Jump to content

Who here is a global warming skeptic?


Recommended Posts

 

Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?

 

Dodgy? Why to you use such slander? Is that your only tactic? Discredit reputable scientists?

 

As for my statement, I said that because what I did was straightforward, simple, and for small changes, nearly linear. Anyone understanding what is done with energy budget would understand that. Those who just are true believers of what the consensus is, should not be debating in my opinion. At least be able to follow and understand what is being said.

 

OK. Back to one paper. How about his previous work on the topic:

 

http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727.pdf

 

How about his biography:

 

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-7451

 

How about a list of some other works he did:

 

http://www.hindawi.com/16572439/

 

I find it ironic, that the same likes of people who call me a denier, are in such denial themselves. Wouldn't it be prudent to research this scientist a bit before slandering him?

 

I ask that you back up your use of "dodgy" please.

 

dodg·y
ˈdäjē/
adjective
Britishinformal
adjective: dodgy; comparative adjective: dodgier; superlative adjective: dodgiest
  1. dishonest or unreliable.
    "a dodgy secondhand car salesman"
    • potentially dangerous.
      "activities like these could be dodgy for your heart"
    • of low quality.

 

Is "dodgy" your professional assessment, or are you just a naysayer?

 

Look. I understand your reaction to assign fault to a paper that is contrary to belief. Problem is, you have not found any actual fault. Only innuendo.

 

"What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?"

No. Posting a single decent paper would do.

But you didn't. Why is that?

Nobody asked you to do anything like post a library did they?

No.

So, what you did there is launch a straw man attack.

If you have to resort to logical fallacies to back up your point, not only does it put you in breach of the forum's rules, but it makes it clear that you don't have a valid argument to put.

 

 

I explained why it's dodgy- they are a "pay to publish" site- vanity publishing or, at least, very close to it.

 

However, even if we accept the paper at face value, what it says is that the effect of CO2 on warming is 70% of what the IPCC says.

 

So the paper you are citing as evidence that AGW doesn't exist says that it does- but it's a smaller effect that the IPCC figures.

 

That's not the same as saying it doesn't exist is it?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 942
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data ga

Lots of things.   I am pretty well convinced that there is a problem with CO2 levels and decreasing Ph of the oceans. This could be serious indeed.   I am also convinced, based on isotope abundan

Can you please post some kind of evidence - preferably new evidence - which made you come to this conclusion? And FOX News does not count. Instead of forcing the climate sciences to "prove" that clim

Posted Images

 

 

Can you actually tell us why all the other models are wrong or do you only have argument from authority in your arsenal?

I don't appeal to authority like those who say "consensus" apparently do.

 

Please don't do that. I never said "all" models are wrong.

 

Do you have a real question?

 

Do you really want to waste a thread with such broad generalities? Should I ignore you?

"What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?"

No. Posting a single decent paper would do.

But you didn't. Why is that?

 

I have now posted at least two good papers. Not my fault you deny they are decent.

 

If you have to resort to logical fallacies to back up your point, not only does it put you in breach of the forum's rules, but it makes it clear that you don't have a valid argument to put.

 

Hmm...

 

This is a thread titled "who here is a global warming skeptic."

 

Does this mean my opinion and reasons need to be peer reviewed?

 

Logical fallacy is so subjective also. Can you explicitly tell us what I did as a logical fallacy? Doesn't it hinge on the opinion of the reader in most cases?

 

 

I explained why it's dodgy- they are a "pay to publish" site- vanity publishing or, at least, very close to it.

 

 

Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?

 

 

However, even if we accept the paper at face value, what it says is that the effect of CO2 on warming is 70% of what the IPCC says.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Thos paper quantified it as CO2 sensitivity, but uses forcing values as well. I don't recall it saying or implying that CO2 cause 70% as much temperature change as the IPCC says, but I believe that's about right for the forcing in the paper.

 

Do you remember the words or can you quote the paragraph?

 

I am inclined to think you are confusing forcing with sensitivity.

