Climate Change, Deux

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

... after a couple of drinks the conversation turned to the subject of educational grants, supplemental income for those teaching at the graduate school level and support for scientific inquiry from wealthy donors and the community. She was quite open about the fact that much of her supplemental income and indeed, funding for her research came from sources with a vested interest in the outcome of her research. She saw no conflict whatsoever in taking $ from organizations or individuals that expected her research and published papers to support their particular viewpoint.
...
Hence, I am skeptical of just about all 'scientific' research... whoever is footing the bill will have a say in the results. When you throw politics into the mix, you discover what PHD stands for... Piled Higher and Deeper... just my humble opinion. Phil

Nothing in that anecdote either suggests or proves that the scientist in question is doing bad science or has been fudging the data. Nor have you named the organizations funding the research, or what outcomes the organizations would favour.

And I question the truth of the italicized part. I suspect you're taking liberties there.

Here's a thought... scientific grants are most often funded by organizations whose agenda is... more scientific knowledge and understanding.

Yes science is done by humans, and human behaviour affects relationships even here. Academia has a$$-kissers and competition for tenure and funding. But the scientific process is still just that, and your true peers will properly eviscerate you if you're doing bad science.

Also, does anyone really, really think that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, whose income even in the best of times is middle-class, are less honest and trustworthy than the lobbyists and PR flacks of the hugely profitable fossil-fuel industry, who have a very obvious and admitted vested interest in the status quo? Really?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This is why fewer and fewer people are paying attention to AGW fans. They keep saying things that are untrue, either out of ignorance, or a desire to make their case even if it takes jiggering the data, a.k.a. Climategate.

This is the end of the line for your argument, however eloquent. "Climategate" is the crown jewel in the AGW-deniers weak arguments, and it every time this manufactured crisis has been examined by people who know better (at least 4 times now), it's been clearly shown to be a distortion of the facts and that the data in question has been handled and processed properly.

Just wondering - are you ex oil-industry? Cos frankly I can't think of why anyone would keep bringing up long-ago discredited half-arguments and untruths, unless they had a dog in the fight.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So if we don't agree with your climate religion.... we are labeled as "Deniers."

If you don't agree with the near-unanimous consensus of the subject-matter experts, you're a Denier.

Hope that helps.

[Teknav]

Hiya Lake! I just want to commend you on your writing style; you express yourself very well!

Mauritz
Je me debrouille un peu!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Hiya Lake! I just want to commend you on your writing style; you express yourself very well!

You're too kind. It's been tough sometimes to not be more insulting than I end up being, cos this argument is really such a no-brainer if one has any regard and understanding of the scientific process, and how it's our best defense against the sort of human frailties that infect all of our endeavours.

I just cannot see how an entire branch of science is successfully being stymied by the fossil-fuel lobby. The power of PR I guess. frustrating.

I'm not beaten yet. I'll try til I get banned, even if it pisses some folks off.

My Dad used to say that the only thing more annoying than an a$$hole is an a$$hole that's right.

[Teknav]

Hiya Lake! I do not like to argue about anything with anyone; I am passive in real life. I write what I believe in, based upon my training and experiences. If folks want to abide by what I've written or not, it will not bother me. I am a career Engineer with Pharmacy board certification/license; I keep current in my disciplines. It's OK if folks disagree with me; it just tells me who needs a brush-up on the latest. Those who write pages and pages to prove their point, rank low on my list. The truth does not require pages of arguments. Agree or disagree, I hope that we remain friends.

Mauritz
Your opinion of me has no cash value!

[bgallinger]

Yeah Zee..... You go girl!

Originally Posted by zeehag

as earth normally experiences cyclic patterns of weather-- one must take into account that el nino and la nina affect the entire worlds climatology. the stat and graphs p-resented represent el and la nina years... why not try use of stats presented to represent alleged normal years......when one compares apples and oranges one only gets fruit salad and a lot of dissidence.
our last allegedly normal year if climate was 207. el nino and la ni9n a were d evah year sine 2008. this year is first sans chilean current since 2007.
statistics can be skewed any direction one wishes to skew them.

yáll act as if we can control solar flaring. or volcanic action. or floods an d pestilence. to a point we can--we can stop burning rain forests we can stop dumping wtf into oceans and inland waterways...
many cry out that isnt enough...ok what do you suggest we do -- there really isnt anything mankind can do to prevent climate change--earth does this. even without human involvement---
what we all gonna do--don space suits and push the axis of earth to where we prefer to keep it????

[sabray]

You all go on and argue. For me I try to sail more motor less. Use efficient lighting efficient appliances. Solar panels and no generator. Turns out that by choosing areas to be energy efficient in a way that is also economical is both better fir my bottom line and reduces how much I pollute.
Want to see real climate change go look at the mountain removal out in West Virginia.
I choose to use as little electricity as needed without giving up good lights and cold beer.
Reduced the electrical use at one project by 25 percent. 250 thousand dollar anual electric bill cut by 25 percent. With an investment pay back if 2 years. Reduces climate change and saved some decent money.

[sabray]

Picture of climate change. Pretty sure that ain't the way it used to be. Coal mining for electricity changed this environment.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Is there actually a scientifically-supported opposing viewpoint?

I mean it's OK to, for example, have the viewpoint that evolution is a crock, but don't expect much respect or credibility.

