There is no Planet B

[hpeer]

If you read back through this thread about 15 pages you will find places where Newhaul says the climate has been warming up until about 2016. And also, more recently, discussion of his cosmic ray theory.

What you will find following just Newhaul’s posts, is that he is far from consistent in his position and is now merely arguing for the sake of argument.

I too followed his links on his Cosmic Ray Cooling. There is no need to debunk it, it’s not happening yet. It’s a future possibility.

He was the ONLY one to try to provide some alternative theory to AWG. The rest have noting. For example Seniormacho’s comments on methane gas release are about 4th grade “Your Moma wears combat boots” level.

The unfortunate thing is serious folks here are unable to discuss this topic because of a few fanatics decide to be disruptive players with no serious intent for discussion. Childish antics.

Not exclusively, there are occasional real discussion about data and sources which should occur. And I encourage that. Like Newhaul bringing up his Cosmic Ray Cooling theory, that was good. That was good.

[Reefmagnet]

Well, I posted my theory 24 hours ago and got met with one "I'll get back to you" and one ad hominem attack on the source of my data which is pretty much atypical. And zip from your good self, Mr HPeer.



Bit hard to carry on any form of discussion with those responses.

[jimbunyard]

...How about Christy or Currie they are both also [as] well respected scientists as is Dr spencer

Exactly, i.e not respected at all (except by those whose agenda they are being paid to support and manipulate).

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Exactly, i.e not respected at all (except by those whose agenda they are being paid to support and manipulate).

Yep. Definitely dealing with wack-jobs that are an affront to the true scientific principles of "go with the mainstream or get toasted".

For Judith Curry, one of the two climate science skeptics on the panel, the idea that an increase in carbon automatically increases the earth’s temperature is too simplistic. She said earth has many complex systems and there could be other factors playing into climate change that we don’t yet understand. “The madhouse that concerns me is the one that has been created by some climate scientists,” Curry said. “The madhouse is characterized by rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic view of climate change, enforcement of a politically motivated and manufactured consensus, attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates, activism and advocacy for their preferred policies, self-promotion ... and public attacks on scientists who don’t support the consensus.”

[SailOar]

Proximity to land determines how coral reef communities respond to climate change events

A new international study has found that the marine wildlife that live amongst the coral are affected differently by devastating climate change events, depending on how close to the mainland they are found.....

While those environmental events caused substantial and widespread loss of coral across all reefs, the numbers of herbivorous fishes remained stable (inner-shelf reefs) or even increased (middle- and outer-shelf reefs).

Dr Richardson, a marine biologist at the University of Exeter's Penryn Campus said: "After widespread loss of corals due to large storms or severe coral bleaching events, herbivorous reef fish are vital for removing seaweed that starts to grow over the dead corals, so that new corals can grow, and surviving corals can recover.....

Importantly, however, the study showed that the number of herbivorous fish species decreased following the environmental events.

"The loss of species is of greatest concern, affecting the functioning of these reefs and their capacity to respond to future disturbances. It may be setting these reefs up for future ecological surprises" said Dr Hoey from James Cook University in Australia........

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, I posted my theory 24 hours ago and got met with one "I'll get back to you" and one ad hominem attack on the source of my data ...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

... AdamAnt is launching what can only be best described as an ad hominem rant ...
... Oh, and one other thing. The graph is used as a learning resource by some institutions, e.g.:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...sm/contrasting
Untitled Document
Carbon Dioxide Levels over Time | Biology 1510 Biological Principles

An “argumentum ad hominem” can be a true legitimate argument, even while committing a logical fallacy.

It can also be relevant, if the main support for an argument is an appeal to an unqualified authority. For example, if someone cites a professor as their source, but that professor has previously been found guilty of forging study results, then calling that out could weaken the argument. It doesn't mean what they said isn't true, but it does cast doubt on its truthfulness.
Usually, an argument is strong or weak on its own, but some arguments are ethotic; that is, they depend on ethos, or fundamental character.
So if you have someone testifying in a trial, it is perfectly reasonable to discuss that person's motives or trustworthiness, perhaps to the exclusion of actually addressing the argument(s) that they made.
Or if you cite a study that claims that X chemical is not harmful, I could reasonably respond by pointing out that the author the study is known to be an incompetent scientist, and/or has been paid a large sum by the company that manufactures X chemical. I could then, totally reasonably, ignore the actual arguments made in the study, since the reason the study was cited in the first place was that there is a general argument scheme that says 'if an expert determines that P, then non-experts should defer to that judgment and accept the validity of P.' The ad hominem against the author of the study serves to attack the unspoken premise that the author is an expert, and so it directly pertains to the argument.