 

 

 

 

So the paper you are citing as evidence that AGW doesn't exist says that it does- but it's a smaller effect that the IPCC figures.

 

That's not the same as saying it doesn't exist is it?

 

 

Wait one damn minute!

 

I never said, never have said, and never will say AGW does not exist!

 

Just how do you extrapolate that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't appeal to authority like those who say "consensus" apparently do.

 

You've continually appealed to the authority of Hermann Harde as proof of your sole paper's veracity.

 

 

Please don't do that. I never said "all" models are wrong.

 

Well, to be technically correct all models ARE wrong, in that they are a simplification of reality and therefore differ from it.

 

The point I am making is that Hermann Harde's model is in disagreement with other published models (I've cited one). What is the reason to use his over others?

 

Try not appealing to the complexity of the paper or the supposed expertise of the author - neither have any bearing on why this model is correct and the others are in error.

 

 

Do you have a real question?

 

The same could be asked of you:

Can you critique the paper, or do you only have low blows in your arsenal?

 

Do you really want to waste a thread with such broad generalities? Should I ignore you?

 

Glass houses and stones....

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You've continually appealed to the authority of Hermann Harde as proof of your sole paper's veracity.

 

 

As evidence that supports my beliefs, yes. As appealing to authority, no.

 

I have only been in this forum for a couple days now. You would be wise not to stick with your initial impressions/assumptions of me. I have read, linked, commented on hundreds of papers over the years. Just because I am new here, doesn't mean I am new to the topic. Part of the reason I am reluctant to link and comment more than I do, is because it would be redundant to what I have already done. You'll find me more motivated in the future with newer discussions.

 

 

 

Well, to be technically correct all models ARE wrong, in that they are a simplification of reality and therefore differ from it.

 

I can agree with that. My perception is that most climate models fail to stay in bound of their predictions after some time.

 

 

The point I am making is that Hermann Harde's model is in disagreement with other published models (I've cited one). What is the reason to use his over others?

 

 

Nobody should have a problem with that. Science is an ever learning process. Who is the real denier if a paper is shunned because it falls outside of consensus?

 

 

 

Try not appealing to the complexity of the paper or the supposed expertise of the author - neither have any bearing on why this model is correct and the others are in error.

 

 

I agree to jump to that conclusion would be a mistake. Did you read and understand what he did? I find it refresing that he isn't using 70's assessments of sensitivity. As I recall, I was applauding it's complexity when someone referred to it as simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My perception is that most climate models fail to stay in bound of their predictions after some time.

Indeed. Over the past several years, the data collected shows the models to be consistently too conservative and cautious in their predictions, and indicates that climate change is actually occurring more rapidly and intensely than models forecasted.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=51

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your caps lock key appears broken. This is a science forum. Calling a study "drivel" based on nothing more than personal incredulity makes your position not only laughably dismissible, it's against the rules.

 

You have dismissed it. You say you have easily refuted it. OK fine.

 

The idea that in the fable of the Emperor's new cloths there would have been (today) all the fashion magazines congratulating the designer of the non-cloths would have given you the ammunition to also easily refute and dismiss with a laugh the point that the man was naked.

 

Sometimes pointing out the bleeding obvious that old people like to retire to warmer places rather than cold places like where live in Sheffield in the UK does not have supporting peer reviewed journals. It's far too bleedingly obvious to have any sort of funding for a paper.

 

You will not convince me that a 2 degree warming will cause England to be less hospitable for humans and I will not convince you that it will be nicer.

 

Those others who read this exchange might have the capacity to make up their own minds though. I urge such people to have a holiday in the UK. It's a great place full of history culture and all the world's landscapes in miniature, except deserts. Get beyond London and Stratford though. They are the worst bits, well except for Barnsley....

This is a thread titled "who here is a global warming skeptic."

 

Does this mean my opinion and reasons need to be peer reviewed?

