Author Topic: here comes the next ice age  (Read 80064 times)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #250 on: July 10, 2017, 11:28:36 PM »
Breaking news:
Quote
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud.

Data fraud.  Criminal.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #251 on: July 11, 2017, 12:42:47 PM »
Mann's attorney disagrees,

Quote
Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer.

and

Quote
Oh, and perhaps it's worth stating the obvious: ANYONE claiming that our "data" was not made publicly available is either ignorant, dishonest or both. Even the most cursory search yields e.g. http://realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1466774033378794:0

I'd say the odds of your source being accurate are quite close to zero, given your previous sourcing quality.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #252 on: July 11, 2017, 01:25:34 PM »
With all these smoking guns, how can the temperature not be going up?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #253 on: July 11, 2017, 02:23:24 PM »
Mann's attorney disagrees,

Quote
Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.
Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.
Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.
In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.
Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”
The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer.

and

Quote
Oh, and perhaps it's worth stating the obvious: ANYONE claiming that our "data" was not made publicly available is either ignorant, dishonest or both. Even the most cursory search yields e.g. http://realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1466774033378794:0

I'd say the odds of your source being accurate are quite close to zero, given your previous sourcing quality.

Well, pick any sorce from Google that works for you. Citing Mann's lawyer as an unbiased source aint exactly a shot at quality sourcing.  ;D

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #254 on: July 11, 2017, 03:44:54 PM »
Of course, citing John O'Sullivan, a colleague of Ball's and not a lawyer, ain't the most reliable source, either. ;D

We probably should wait for the judge, who Mann supposedly is in contempt of, to decide the issue.

Although it might be a long wait, considering that Mann was supposed to provide the data (which is available on the internet) and computer codes (which he may not have "in his possession"--they may belong to someone else) by Feb. 20, 2017, which ain't so breaking. ;)  It will be interesting to see why it took almost 5 months for this story to "break." :)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #255 on: July 11, 2017, 03:57:04 PM »
Of course, citing John O'Sullivan, a colleague of Ball's and not a lawyer, ain't the most reliable source, either.  :)
That's why I linked to the entire google search results, you can pick from dozens yet you hang on one you think, for unspecified reasons, might possibly be incorrect depite all those others saying the same thing - a few with in depth legal analysis.
We probably should wait for the judge, who Mann supposedly is in contempt of, to decide the issue.

Although it might be a long wait, considering that Mann was supposed to provide the data (which is available on the internet) and computer codes (which he may not have "in his possession"--they may belong to someone else) by Feb. 20, 2017, which ain't so breaking. ;)  It will be interesting to see why it took almost 5 months for this story to "break." :)
It took that long for likely several reasons: it's in Canada, not a lot of US media coverage on Canadian courts, Mann was likely given more than one chance to comply(Mann's lawyer may have seen to that), it does not fit global warming dogma so most mainstream media outlets will bury it. If you read the legal analysis, you see Mann is really in a lot of trouble.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #256 on: July 11, 2017, 04:24:52 PM »
Sorry, Crunch, but your link doesn't work for me. :(

Perhaps you could link to an analysis that is written by a lawyer (as opposed to O'Sullivan or any of the sites that quote his legal analysis)?  The first five links in this search all quote O'Sullivan.

It really doesn't count if the "dozens" of sites all quote from the same source without any further information. ;)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #257 on: July 11, 2017, 04:36:08 PM »
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx

Knock yourself out.

If Mann was held to be in contempt of court in BC, you would be able to find that judgment here.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #258 on: July 11, 2017, 07:52:12 PM »
Well, pick any sorce from Google that works for you. Citing Mann's lawyer as an unbiased source aint exactly a shot at quality sourcing.  ;D

A linking to a google search result isn't a very reliable course of action for finding an answer. Google search results are not uniform across users, they sift, sort, and rank the results before presenting what they(well, their AI/algorithm) believe to be "the most relevant" search for you, based on past browsing habits tied to you/that specific web browser(cookie)/ip/computer mac address.

Chances are decent that on any given search term, nobody in this forum would get the same "top 5" search results returned to them in the same order, if they even saw the same top 5 results, which we probably wouldn't. (although overlap probably would happen, such as say, Wikipedia being highly ranked)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #259 on: July 11, 2017, 10:17:06 PM »
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx

Knock yourself out.

If Mann was held to be in contempt of court in BC, you would be able to find that judgment here.

