if the result was otherwise?

Just saying like

From what I gather it was rather carefully picked selection of data.

Here's a graph showing data from a different selection of trees which as I understand it are from broadly the same area:
[img] ?w=420&h=360[/img]

Yep they specifically kept this report as open as possible to avoid the Climategate criticisms and now the sceptics are flaming them for that too.

And they specifically tried to tackle the other main criticisms that the sceptics have made.

That's not bias or "ad nausium"... that's science. Do work, have it criticised, do more work.

ransos - Member
I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Yup, when you feed people enough lies they stop believing anything you say, and deny the truth of it.

A lot of sceptics have been turned into deniers thanks to the climategate scandals.

Deniers share an opinion with James Delingpole.

😆

What is the big deal here? I have only read the BBC link but there really seems to be only one "new" point. Berkeley are presenting the same point but with an argument that rejects the link between urban heat and overall temperatures. Interesting but hardly devasting news, or am I missing something?

I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics.

Ransos - agree with you first point but aren't the second and third sentences merely truisms?

Yup, when you feed people enough lies they stop believing anything you say, and deny the truth of it.

Yup. Interesting that this work was actually partly funded by deniers:

"Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming."

But now the deniers here want to dismiss it because it didn't produce the results they want.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

This chart from TFA...
[img] [/img]
...stops sometime around 2004.

Using the same method, I predict a golden age for the stockmarket and pension holders. One that will never end!
[img] [/img]

z11 youre taking the typical climate denier stance

You see - there you go, I point out a simple, unbiased, categorical fact, that its not a peer reviewed paper - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to point out, and suddenly I'm a "denier" 🙄

and you wonder why people are unwilling to debate reasonably.

I don't think this study matters very much. There is nothing you can say to the deniers that will change their minds. That's why their deniers and not sceptics

They rarely understand science never mind the actual discipline.
I like the way they massively cheery pick data whilst saying that is what the government funded cabal do in order to just tax us etc

Z-11 you are on very shaky ground if you want to complain about debating reasonably. You accept many of your posts are just scribbling across the forum - did i get your phrase right?
You just want a reaction you dont actually care about debate

"This , it is like trying to use facts to defeat a conspiracy theorist..it is futile"
should read
This , it is trying to use facts to defeat a conspiracy theorist..it is futile but funny

Using the same method, I predict a golden age for the stockmarket and pension holders. One that will never end!

You don't seem to have included 200 years worth of data there - so [i]exactly[/i] the same method eh?

aye you are right I like to just ask them how C02 works as a green house gas - most dont get that far as they fail to answer the starter for 10 of can you tell me the difference between weather and climate

I like the its all natural we have had this before to which they seem to think that burning fossil fuels is somehow natural...it is funny but it often just mocking the stupid.

You don't seem to have included 200 years worth of data there - so exactly the same method eh?

Yes, but Google's FTSE data only goes back as far as about 1980, and the stuff between then and 2002 doesn't really tie in with the point I'm tying to make.

stuff between then and 2002 doesn't really tie in with the point I'm tying to make.

😆

I like the its all natural we have had this before to which they seem to think that burning fossil fuels is somehow natural...it is funny but it often just mocking the stupid.

Funny thing is that many sceptics I've talked to are quite happy with "natural cycles" and will readily agree that the earth's climate can be influenced by "natural" things like volcanoes.

But for some reason they can't see the link when I point out that [url= http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html ]ALL the volcanoes in world, on land and in sea, produce around 200 million tonnes of CO2[/url] a year. Which is a lot, but it's less than 1% of man-made CO2 emissions (26.8 billion tonnes a year).

Yes good point but graham man made c02 is only a tiny fraction of al the C02 ther eis so we cant be making much difference 😉
I also like the way they tell us about the natural cycles - as if this knowledge does not come from the same government funded cabal of scientist who are lying to us.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

The onus must surely now be on the deniers to prove that burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate.