 

Logical fallacy is so subjective also. Can you explicitly tell us what I did as a logical fallacy? Doesn't it hinge on the opinion of the reader in most cases?

 

Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?

 

 

 

Now now, you'll be banned. Pointing out the obvious is a logical fallacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Over the past several years, the data collected shows the models to be consistently too conservative and cautious in their predictions, and indicates that climate change is actually occurring more rapidly and intensely than models forecasted.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=51

Skeptical Science?

 

Really?

 

An activist blog site...

 

They have some nice cherry picked examples. Why don't you think they included the examples that were, for example, less warming than predicted?

 

They are far from unbiased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have dismissed it. You say you have easily refuted it. OK fine.

 

1) When it was pointed out that an average increase in temperature of 2 degrees doesn't mean that every day of the year is exactly 2 degrees warmer, you ignored it.

2) When it was pointed out to you that the prediction was actually that severe hot weather events would become more frequent and severe, you again, ignored it.

3) When it was pointed out that mortality increases during severe hot weather events in the UK, as ridiculous as it seems and how much obvious evidence to the contrary there is, you denied it.

4) When a study demonstrates the logical connection between predicted increased severe hot weather events and predicted increases in mortality, you baselessly dismiss it.

 

Don't have an "emperor has no clothes" argument, you have a "world is 2000 years old, crystals heal cancer, chemtrails control our thoughts, Uri Geller is a wizard, there's a veliociraptor in my basement" pile of horse excrement, to put it politely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Logical fallacy is so subjective also. Can you explicitly tell us what I did as a logical fallacy? Doesn't it hinge on the opinion of the reader in most cases?

 

 

 

Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?

 

 

Re "Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?"

No.

A logical fallacy is a matter of logic, not of opinion.

In respect of your plainly pejorative point "I take it that you want pal reviewed material over explanations of how and why."

I said "Either would do, but please don't make up facts- those have to be from a reputable source."

 

And I made the observation that

"You have, thus far, provided precisely one "citation" to support your assertion and it seems from a vanity publisher"

I have already explained (In fact I did it in the same post) why I think your citation is from a vanity publisher (or something close to it)

 

And you replied

"I agree I have not supported everything I said."

and asked

"Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more?"

I commented

"No, you haven't supported anything which you have said."

 

And explained that

"One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support."

 

And suddenly you leapt to

"Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?"

which is nothing to do with anything which had been said before.

 

Now there is no way to get from what had been said to the idea of emailing a library.

You were not asked by anyone to email a library.

So your introduction of that idea as if it was in response to something for which you had been asked is (at best) a straw man.

 

That's a logical fallacy.

Not a "subjective" but a failure of logic.

 

Show us how you came to the notion that someone had asked you to email a library when, at the time, you were being asked to provide a single decent paper, or accept that you launched a straw man attack.

 

You have dismissed it. You say you have easily refuted it. OK fine.

 

The idea that in the fable of the Emperor's new cloths there would have been (today) all the fashion magazines congratulating the designer of the non-cloths would have given you the ammunition to also easily refute and dismiss with a laugh the point that the man was naked.

 

...

You will not convince me that a 2 degree warming will cause England to be less hospitable for humans and I will not convince you that it will be nicer.

...

...

it's part of the story of the emperor's new clothes that, even after the child points out that the clothes don't exist, the procession carries on. They ignore reality; that's part of the point of the tale. It's not clear that anything has changed on that score.

 

It's probably true that you won't convince me that hot weather doesn't kill people.

That's because the evidence- the death toll- says otherwise.

 

Do you think you should be able to convince me of something that doesn't agree with reality?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re "Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?"

No.

 

What do you call this:

 

 

I explained why it's dodgy- they are a "pay to publish" site- vanity publishing or, at least, very close to it.

 

 

 

Do I smell a hint of logical fallacy?

 

 

What you are doing is like an Ad Hominem attack, but against a publisher. "The paper cannot be good because it's a vanity publication."

 

Please don't say I'm using logical fallacies if you are going to.