Perhaps I'm using this wrong.  Is "Contempt of Court" the operative legal phrase in Canada these days?  Because I can't find *any* judgments for contempt of court in your database.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #260 on: July 12, 2017, 12:56:57 AM »
I just googled "Mann contempt court" and found a ton of different hits. Those also ended up linking to "Mann Nobel laureate humiliation".

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #261 on: July 12, 2017, 08:38:02 AM »
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/search_judgments.aspx

Knock yourself out.

If Mann was held to be in contempt of court in BC, you would be able to find that judgment here.

Donald does B.C. actually archive all of its judgments online or are those just reported decisions like you would find on Canlii or Westlaw? If they do then I need to move to B.C. In Ontario if you want non reported stuff better send a process server to each courthouse :(

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #262 on: July 12, 2017, 11:24:41 AM »
Yes; I think our friend Donald just pulled a fast one. :D

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #263 on: July 12, 2017, 11:39:26 AM »
You can probably get similar results if you use an anonymous tab for the search or even better an anonymous tab through a proxy.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #264 on: July 12, 2017, 12:06:51 PM »
Jason, the only point I was making was that Crunch should go to primary sources - a Google count of search results is just stupid, as clearly, results for (even fictional) events will always outnumber results for things that did not happen.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #265 on: July 12, 2017, 03:23:47 PM »
AFAIK, the Canadian Court itself has not declared Mann in contempt of court.

From what I read, it is only O'Sullivan saying that the courts must hold him in contempt of court because he says Mann did not provide the full information per the agreement.  The courts still have to decide whether that is true or not.

And we all know how well judges take being told what they must do. :)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #266 on: July 12, 2017, 03:36:49 PM »
You can probably get similar results if you use an anonymous tab for the search or even better an anonymous tab through a proxy.

From my understanding, Google collects data on:
1) The cookie you may or may not have allowed to function due to browser settings. (and any (Google) accounts that cookie may tie you to)
2) Your IP, but due to NAT there can be more than one person on an IP address so...
3) The MAC address of the device using Google.

Enabling "Private Browsing" addresses #1, so long as you don't log back in. But it does nothing about #2 and #3.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #267 on: July 13, 2017, 06:24:09 PM »
I found this very interesting. Apparently the global average surface temperature (GAST) calculations have been routinely adjusted/manipulated based on models (i.e people) that actually remove previously existing cyclical temperature patterns from the data.

This peer reviewed study seems to cast a lot of doubt as to the validity of the GAST data. Of course if the GAST baselines are questionable, it clearly calls into question findings from GAST reliant studies from NOAA, NASA and HADLEY (who all use the same GAST baselines).

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

I had to wait a few days to find some rebuttal, and finally found one in The Guardian.

Quote
The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, which is simply false. As Zeke Hausfather pointed out, referencing work by Nick Stokes, roughly half of the adjustments have resulted in cooling and half in warming. Moreover, the net adjustment to the raw data actually reduces the long-term global warming trend...

Additionally, a peer-reviewed study last year led by Hausfather verified the validity of the temperature adjustments by showing that they bring the data in closer agreement with that from pristinely located temperature stations.

The white paper also claims that the adjustments remove a “cyclical pattern” that appeared more clearly in early versions of the temperature record. As Hausfather told me, that’s simply because we now have more data that better represent the planet as a whole:

"What they don’t tell you is that the 1980 record in question only comes from around 500 land stations almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere and does not include any ocean data at all. There is a well-known warm period in the mid-to-high latitude land areas of the Northern Hemisphere in the 1930s and 1940s, but it does not really show up much in the oceans and not at all in the Southern Hemisphere. As scientists have collected more historical temperature records from around the world in the past 35 years, we have created more complete records that show less warmth in that period simply because they cover more of the planet."...

The white paper authors admit that some adjustments to the raw data are necessary (for example, to correct for changes in instrumentation technology, time of observation, moving station locations, and so on), and they don’t dispute the accuracy or necessity of any of the adjustments that climate scientists have made. Basically, because they don’t like the end result of global warming, the authors assert that the adjustments must somehow be wrong, but fail to support that assertion with any real evidence.

