The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

[sean miguel]

And don't forget cow flatulence. That's a huge threat to the earth according to the Church of Global Warmingism of Latter Day Changists.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Actually in addition to being a globam-warming denier, Christopher Booker is also a evolution denier...

Maybe he is a Supreme being believer, they tend to not accept the theory of evolution. You, know there are some pretty sharp people in this world that aren't atheists. Bless your little French heart.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I always find it interesting that said evidence is in fact out there, for everyone to read (as is reed), but most 'skeptics' rather be 'read' (as in red) it through biased filters like Christopher Brooker.

The problem still remains that your evidence has not been established as scientific fact.

...I had a rather mean point here, but in hindsight it's not constructive. I'll just say: don't get full of yourself when plenty of examples on this board alone exists to deflate that idea.

What were you going to do? Call me a doodyhead?

 

[Rattrap]

Actually in addition to being a globam-warming denier, Christopher Booker is also a evolution denier...

Way ahead of you.

Just a question though... Why is it that people who aren't convinced there is something like global warming, won't take scientists seriously. But when a guy like this runs along with poor data, incomplete research, and a poor record of reliability (google it), they do take it seriously? Sure, there isn't a 100% proof, only a consensus. But does that mean they are attacking dissenters just because? Or because dissenters can't furnish concrete evidence themselves?

I just found a very interesting article about partisanship and critical thinking. I'll be posting a new thread about it, but the gist of it is: as soon as you make any statement, even simple statements of fact and inject any potential source of partisanship into it, people throw facts out the window (the example was, paraphrasing: "Has unemployment gone up or down since 2008?" versus "Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama took office?" - the results were predictably partisan).

Please, define evidence. 130 years of data mining cannot produce any evidence of climate change on a millions of years scale. Not even on a 100k years scale. Not even on a 10k scale, not even on a 1000 scale.

Given the majority of people with educations far above yours or mine in this area disagreeing with you here, I'm going to have to side with them over you and a right-wing journalist citing a right-wing blog.

And yes, let's follow the money:

Did you read the link?

the so called "green" energy and recycling industries which should save us from the climate change catastrophe move more money, attract more investments and employ more people than the oil sands industry, already.

Interesting that you've narrowed it down to the 'oil sands industry'. Try OPEC and you'll have a solid line here.

Sorry if i'm a bit skeptical about theories (not evidence) by scientists financed and sponsored by a multi-trillion dollars industry.

And while too busy looking over your shoulder at that boogeyman, you run blindly into the arms of the other monolithic industry.

since instead of climate change it was called global warming.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

The issue is not climate change or global warming or global cooling, because those have always existed. The issue is: are they caused by human lifestyle/behavior or are they natural cycles? Assuming that data mining has been correct and not altered, you cannot prove that the change is caused by humans since you have no records at all before 1880.

I've been resisting this thus far, but: evidence?

"Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".
Likely?? Like in it might be true? Seriously?
I do a search for likely on that page and it appears 16, i said SIXTEEN times. No wonder they are on the Google top ten for "climate change, likely".
I'm sorry, but likely and evidence don't walk hand in hand in my book.

I don't mean this to be insulting, but that last sentence tells me a lot about your credibility on a scientific topic.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

The problem that I have with the theory of climate change is that we are implementing drastic regulations and controls based upon a theory.

Then stop debating the science and start debating the regulations. As I said in another thread, even if climate change had absolutely zero to do with man, we're still piss-poor caretakers of our environment and this has negative consequences. This follows the most basic law of conservation. So how can we do better?

If climate change is such a threat to mankind and the planet then there should be at least 4 summits a year addressing the problem and should include every credible scientist/climatologist that the world has to offer.

This would require people to not be so ridiculously short-sighted. But they are, hence this debate. Hence reckless capitalism. Hell, there's a lot of human strife one could attribute to short-sightedness.

I am not hawking this guy as a whistle blower. But at the same time there are many credible scientists that don't adhere to this theory.

And yet all that has been produced here is a journalist who has cited some blog.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

I just found a very interesting article about partisanship and critical thinking. I'll be posting a new thread about it, but the gist of it is: as soon as you make any statement, even simple statements of fact and inject any potential source of partisanship into it, people throw facts out the window (the example was, paraphrasing: "Has unemployment gone up or down since 2008?" versus "Has unemployment gone up or down since Obama took office?" - the results were predictably partisan).