 

Shouldn't you be commenting on the paper instead of the publisher?

 

Yep... Logical fallacy in my book.

And I made the observation that

"You have, thus far, provided precisely one "citation" to support your assertion and it seems from a vanity publisher"

I have already explained (In fact I did it in the same post) why I think your citation is from a vanity publisher (or something close to it)

 

And you replied

"I agree I have not supported everything I said."

and asked

"Tell me, how hard would it be for you to source uncommon material you learned 10 years ago or more?"

I commented

"No, you haven't supported anything which you have said."

 

And explained that

"One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support."

 

And suddenly you leapt to

"Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?"

which is nothing to do with anything which had been said before.

 

 

 

Why are you so caught up in this? I was explaining my reasons why I am classed as a skeptic, but gave reason why I didn't agree that was the right term.

 

Isn't this thread titled "Who here is a global warming skeptic?"

 

Should you be reported for hijacking this thread? Making it about me?

 

Why should I be expected to source my reasons, especially when many are so old. Can you remember why you adopted certain beliefs over the years?

 

Isn't this a thread about us, not science?

 

How do I source myself?

 

I will admit being less than cooperative with you, but that is because I find you rather irritating. You are relentless at not accepting my reasons not to elaborate. I’m not going out of my way to comply with what are obviously, becoming demands. Why should I go out of my way to justify my beliefs to you in such a thread?

 

Now if we are in a thread about solar changes, I will source my material.

 

If we are in a thread about CO2, or other greenhouse gasses, I will source my material.

 

Etc, etc, etc.

 

How about this. Since I am new here, find an old thread you would like my views on and present it to me. Wouldn't a different thread be more appropriate?

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. Since I am new here...

You may be new here, WC, but some of us have interacted with you on other sites and it's sad that your posts haven't improved in quality or changed in any way to help them better align with reality during the intervening years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You will not convince me that a 2 degree warming will cause England to be less hospitable for humans and I will not convince you that it will be nicer.

 

 

That's a tacit admission that you have no intent to discuss science, nor are you a skeptic. You will not be convinced, by your own declaration.

What you are doing is like an Ad Hominem attack, but against a publisher. "The paper cannot be good because it's a vanity publication."

 

No, it's not much like ad hominem at all. Vanity publications are not peer-reviewed, which is relevant to credibility. Ad hominem is an attack that is irrelevant to the discussion, like saying someone is not to be trusted because they are of some ethnicity or religion, or some other description. That's not the case here. Avoiding peer review is germane to the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a tacit admission that you have no intent to discuss science, nor are you a skeptic. You will not be convinced, by your own declaration.

LOL...

 

For just 2 degrees?

 

How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...

 

For just 2 degrees?

 

How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable?

 

Do people die in hot conditions? I don't think this is that tough of a problem to figure out, since we already have evidence of what happens when heat waves hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that vanity publishing sites are dodgy is that, in essence, they will publish anything if you pay them to.

There's no valid editorial review and no meaningful peer review.

So there's no good reason to trust anything they publish.

 

That's not a logical fallacy, it's a deduction.

 

There's a second, albeit less robust, reason not to trust papers published; why wasn't it published in a "better" journal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do people die in hot conditions? I don't think this is that tough of a problem to figure out, since we already have evidence of what happens when heat waves hit.

 

I though we were speaking of 2 degrees in England. Not Alabama, New York, Texas, etc.

 

Are you suggesting a regional thing is global?

 

What is their summer max? Have you looked it up? I suggest you do...

 

Seriously. Look it up.

The reason that vanity publishing sites are dodgy is that, in essence, they will publish anything if you pay them to.

There's no valid editorial review and no meaningful peer review.

So there's no good reason to trust anything they publish.

 

That's not a logical fallacy, it's a deduction.

 

There's a second, albeit less robust, reason not to trust papers published; why wasn't it published in a "better" journal?

I see...

 

My deductions can be a logical fallacy, but not yours?