Too much of the AGW-denial arguments are just parroting of scientifically insupportable FUD put out by the fossil-fuel lobby and friends. And/or grade-school rhetorical cheap tricks.

Personally, I remain completely open to additional scientific input on all sides of this issue. Key word is scientific.

I think the best scientific rebuttal to current climate models is that they don't predict what happens. In that sense, they are self-refuting. But yes, there many scientists who are either very skeptical of current climate models, or believe that we are in fact entering into a very cold period. When people dismiss contrary science on the basis that the scientists behind that science are just shills for oil companies, or idiots, they lose a great deal of credibility. You can always tell when the scientific process has been co-opted by politics because proponents of one side begin to denounce as scoundrels anyone who disagrees with them rather than simply presenting good science of their own (like a model that actually works).

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by sneuman

So, you accept that climate change is, as this scientist states. Most certainly occurring? If not, I think the "denier" label is a fair one.

Climate models are based on the proposition that 4% of total atmospheric annual CO2 emissions cause global warming. Since these models predict things that haven't happened, they can't be taken seriously. When you use the term 'denier', you are regurgitating a slur first put out by the odious Al Gore, who likened, and continues to liken AGW skeptics as deniers just like Holocaust deniers. As such, it is a simple ad hominem advanced only because you don't have a good scientific argument. If you did, the models would predict climate. They don't. So you resort to attacking the character of your opponents. If calling people who reject science that produces a model that doesn't work deniers, then you won't mind if I call you a fool. After all a denier rejects that which is true and a fool believes that which is false. Since you believe in a climate model that doesn't work, I guess the label of fool is a fair one.

[S/V Illusion]

This is a great thread. Although I have not (yet) read all the posts, I was amazed to learn there are actually some people who still believe climate change neither exists or isn't man made.

In a time where the objective scientific peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelming, I wanted to thank some of you for reminding me how eagerly some people seeminglt enjoy public displays of total delusion.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is the end of the line for your argument, however eloquent. "Climategate" is the crown jewel in the AGW-deniers weak arguments, and it every time this manufactured crisis has been examined by people who know better (at least 4 times now), it's been clearly shown to be a distortion of the facts and that the data in question has been handled and processed properly.

Just wondering - are you ex oil-industry? Cos frankly I can't think of why anyone would keep bringing up long-ago discredited half-arguments and untruths, unless they had a dog in the fight.

My reference to Climategate centers around Michael Mann's famous hockey stick graph that left out temperature data from the Middle Ages warm period in order to produce the graphic result he wanted. This is the height of scientific malfeasance, and in most disciplines, no one would every listen to you again. The fact that some people find nothing wrong with eliminating from the dataset that data that doesn't help the conclusion you want to reach doesn't make it science.

The earth may well be warming, just as it has in the past. If the Viking's description of Greenland in 1,000 A.D. as a land of pastures is correct, and if Roman reports of Britain being prime wine producing territory are correct, then long before human emissions of CO2 increased the planet has warmed. Then cooled. Then warmed. No SUV's involved.

And no, I am not in the oil industry, although your attempt to strengthen a very weak scientific argument by suggesting this is typical. You might want to spend a moment going through this thread for a look at current Arctic conditions. Then get back to me with how this fits into the current AGW delusion.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...-a-108962.html

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

This is a great thread. Although I have not (yet) read all the posts, I was amazed to learn there are actually some people who still believe climate change neither exists or isn't man made.

In a time where the objective scientific peer-reviewed evidence is overwhelming, I wanted to thank some of you for reminding me how eagerly some people seeminglt enjoy public displays of total delusion.

You should spend a bit of time on the Northwest Passage thread as well. Perhaps everyone is just imaging all that ice....

As Estarzinger notes, next year may be different. Or, those delusional Russians at the Pulkovo Observatory that think we may be entering an extended cooling period may be onto something. Time will tell. All I know is, if we do continue to see a continuation of the last 15 years of level temperatures, AGW fans will continue to insult those that disagree with them. After all, it's about all they've got, since God knows, their models aren't worth a darn.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I think the best scientific rebuttal to current climate models is that they don't predict what happens.
...
But yes, there many scientists who are either very skeptical of current climate models, or believe that we are in fact entering into a very cold period.

You already know that the climate predictions are long-term, and current glitches and variances have not seriously disproved the modelling or the predictions. We'll both be fertilizer before the predictions have been completely validated.

NAME the scientists who are very skeptical of climate models. Now name the ones who are part of the consensus who back the model. Which list is (overwhelmingly, massively) larger than the other?

When you use the term 'denier', you are regurgitating a slur first put out by the odious Al Gore, who likened, and continues to liken AGW skeptics as deniers just like Holocaust deniers. As such, it is a simple ad hominem advanced only because you don't have a good scientific argument. If you did, the models would predict climate. They don't.

Right. The odious Al Gore. Strike one... and an ad hominem of the first order.

I tend to think that if the overwhelming majority of the best people in climate science have provided a consensus for what they think human activity is doing to the climate, and if this conclusion has been embraced by your presidents, my prime minister, all the leaders of EU countries, and the UN, to name but a few... then anyone who maintains an unproven denial of this consensus is quite obviously in denial.

You gotta better word? 'Skeptic' doesn't quite portray the depth of willful ignorance that a smart person would need to muster, to ignore the facts of AGW.