I'd like to think Brunel, Watt and Edison did this years ago before we started to fuel their developments by burning anything we could get our hands on, but I have this nagging feeling that they didn't.

Now whilst I keep my eyes well and truelly open on this matter and don't lean towards any side, the whole shouting of denier thing is rather immature way of debating, its the whole calling someone a Daily Mail reader approach to constructive debate, to essentially try and make them come of as a lesser person.

There is still just one fundamental thing for me that still requires attention:

I have never seen any evidence that the current additional output of CO2 from man is going to have a drastic affect on climate change above that of a natural cycle.

I have seen plenty of graphs and data manipulated by both sides trying to prove it one way or the other, but no one actually can prove anything.

I for one am a strong advocate of reducing our dependence and use on fossil fuels, it goes without saying, but the worlds political believes, taxation and energy policies are being based currently, on nothing but an unproven theory.

but the worlds political believes, taxation and energy policies are being based currently, on nothing but an unproven theory.

Bit like religion then. Which doesn't influence any country's policies...

The onus must surely now be on the deniers to prove that burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate.

I think the onus is actually on science to have a true debate on the issue. I think terms like deniers are far too emotive and tend to be used to quash debate rather than further it. There are so many levels to the debate that it becomes almost too difficult to follow. Plus this is another area where the impact of lobbyists clouds the debate on both sides.

Personally, I think that the sceptics are in the best position. The history of climate change is riddled with contradictory views (remember the 1970s and climate cooling or the greenhouse gas versus aersol (?) debate - one caused warming, the other cooling if I recall correctly.) and mis-information.

I think there is a lot more work that is required on both sides before we can genuinely reach a conclusion on the magnitude of man-made activities on climate change. And that does not make me a denier BTW!!

I have never seen any evidence that the current additional output of CO2 from man is going to have a drastic affect on climate change above that of a natural cycle.

Two points: firstly, should we wait another couple of decades till we can be absolutely sure that it is [i]definitely[/i] us altering the climate?

Secondly, currently we see changes in global temperature, with a "steep" rise that doesn't fit the normal cycles we know about. And over the same period mankind has gone from the pre-industrial age with hardly any emissions, to a post-industrial age with a couple of billions of tonnes of CO2 being pumped out every month.

That's not evidence and could well be coincidental, but I agree that it should really be up to the sceptics to show that there is no link, because on first glance it looks pretty damning.

Junky - I've been more than consistent on this one whenever we've debated the issue, and I approach this from a fairly scientific background.

I think that:

i) the data set is garbage, and in any other field of science would be binned.

ii) Man has, since time immemorial, looked for patterns in chaos.

The latter has been evident throughout pretty much all forms of human society in the way that they have looked to analyse and and then sought to blame, predict and control the sources of nature, or used the threat of impending doom to impose fear and control on society - be that the treat of volcano gods punishing us for our behaviour, or the sacrifice of virgins on the altar to ensure the return of the sun and a good harvest.

The two factors cause me to be skeptical of the reliability of the scientific data, and the morals of [b]any [/b]group of scientists who seek to predict the future, whatever their aim.

Personally, I think that the sceptics are in the best position. The history of climate change is riddled with contradictory views (remember the 1970s and climate cooling or the greenhouse gas versus aersol (?) debate - one caused warming, the other cooling if I recall correctly.) and mis-information.

Sceptisism is good science. That's why the small minority of people who believed in the global cooling thing were shown to be incorrect.

Ignoring the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming majority of people qualified in a subject area is not sceptisism.

should we wait another couple of decades till we can be absolutely sure that it is definitely us altering the climate?

we can wait and see and then just dump iron into the seas to fix it:

http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm

Ignoring the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming majority of people qualified in a subject area is not sceptisism.

Geocentric universe?
Tectonic Plates?
Neutrino's and the speed of light?

Neutrino's and the speed of light?

Erm... the overwhelming majority said that was bollocks. And funnily enough it turned out to be bollocks. What's your point?

Erm... the overwhelming majority said that was bollocks. And funnily enough it turned out to be bollocks. What's your point?