 

Hypocrisy anyone?

 

There could be several reasons, including he’s not part of the alarmist clique.

 

How about also the possibility he doesn't want it behind a paywall?

Isn't dismissal of a scientific writing because of prejudicial reasons about the method of publication, a form of scientific denial?

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going from

"One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support."

to

"Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?"

isn't a deduction is it?

No

So, that's another of your rather pointless strawman attacks.

Also, you may find it helps to read all of a sentence, that way you might avoid saying things like this

"There could be several reasons" as a reply to

"There's a second, albeit less robust, reason not to trust ..."

as if it means anything

 

Also re.

"I though we were speaking of 2 degrees in England. Not Alabama, New York, Texas, etc."

we were.

The heat related deaths in the UK are well documented in this thread (among other places of course) but it seems you are too sure of yourself to bother to read them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10187140/Heatwave-deaths-760-lives-claimed-by-hot-weather-as-high-temperatures-continue.html

Again, you are preaching, not discussing.

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going from

"One dodgy paper in a very questionable journal isn't really support."

to

"Hmmm... One? What do you want me to do? Email a whole library?"

isn't a deduction is it?

No

So, that's another of your rather pointless strawman attacks.

Also, you may find it helps to read all of a sentence, that way you might avoid saying things like this

"There could be several reasons" as a reply to

"There's a second, albeit less robust, reason not to trust ..."

as if it means anything

 

Also re.

"I though we were speaking of 2 degrees in England. Not Alabama, New York, Texas, etc."

we were.

The heat related deaths in the UK are well documented in this thread (among other places of course) but it seems you are too sure of yourself to bother to read them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10187140/Heatwave-deaths-760-lives-claimed-by-hot-weather-as-high-temperatures-continue.html

Again, you are preaching, not discussing.

 

Hottest day 90 F.

 

OK....

 

Research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that between 540 and 760 deaths could be attributed to the ongoing spell of hot weather.

 

 

How solid of a qualifier is "could."

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hottest day 90 F.

 

OK....

 

 

How solid of a qualifier is "could."

So, because of a choice of word, you are ignoring a lot of people's deaths.

That's nice.

 

However the answer is that it depends, among other things, on who is doing the attribution.

What do you attribute the excess deaths to?

 

 

BTW this bit seems not to mean anything

"Hottest day 90 F.

OK...."

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, because of a choice of word, you are ignoring a lot of people's deaths.

That's nice.

 

However the answer is that it depends, among other things, on who is doing the attribution.

What do you attribute the excess deaths to?

 

 

BTW this bit seems not to mean anything

"Hottest day 90 F.

OK...."

 

No, not at all. How does it compare to cooler summers? Did I miss year by year comparisons, or is it missing?

 

Attribute the deaths too? The article did mention the pre existing health of people.

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I realise you think people dying is funny (presumably it's OK because they have pre- existing health problems),

 

LOL...

 

For just 2 degrees?

 

How would 2 degrees make a place of such high latitude less livable?

but are you really so detached from reality that you expect the scientific data and statistical analysis to be printed in a newspaper article?

 

 

No, not at all. How does it compare to cooler summers? Did I miss year by year comparisons, or is it missing?

 

Attribute the deaths too? The article did mention the pre existing health of people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

but are you really so detached from reality that you expect the scientific data and statistical analysis to be printed in a newspaper article?

 

 

 

 

OK, so you accept what is said, by a for profit publication that uses sensationalism. I get it. Most people do. That's how they sell their product.

 

Is asking for a reference, for baseline camparisons unresonable, before taking what they say at face value?

Edited by Wild Cobra
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is asking for a reference, for baseline camparisons unresonable, before taking what they say at face value?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20439353

 

B G Armstrong, Z Chalabi, B Fenn, S Hajat, S Kovats, A Milojevic, P Wilkinson. Association of mortality with high temperatures in a temperate climate: England and Wales. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. doi: 10.1136/jech.2009.093161

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.