Interesting. Personally I think there's a lot of misunderstanding. Most people won't dig into this matter to try and understand this, but rely on the media (mostly television). Can't blame people for that. But what the media shows are usually just highlights of new findings (sometimes it looks like scientists completely changed their mind), debating politicians, and a fair amount of dissent. Not that there is something wrong with dissent but controversy also sells. Thus creating the impression there's this "war" going on in the scientific community and that they can't make up their mind. Creating an environment where people will take a stand for or against. Yet, as Johan already posted there's mostly consensus. So I think Blue Countach is right that there should be more communication between scientists and the general public to get information out instead of keeping this environment where people will argue each other using pseudo science.

 

[Jack Davenport]

So warmists? How has climate change affected you personally at this moment? Not in the future, but right now?

 

[GodsEmbryo]

So warmists? How has climate change affected you personally at this moment? Not in the future, but right now?

You do realize that all data collected "up to now" is actually showing you there's climate change and how it affects us "up to now", right?

Ecological responses to recent climate change (University of Vermont)
The current and future consequences of global change (NASA)
Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, WMO, UNEP)
Climate change impacts (Environmental defense fund)
Ecological Responses to recent climate change (International Weekly Journal of Science)
Ecological and and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change (University of Texas, Austin)
Impact of Regional climate change on human health (International Weekly Journal of Science)
The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems (Wiley Online Library)
A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK (Wiley Online Library)

Etc.

Personally, my balls are sweaty at the moment. Probably because I turned the heat up way to much. Talking about climate change

 

[Jack Davenport]

You do realize that all data collected "up to now" is actually showing you there's climate change and how it affects us "up to now", right?

Ecological responses to recent climate change (University of Vermont)
The current and future consequences of global change (NASA)
Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, WMO, UNEP)
Climate change impacts (Environmental defense fund)
Ecological Responses to recent climate change (International Weekly Journal of Science)
Ecological and and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change (University of Texas, Austin)
Impact of Regional climate change on human health (International Weekly Journal of Science)
The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems (Wiley Online Library)
A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK (Wiley Online Library)

Etc.

Personally, my balls are sweaty at the moment. Probably because I turned the heat up way to much. Talking about climate change

I spent way too many days in a classroom to take everything that has .edu attached to it seriously or the United Nations for that matter. Even NASA has walked back some of their findings for the past few years.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Let's see if we can do something about that

EDU rne Garcia - EDUrne Garcia

 

[Jack Davenport]

Let's see if we can do something about that

EDU rne Garcia - EDUrne Garcia

Well played ha ha

If more people from your POV approached this topic the way that you do, I think more gains could be made to bridging this gap between the skeptics and the climate change faithful.

 

[Rattrap]

I spent way too many days in a classroom to take everything that has .edu attached to it seriously or the United Nations for that matter. Even NASA has walked back some of their findings for the past few years.

You understand that when you complain about a lack of evidence, then are presented with plenty, and dismiss it all with basically "Yeah...nah" you have zero credibility, right? To even say you're interested in finding the truth is disingenuous BS at that point.

 

[Jack Davenport]

You understand that when you complain about a lack of evidence, then are presented with plenty, and dismiss it all with basically "Yeah...nah" you have zero credibility, right? To even say you're interested in finding the truth is disingenuous BS at that point.

You do realize that evidence isn't proof right? Evidence is a tool used to determine eventual proof and proof only exists in mathematics and logic. There is no such thing as scientific proof. You are delving in theory because there is a substantial lack of evidence.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Global warming has affected me by......um.........making me go out with only three layers instead of four.

 

[sean miguel]

i find myself crying for the earth more and hugging a tree that much harder.

 

[Rattrap]

You do realize that evidence isn't proof right? Evidence is a tool used to determine eventual proof and proof only exists in mathematics and logic. There is no such thing as scientific proof.

...and...? None of this is a rebuttal or defense to anything said.

You understand that when you complain about a lack of evidence, then are presented with plenty, and dismiss it all with basically "Yeah...nah" you have zero credibility, right? To even say you're interested in finding the truth is disingenuous BS at that point.

...still stands.

You are delving in theory...

As is all science.

...because there is a substantial lack of evidence.

...that you are willing to pay attention to. This is an entirely separate issue to the actual amount of evidence available.

As you have dis/missed them the first time around, have another look:

Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, WMO, UNEP)
Climate change impacts (Environmental defense fund)
Ecological Responses to recent climate change (International Weekly Journal of Science)
Ecological and and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change (University of Texas, Austin)
Impact of Regional climate change on human health (International Weekly Journal of Science)
The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems (Wiley Online Library)
A framework for assessing uncertainties in climate change impacts: Low-flow scenarios for the River Thames, UK (Wiley Online Library)

Etc.