Including the scientists performing the experiment. A perfect example of sceptisism...

Ransos - again I agree and disagree.

Sceptisism is good science.

Agree

Ignoring the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming majority of people qualified in a subject area is not sceptisism.

Time will tell on this one. The same argument was presented to me by Europhiles who held a dogmatic view on the benefits of the single currency.

I will reserve the right to maintain a healthy scepticism with the science here. I fear the heavy hand of money and lobbying all over this area and too much dogma.

I will reserve the right to maintain a healthy scepticism with the science here. I fear the heavy hand of money and lobbying all over this area and too much dogma.

The Euro has nothing to do with science, so isn't relevant to this discussion. And if you're worried about power and corruption, you'd be better off looking at who funds the denialists. Remember that climate scientists have been consistently saying the same thing for decades now, well before anyone listened, and despite an openly hostile US government (GW Bush).

The problem with some deniers is they draw on past climatic events which in their eyes don't fit the anthropogenic climate change argument. Don't they stop to think that perhaps scientists may have actually studied and tried to explain such events, let alone encorporated them into their climatic modelling?

I still think this is funny if you agree with the guy or not.

Ransos - I am not looking for an argument on this!! Of course the Euro has something to do with science!! Economics is a science?? But that's not the point. This was merely an example against accepting the fact that "the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming (however that is defined?) majority or people qualified (again however this is defined?) in a subject area" is not necessarily a concluding factor. I'm sure the majority of people thought that the world was flat at the time.

I have no doubt that there is aggressive funding on both sides of the debate - hence my preference to remain open to further analysis coupled with scepticism. I am neither a denier or an accepter at the moment.

By the time time tells us it will be too late. That's like saying keep smoking lets see what happens. That also scientists dangerously predicting the future as well zulu -11 . I assume your animal experiments predicted what would happen in the future if you took x for example. why not take some radiation or some arsenic after all who knows what will happen.
Obviously science cannot and should not make any "prediction " so who know what will happen.
+ 1 for dragging economics into a science debate.

Economics is a science

"the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming (however that is defined?) majority or people qualified in a subject area" is not necessarily a concluding factor.

Oh no "Groundhog Day"!!

Well scientists are currently telling us that there is no link between mobile phones and cancer. So JY what would you do, keep using the phone just as people kept smoking in the middle of last century.

See how contradictory it all becomes.

Ransos - I am not looking for an argument on this!! Of course the Euro has something to do with science!! Economics is a science?? But that's not the point.

The Euro was proposed for political reasons as well as economic ones. Economics is a social science, like politics or sociology, so not relevant to this discussion.

I'm sure the majority of people thought that the world was flat at the time.

There's no evidence that this is the case. See? I'm a sceptic.

"the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming (however that is defined?) majority or people qualified in a subject area" is not necessarily a concluding factor.

99 doctors tell you that you need a life saving operation. One doctor says you do not. What do you do?

I always ask both sides:

What would it take to change your mind?

A denier will state either 'nothing' or 'complete and utter proof'. The former is obviously useless and the latter simply cannot ever be done in anything but mathematics. You can prove 1+1=2 but you cannot prove anything like, for example, gravity, as they are all models of what we observe.

A true skeptic would answer something like 'when the balance of evidence points in the direction X then it is more likely to occur'. That's my position and to-date I am seeing quite a bit of evidence so I think it is most probably happening. Then again I'm a scientist by training and am naturally skeptical of everything.

What I am seeing on the deniers side is something like the argument of the 'god of the gaps', splitting hairs more and more finely in order to 'win'.

Well scientists are currently telling us that there is no link between mobile phones and cancer. So JY what would you do, keep using the phone just as people kept smoking in the middle of last century.

No, the scientists are telling us that one particular study was unable to establish a link. Which isn't the same thing at all.

Well scientists are currently telling us that there is no link between mobile phones and cancer. So JY what would you do, keep using the phone just as people kept smoking in the middle of last century.

