Climate Change denial vs History

You're an artist at the strawman fallacy. I Was saying that I remain skeptical of anthropologic irreversible global warming because of all that is known. I'm not looking at the tiny drop of data you are I'm looking at the ocean of data that exists.

Thank you. Mine is.

I'll call myself whatever I damn well please.

 

Thank you.

I'm not sure I understand what an "incomplete hypothesis" is. Global Warming, even when it had not been verified (i.e., when it was a hypothesis) was very complete as a hypothesis. So was the Global Cooling hypothesis. The latter turned out to be wrong. And the former right. But I don't know that either was ever "incomplete"

Also, I don't know what you mean by the models being tested. The models are the test. We can't completely verify (I am assuming that's what you meant. I apologize If I'm wrong in that assumption) to 100% accuracy anything beyond today,, of course. But we can verify everything before today. And that provides valuable information. Because once they are shown to be right or wrong, we can know how to produce future models better. And that's what scientists have been doing for over a hundred years, regarding Global Warming. Today we know that, for the most part, they have been dead wrong.in predicting the impact of Global Warming. Because the majority has fallen short. But the purpose of the models is not to confirm Global Warming. It's just to estimate the impact. And that is way beyond the scope of what this discussion was about.

Climate is a consequence of Global Warming. One more time: I'm not discussing the consequences of Global Warming . I'm just talking about the consensus position on Global Warming. Which I have repeated about a hundred times in this thread: "That the earth's surface is becoming warmer, and that this is the result of human activity".

If it's going to be hot in the North Pole, or if it's going to snow in Florida 100 years from now... is not the topic of discussion. I have a position on those, but it's not the topic. The only thing I'm talking about is the Scientific Consensus position on Global Warming.

Not quite. But close...

Yes. But I'm talking about a Scientific consensus

Why would you want to reproduce research if not to seek a consensus?

Ok. Peiser didn't write a paper. He wrote a letter to Science Magazine. Which justifiably refused to publish the letter. And Tim Lambert can explain why. http://grist.org/article/peiser-refuted-oreskes/

Among other things, because he made the same mistake you did in this message: confusing the consequences of Global Warming with the consensus position of Global Warming

And then Peiseer retracted the letter:
“I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay.”

 

Wrong. The consensus is that the earth warmed during the 20th century, and that human activity, including but not limited to CO2 emissions, contributed to it.

There is a consensus among AGW screamers that the consequences are not good. But tellingly, periods of warm climate were called "optimums" before that terminology was ruled politically incorrect.

 

What do you mean by "SCIENCE" there? In science, you have more general and more specific questions. Do you mean that you want to discuss particular data points, or are you more interested in limiting the discussion to the work of particular scientists? If the latter, would you engage in discourse or debate over particular data points and their implications or would you just stick to genetic fallacies and insist that your side's testimony is better than the opposing testimony, argument, interpretation,.?

 

Ok. That's good enough. Much better that you call yourself a skeptic because you "damn well please" than because you think you actually are one.

 

Not sure I see a big difference between that and what I said. But since you recognize that as the consensus position, that's fine with me. It's the only thing I was arguing.

 

You know, science is not perfect. It's based on the premise "do what you can, but not less". The measuring instruments we have today are better than the ones we had 10 years ago. And those were better than the ones we had 40 years ago.. So you could argue that data collected today is of a "different kind" than data from 40 years ago.

And there is a time when there were no instruments at all. And that's when science does what it does best: it makes deductions. The difference between temperatures today and those in 1000 and 1200 are so great that, even if we account for many errors in the methods used to come up with them, we can be pretty certain that it was not warmer than it is now.

Which, BTW, is irrelevant to the AGW discussion. But it's an interesting epistemological exercise.

 

I find this kind of arguments funny. They boil down to "Scientists are dumb not to take into account [if we're coming out of an ice age], and I'm smarter because I just posted it here"

And you can fill in the brackets with anything you want.
[Sunspots]
[volcanoes]
[water vapor]
[the weather 10,000 years ago]
[1998]
... and on and on

 

I actually am one. I don't need your approval.

 

Oh, heavens no! Of course you don't need my approval! You only need the approval of logic and human reasoning.. That the approval you don't have.

Ok... I'll let you go now.... Just having some fun...

 

Do you really think scientists are right all of the time? If so which ones, the ones you agree with or the ones you don't?

 

I don't agree with any of them. I only agree with what they can prove.

 

So you're the spokesman for all humans?