You first citation*, for instance does include the subject graph, as a learning resource, without having verified or endorsed it.

... Some of the alternative views about climate change are discussed here. The Parliamentary Library is not a scientific research organisation and must rely on information from elsewhere. In order to ensure the validity of this information, the Library bases its publications and analysis on peer-reviewed journals or other reputable sources where possible. There is far more evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming in these journals than against it. By itself, this fact does not make anthropogenic global warming ‘correct’ —it must stand or fall on its scientific merits and not on the number of journal articles or the number of scientists supporting it. However, it suggests that there is considerable scientific consensus on the main planks of the case of human-induced warming. It also means that more material on this ‘consensus’ view is available and suitable for the Parliamentary Library to use than material that contradicts it.
In this part of our web site, information is taken from, and linked to, sources that are not always verified. The Parliamentary Library does not endorse all the content of all websites referred to ...

In other words, they merely admit that the chart, and it’s source, EXIST.

* Contrasting viewpoints
➥ https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...sm/contrasting

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

you really didn't dig to deep did you.
How about Christy or Currie they are both also well respected scientists as is Dr spencer

So amusing the intensity of debate here over ONE scientist. (or 2 or 3, or some other teeny number). It's as if the reality of AGW will be proven/disproven by establishing the credibility and competence of ONE guy.

And oh the outrage if anyone dares question the bona fides of this tiny handful of known dissenters, despite some genuinely concerning associations and agendas (eg Cornwall Alliance, Heartland Institute).

Yet ZERO outrage for the concerted attacks on ALL OTHER scientists and ALL scientific institutions and organizations (because zero institutes have expressed or supported a dissenting position) and the scientific process itself. They're all grant-wh0r3s, data-fakers, conformists, hotbeds of soshulist intrigue. Any flimsy excuse to pretend that a well-supported conclusion hasn't been reached after intensive research, study, review, and debate.

There is a consensus, it's real, it's very, very large. The higher the level of a scientist's expertise in climate science, the higher the likelihood that they support the consensus. The consensus itself, what scientific consensus actually means, and how others go about attacking scientific consensus, have been the subject of study. Pretending that a tiny handful of differing or dissenting opinions indicates real uncertainty around AGW or its threats is a fig leaf for corporate or partisan agendas.

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

This is a topic that's been actively researched for over 30 years now. As new observations come in, as models are revised and improved, as dissenting opinions are examined and tested... the consensus is getting stronger, not weaker. It's probably not going away. Reality is like that.

Sorry for the derail. Please continue to prattle on about ONE guy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

So amusing the intensity of debate here over ONE scientist. (or 2 or 3, or some other teeny number). It's as if the reality of AGW will be proven/disproven by establishing the credibility and competence of ONE guy.
.

really out of context again . Did you actually read the exchange involving the quick defense of Dr Spencer ?
Considering your response I would have to say the answer is no you didn't .

That entire exchange was in response to an individual attacking a specific scientist for his personal religious views . Regardless of the fact that it is widely proven that it doesn't affect his scientific judgement.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

This is a topic that's been actively researched for over 30 years now. As new observations come in, as models are revised and improved, as dissenting opinions are examined and tested... the consensus is getting stronger, not weaker. It's probably not going away. Reality is like that.

Sorry for the derail.

if you didn't want to derail you wouldn't have posted.

consensus does not science make.

it must stand or fall on its scientific merits and not on the number of journal articles or the number of scientists supporting it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

if you didn't want to derail you wouldn't have posted.

What remarkable powers! What am I thinking now?

consensus does not science make.

Um yeah, it does. (scientific consensus is an important and necessary part of the process) That link is to a decidedly pro-AGW site, but it's well-written and it abounds with cites and links to more scholarly sources.