Erm.. yes. Exactly that.

have you stopped using your mobile phone because some non-scientific source (the Daily Mail?) said there was a link to cancer?

I use silver earings with magnetised water in them ...you can never be too careful and it make me look like a pirate 😉

On your broader point yes "conventional wisdom" may be wrong but you cant just say that as some sort of proof that an individual issue is wrong. You also need to prove why it is wrong in this case and stating that "fact" does not achieve that goal.

I still think this is funny if you agree with the guy or not.

I don't get it, that analogy is completly meaningless? No?

[img] [/img]

Yes good point but graham man made c02 is only a tiny fraction of al the C02 ther eis so we cant be making much difference

I'm still worried that everything's so cO2 centric myself.

[i]We[/i] may or may not be making [i]much difference[/i] but a difference is occurring and along with all the livestock farting it's causing permafrost to release Methane ... and that's a much bigger kettle of fish to turn into a black pot! Didn't I read somewhere that it's up to 10X worse as a greenhouse gas?

EDIT: Wiki says 72 times but I'll take that with a pinch of NaCl
2nd EDIT (see what I did there .. with more help from Wiki)

Didn't I read somewhere that it's up to 10X worse as a greenhouse gas?

23 times worse.

[img] [/img]

I still think this is funny if you agree with the guy or not.
>

/p>

I don't get it, that analogy is completly meaningless? No?

Also:
[img] [/img]

mobile phones and cancer=
" "The extended follow-up allowed us to investigate effects in people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more, and this long-term use was not associated with higher risks of cancer.

"However, as a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy users or after even longer induction periods than 10-15 years cannot be ruled out, further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised"

Not exactly mobile phones don't cause cancer is it ....Ransos post is a micro study of the climate debate science vs people who skim read and misquote to achieve a preselected conclusion.

If you want to see something really funny with Delingpole in it, then watch this:

if you want post a link check the one we are commenting on first 😉

Same one DUDE 😛

Blimey a lynch mob!! And I am not even a denier!!

I do not read the Daily Wail but have always chosen to minimise the use of my mobile. But please read my posts - I explained the contradiction here!!

JY - with a Masters in Economics I feel justified to argue better in that area but happy to admit mistakes when appropriate. Ditto, doctors (people who are qualified to know better) mis-diagnosed my mother's illness for 30 years, so excuse me for remaining sceptical!!

A true skeptic would answer something like 'when the balance of evidence points in the direction X then it is more likely to occur'. That's my position and to-date I am seeing quite a bit of evidence so I think it is most probably happening. Then again I'm a scientist by training and am naturally skeptical of everything.

I tend to agree with this. But, and its a big BUT, there is a difference between accepting the existence of global warning and taking a non-sceptical view of the causes.

if you want post a link check the one we are commenting on first

Same one DUDE

Ahem...that's the trouble with pretending to be working. 😳

look we all agree on cynicism i think so why not give us your explanation and we will tell you what the nice scientists say about it.
You cant just go ah sod it I am being a cynic whatever the evidence says an not offer an account.

Ps as a psychologist -see a proper scientist - i am happy to explain why reinforcement makes you thinks its a science using my "laws" but they are somewhat weaker than Boyles law or proper science. Give us 500 years then thismay not be true of our disciplines but if i am honest i am sceptical about that claim - we are but alchemists at present 😉

JY - I assume that this is directed at me? Simply because I haven't the time or frankly the inclination to go though the whole debate on STW. That's not to run from debate or to take sides. It is simply because I believe that a lot more scientific analysis and evidence is required before we can reach a conclusion.

ditto and economist can argue why his/her subject is a science - but so what?

Last post here, far more important things to do!

Junky

That's like saying keep smoking lets see what happens. That also scientists dangerously predicting the future as well zulu -11 . I assume your animal experiments predicted what would happen in the future if you took x for example. why not take some radiation or some arsenic after all who knows what will happen.
Obviously science cannot and should not make any "prediction " so who know what will happen.