I even got rid of those 'problematic' .edu and NASA links for you.

 

[Jack Davenport]

...and...? None of this is a rebuttal or defense to anything said.


...still stands.


As is all science.


...that you are willing to pay attention to. This is an entirely separate issue to the actual amount of evidence available.

As you have dis/missed them the first time around, have another look:

I even got rid of those 'problematic' .edu and NASA links for you.

You left the UN link in there which may be the most problematic of all of them. And it is not my obligation to rebut any of the claims as "science" are making them and they are unproven yet expect us to accept it as fact. It is the duty of science to substantiate these claims.

I guess we could keep going round and round about this but I don't know how many times I have to say that I am willing to keep an open mind about it as opposed to you, who will not entertain the thought that it could be wrong or at least there can be no solid conclusion for many years to come. I am pretty comfortable is saying that I am being the more reasoned party in this discussion.

I am not willing to keep an open mind about implementing excessive controls over a problem that has not yet been proven to be man made.

 

[xfire]

So warmists? How has climate change affected you personally at this moment? Not in the future, but right now?

Did you coin the term warmists? I'm not sure I would call myself a warmist, but, I definitely err on the side of cutting pollution and doing everything possible to leave nature and the environment as good or better than we found it, and that seems to be another point where conservatives lose me, shouldn't a conservative by definition be a conservationist?

 

[Jack Davenport]

Did you coin the term warmists? I'm not sure I would call myself a warmist, but, I definitely err on the side of cutting pollution and doing everything possible to leave nature and the environment as good or better than we found it, and that seems to be another point where conservatives lose me, shouldn't a conservative by definition be a conservationist?

Yes, when it comes to the Constitution, traditional values and limited government which has been in short supply up in Washington as of late.

 

[Rattrap]

You left the UN link in there which may be the most problematic of all of them.

Great, strike one more. And the rest? Or can you find excuses for them too?

And it is not my obligation to rebut any of the claims as "science" are making them and they are unproven yet expect us to accept it as fact. It is the duty of science to substantiate these claims.

It's your obligation to provide adequate support for your position, especially in the face of an ever-growing body of evidence, in order to be taken seriously on the subject. Thus far you have not.

I guess we could keep going round and round about this but I don't know how many times I have to say that I am willing to keep an open mind about it...

Bullshit you are. You've weakly resisted all calls to consider the evidence provided for you - a sign of someone with a very shut mind.

...as opposed to you, who will not entertain the thought that it could be wrong or at least there can be no solid conclusion for many years to come.

Show me evidence. I'll go where it leads. Until then, you're blowing hot air.

I am pretty comfortable is saying that I am being the more reasoned party in this discussion.

Your 'comfort' doesn't make you any less wrong.

The irony is, looking back at this thread, is that I've never once staked the claim "Man is indisputedly causing climate change in a manner described by the current scientific consensus". That's not even my debate, at its core; my debate is that people who refuse to accept evidence because it doesn't fit their preconcieved notions or partisan lens or whatever - are fools. Are scientists infallible? Of course not. That's why peer review is a thing. Are there scientists pumping out biased findings for money? Of course there are. But that goes both ways. And if you really want to tell me that the overwhelming majority of scientific institutions - from around the world - are all the take from whatever liberal boogyman that's in style at the moment, or are all somehow making the same mistakes, fine - pony up the evidence.

If you haven't got any, it's not skepticism you're practicing - it's just foolishness.

All of this is beside the fact, that even if the scientific consensus on climate change is entirely wrong (and yes, that's a possibility - just because it's a possibility doesn't mean it's smart or clever to stake your position on it), we're still incontrovertibly damaging our environment and ecosystems with much of the same behavior that's being linked to climate change.

In other words, even if all those scientists are completely wrong, we still need to make changes.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I have supported my position that I don't buy into an ideologically driven agenda to restrict business/progress based upon a theory that has not been proven. And I take exception even more that people within a field have or create data that suits said agenda. Moreover, the name calling that starts toward people that haven't swallowed the Kool-Aid. This tactic of ridiculing those that haven't fallen in line is the biggest turn off.

I have expertise in my line of work as well. That doesn't mean that if someone doesn't fall all over themselves heaping praise because I created a stronger case through the discovery process, or I successfully argued a case before a judge or jury and they still don't accept the result that they are idiots.

I certainly don't ridicule anyone that doesn't take my advice just because they are not in my profession or do not have faith in the legal system.