Others:
A Philosopher of Science Explains the Importance of Scientific Consensus

The consensus around AGW has itself been tested

https://theconversation.com/scientif...ust-work-73040

Bonus: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ics-are-wrong/

it must stand or fall on its scientific merits and not on the number of journal articles or the number of scientists supporting it.

Number of journal articles or the number of scientists supporting it, and the number of years the support has been maintained and strengthened are very reasonable indicators of scientific merits. One non-scientist deep-thinker on his boat is not likely to put a dent in it. Sorry.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What remarkable powers! What am I thinking now?

Um yeah, it does. (scientific consensus is an important and necessary part of the process) That link is to a decidedly pro-AGW site, but it's well-written and it abounds with cites and links to more scholarly source.

Others:
A Philosopher of Science Explains the Importance of Scientific Consensus

The consensus around AGW has itself been tested

https://theconversation.com/scientif...ust-work-73040

Bonus: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ics-are-wrong/

Number of journal articles or the number of scientists supporting it, and the number of years the support has been maintained and strengthened are very reasonable indicators of scientific merits. One non-scientist deep-thinker on his boat is not likely to put a dent in it. Sorry.

all it takes is one deep thinker.

What will you do when what I have been saying proves correct wrt the climate?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Just as an FYI, you're quoting blogs...

I was citing blogs. Probably, because no reputable scientific journal would accept a paper analyzing “balderdash”.

Nonetheless, my references were merely blogs, and hence your reservations about their competence were legitimate.

So, just who are my “bloggers”?

“Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?”
The author, Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Earth Institute at Columbia University in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate. He works on developing and improving coupled climate models and, in particular, is interested in how their results can be compared to paleoclimatic proxy data. He has worked on assessing the climate response to multiple forcings, including solar irradiance, atmospheric chemistry, aerosols, and greenhouse gases.
He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 100 peer-reviewed publications and is the co-author with Josh Wolfe of “Climate Change: Picturing the Science” (W. W. Norton, 2009), a collaboration between climate scientists and photographers. He was awarded the inaugural AGU Climate Communications Prize and was the
EarthSky Science communicator of the year in 2011.
➥ Gavin A. Schmidt « RealClimate
➥ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt/

The website, RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is mostly restricted to scientific topics and will only rarely get involved in any political or economic implications of the science. All posts are signed by the author(s), except ‘group’ posts which are collective efforts from the whole team. This is a moderated forum.

“Monte Hieb's Flying Graphics”
Russell MacGregor Seitz: Harvard University, Fellow of the Department of Physics, The U.S. Climate Institute, Senior Research Fellow
Interests: Sailing, surfing , the field , fishing ,baroque opera, mineralogy
➥ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Russell_Seitz

So, like John Christy & Roy Spencer*, Gavin Schmidt & Russell Seitz are more than mere bloggers, they are highly credentialed scientists.

* John Christy & Roy Spencer are climate scientists, at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, whose chief interests are satellite remote sensing of global climate and global climate change. They best known for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.
John Christy and Roy Spencer rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors, and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming. But, despite being wrong, they continue to claim Earth’s warming isn’t something to be concerned about. It’s relevant to be reminded of these revisions; because had we believed the results from the 1990s, we’d still think the world has been cooling, and we’d still be wrong.

Monte Hieb, on the other hand is listed as Manager of Engineering, for the Pen Coal Corporation.
I’ll refer you to the, oft repeated exhortation, to “follow the money", and Newhaul’s favourite Upton Sinclair quotation.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

all it takes is one deep thinker.

If you say so.

What will you do when what I have been saying proves correct wrt the climate?

Well, you're clearly out to lunch on some parts - eg denying how CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming, and your predictions are mainly short-term and based on normal variations, and not involving the longer-term effects of AGW that are of the most concern.

So I'll probably do nothing.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you say so.

Well, you're clearly out to lunch on some parts - eg denying how CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming, and your predictions are mainly short-term and based on normal variations, and not involving the longer-term effects of AGW that are of the most concern.

So I'll probably do nothing.

actually quite the opposite my friend. I know very well how it all interconnects.
Btw I am looking at the long game you are looking at the short one.
This little short term warming period is well within the normal cyclical of the planet.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Btw I am looking at the long game you are looking at the short one.
This little short term warming period is well within the normal cyclical of the planet.

Ok. Then give us your long-term prognostications. 10, 50, 100 years out, etc.