Sorry, fine, you're absolutley right... now, if you'll just show me the control sample planet that you used to prove to me the global warming concept then I'll happily shut up 🙄

Like I said - people look for patterns in a chaotic system, its hard wired into us:

[img] [/img]

I have seen plenty of graphs and data manipulated by both sides trying to prove it one way or the other, but no one actually can prove anything.

What would you consider to be "proof"?

Whilst Delingpole is an idiot and not someone I am very keen on, the example is extremely poor.

Comparing the knowledge, trials and results on Cancer care with a hypothesis on how the planet will react to additional CO2 is simply not comparable.

Also, if you have ever been for cancer treatment you will also realise that there are actually a number of alternatives offered to you based on trial medicine, the consensus thing is a poor example.

The fact of the matter is that the planet (before humans) has experienced and reacted too huge rises in CO2 before and will again based on historical data, what you can not say for certain is whether or not the human contribution is significant enough to change the way the planet reacts.

As I stated previously, I am not on the side of the sceptics in anyway whatsoever and am a firm believer in conservation of natural resources, and I sure as hell don't think we do nothing and just wait to find out, the issue I have is with the apparent certainty that scientists have in that we are all doomed and its all our fault, when in fact, there is no scientific evidence to prove this.

Calling people names and trying to mock their input only shows a weak argument and debating style.

What would you consider to be "proof"?

I don't think there will be proof available within our lifetime, hence the comment about not waiting to find out.

I believe that a lot more scientific analysis and evidence is required before we can reach a conclusion.

Yep, give it a couple of hundred years and if the planet hasn't drowned and we can still breath the atmosphere then it was probably nothing to worry about.

[img] [/img]

now, if you'll just show me the control sample planet that you used to prove to me the global warming concept then I'll happily shut up

That's rather the point. We don't have one. We can't [u]prove[/u] it till it after it has happened and some folk would prefer to avoid that - even if it means we are avoiding something that wasn't going to happen anyway.

you moved the goal post Zulu I will take that as a win as you no longer want to argue about science predicting the future
Thanks

Comparing the knowledge, trials and results on Cancer care with a hypothesis on how the planet will react to additional CO2 is simply not comparable.

I think you've missed the point. This is about Delingpole rejecting the evidence presented by the experts, who nearly all say the same thing. Why would he choose to believe the opinion of a tiny minority instead? It's as logical as believing the one doctor who says you don't need an operation.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, i think its a terrible analogy.

now, if you'll just show me the control sample planet that you used to prove to me the global warming concept then I'll happily shut up

That's rather the point. We don't have one.

A very good point. I'm sure it frustrates the scientific method to have to deal with that, but to be fair, tough titties.

you moved the goal post Zulu

bollocks

there's a huge difference between analysis of observational data and forward extrapolation, (prediction) and placebo controlled comparative studies - and you well know it

there's a huge difference between analysis of observational data and forward extrapolation, (prediction) and placebo controlled comparative studies - and you well know it

That's true. Interesting then, that the models are very good at predicting the observational data.

Let's say the evidence was exactly balanced and it was a straight 50/50 whether we were causing climate change or not.

Should we:

A) do nothing in the hope that we are not causing it and suffer terrible global consequences if we are?

or

B) do something and if it turns out we were not causing it then suffer some mockery (while breathing our nice clean air)?

that the models are very good at predicting the observational data.

Really? Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be virtually no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why 😉

[img] [/img]

FFS - don't argue with Zulu on this one. Nothing will convince a confirmed sceptic who dosn't want to listen

Really? Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be [i]virtually [/i]no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why

everyone who understand the difference between climate and weather.

Love the use of "virtually" - so there has been a warming trend? Needs a longer timescale than ten years - and if you start from an exceptionally warm year.................

Love the use of "virtually" - so there has been a warming trend? Needs a longer timescale than ten years - and if you start from an exceptionally warm year.................

Ah, the classic cherry pick tactic - using 1998 as your base year. Funny how they never choose 1997, or 1999.