Making a clown of yourself is fun to you

 

You and everybody that is skeptical is a science denier.

 

The hockey stick graph was a fabrication. We aren't experiencing anything that hasn't happened in the past.

 

In fact, later studies support the key conclusion: the world is warmer now than it has been for at least 1000 years

The “hockey stick” graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings. It shows temperatures holding fairly steady until the last part of the 20th century and then suddenly shooting up (see graphic, right).





It provided yet more evidence that the rise in greenhouse gases due human activity is causing warming, although the case for this was already very strong. The conclusion that we are making the world warmer certainly does not depend on reconstructions of temperature prior to direct records.

The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).






























Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let’s skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.

“Array of evidence”
The report states: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.

 

This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically

 

A little Rant, all over the place.
Sounds like the only solution for climate change, you are indeed actually practicing. All I can do is take your word, and I will. It's a shame most people don't feel the same way. I am nowhere near your way of life, but it is something I want to do, I just can't seem to break free from this system I was indoctrinated into. I do the same as you on holidays, I do need to cycle more, I don't even work but 2.5 miles from home and still drive. I think Americans need to break free from, "worshipping at the altar of consumerism". People don't realize the impact we have on the earth. With all these plastics especially. Think of all the trash from Americans just purchasing these new phones alone, to get a better understanding of adding in all the trash we throw into and onto the earth. Dolphins and sea creatures swimming around with plastic bags stuck to their face, and there is nothing they can do. Or trash that they think might be food, and swallow it. Nuclear bombs being detonated under the oceans, just for practice. I mean they can make people think they know how to predict earthquakes. Drilling a hole into the earth, placing a nuclear bomb in the hole, then detonating it, is not predicting an earthquake. It's merely creating one. With all their recent predictions of California getting hit by the "big one", only makes me think what is really going on.

Anyways I'm a little all over the place, I get to thinking of all the corruption and just go off. I just wanted to say thanks for actually practicing what you preach. It's very rare, yet very honorable.

 

I have not lived in a house or any building for 26 years which is half of my life. I do this for a multitude of reasons but low carbon impact is the main one. However I realises that my lifestyle will not suit everyone.
The main point of my answer or ''little rant'' is to point out that reducing energy usage and waste and maybe even a little quality of life is the only way forward both for the developed world and the developing world which aspires to our standard of living.
Unfortunately this does not suit the interests of big oil or governments desperately aiming for growth to pay off their huge debts and ensure short term gains such as profit and re-election.
This disparity of goals between sustainability in the long term and profit in the short term is what often confuses many people into thinking environmentalists are just Marxists trying to take their sports cars and hard earned cash away from them.
I don't hold out much hope but let no one say I didn't try............

 

I'm not so sure carbon impact is much of an impact to begin with. But then again I do believe in God. And it is God who is in control. If global warming is true, and caused by man, well then maybe it's nothing more than the fulfillment of the 4th angel pouring his vial out on the sun. An area reached by man through technological advances, and population numbers, that ends up fulfilling this prophecy. Either way, it is God that is in control, thus fear is not needed (not saying your fearful, just saying in general).

I think mankind needs to become more in touch with nature. As lame as it may sound, there needs to be a relationship (so to speak) with the earth, and everything therein.

Again I think it's very honorable the dedication you display, and example you leave to those you know and love. And in some cases, maybe even those you don't know, such as myself.

 

Well actual scientists ARE very sure about that which you are unsure of so....

 

So because someone with a title and white cloak tells you something, then it must be true. Do you trust conclusions from experiments you, yourself have never done? Because that's no different than trusting a politician. A scientist will lie for fame and riches, so long as the people continue to accept the lie, due to their lack of self experiments.

Oh and there is a lot of different areas of "science". Such as "theoretical science". Then you have science as in the periodic table of elements. Science that everyone can test, and observe, and do not have to put their trust in the scientist. Nor does the tests require a PHD, or any title.

 

Well nobody can say for sure but very likely is good enough for me.

 

Or trusting a 2000 year old book to affirm your belief in God ?

 

That's a nice try, but that's not why I believe in God. I believe in God because he as revealed Himself to me. Through love, and the actions and desires of men. It is obvious what is written perfectly describes man and their desires. Which throughout all of mankind, those desires have never changed. Only technology has changed, and in a way that only increases those desires. To me, it is so obvious, it's pathetic nobody has the ability to see it.

I can explain much better and in more detail if you would like.

When discussing certain matters....men or man often is referring to mankind.