It doesn't sound like the "conclusive findings" are all that conclusive. :)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #268 on: July 13, 2017, 07:22:24 PM »
It sounds like it took you a long time to get some confirmation bias.  ;D

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #269 on: July 14, 2017, 11:57:29 AM »
Sorry, Crunch.  I don't get it instantly like you do.  :P  ;D

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #270 on: July 14, 2017, 02:22:53 PM »
That's because I like think for myself rather than rely on others to tell me what to think.  :P ;D

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #271 on: July 14, 2017, 03:27:12 PM »
Which is easy when you don't have to have find any facts to justify what you think.  ;D

(I shall now bow out before this gets out of hand...)

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #272 on: July 14, 2017, 06:18:10 PM »
There's dozens of facts in this thread, you just refuse to accept them.  You're basically a post-factual/post-truth guy:
Quote
Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

You refuse to accept facts that don't fit the emotional and ideological basis upon which you've built your opinion - that is very, very obvious.  Perhaps you should bow out ...    8)

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #273 on: July 14, 2017, 06:32:12 PM »
Considering that my post primarily consisted of an extended quote detailing the perceived failing of the abridged research report, I don't see how that could be a fair assessment.

Or do you find terms like "net adjustment to the raw data" to be emotionally compelling in an argument? :)

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #274 on: August 01, 2018, 08:14:32 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #275 on: August 02, 2018, 09:28:10 AM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?

...based on data that pulls the equivalent of predicting the temperature in Flagstaff, Arizona based on weather reporting in Phoenix, AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Las Vegas, NV.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #276 on: August 02, 2018, 01:44:19 PM »
...based on data that pulls the equivalent of predicting the temperature in Flagstaff, Arizona based on weather reporting in Phoenix, AZ, Albuquerque, NM, and Las Vegas, NV.

What?

So we're predicting the average temperature of the earth by measuring the temperature of other planets nearby?

Or are you saying that somehow we don't have enough sample points to track an average temperature trend of the earth, and that there are a lot of hidden cooling zones that aren't being factored in?

Either your analogy machine is broken, or mine is.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #277 on: August 02, 2018, 03:24:03 PM »
So we're predicting the average temperature of the earth by measuring the temperature of other planets nearby?

Or are you saying that somehow we don't have enough sample points to track an average temperature trend of the earth, and that there are a lot of hidden cooling zones that aren't being factored in?

Either your analogy machine is broken, or mine is.

Differing sampling methodologies. I admit, I didn't look at the article, and don't have time to more than fire off a response again right now. But I'd give a 75% certainty that if somebody checked, that claim is "based on ground station observations" and further, the overwhelming majority of the reported warming also happens to coincide with regions with particularly sparse coverage by ground observation stations. Sufficiently such that a few dozen stations reporting a variation of a fraction of a degree ends up "warming" hundreds of thousands of square miles of the Earth.

It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims. Which would cover the 76% to 95% range of certainty. Where instead of using actual data to make their claim, they're extrapolating data for both the extreme northern and extreme southern latitudes based on points where they did have data(further south) in order to make their claim.

But that still leaves you with their claim being asserted based on "generated data" rather than anything that actually exists in the observational record.

And people keep criticizing the skeptics for creating "facts" out of thin air.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #278 on: August 02, 2018, 10:44:27 PM »
Quote
It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims.
First off, ALL satellite data is extrapolated - satellites do not measure temperature, but rather microwave response, and the measured microwave levels are then put through an algorithm to come up with estimated temperature values.  Satellite values are by their very nature manipulated to a far greater degree than land based measurements.

Secondly, satellite algorithms have had far more major corrections in the past decade, as those algorithms needed to be fixed due to errors in calculations, assumptions and physical processes.

Thirdly, the satellite data sets in large part now agree with surface and ocean based data sets.  Where did you get the idea that they do not?  Just taking 2017, for instance, both UAH (exclusively satellite-based) and NOAA (which is not) agree that the year was the 3rd warmest in their respective records.


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #279 on: August 03, 2018, 05:24:05 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?
When you frame this so dishonestly, I assume you’re not looking for a response but just confirmation of your bias.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #280 on: August 04, 2018, 08:27:13 AM »
Quote
It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims.
First off, ALL satellite data is extrapolated - satellites do not measure temperature, but rather microwave response, and the measured microwave levels are then put through an algorithm to come up with estimated temperature values.  Satellite values are by their very nature manipulated to a far greater degree than land based measurements.

Secondly, satellite algorithms have had far more major corrections in the past decade, as those algorithms needed to be fixed due to errors in calculations, assumptions and physical processes.

Ok, "Satellite data based on actual data from readings actually taken" vs data that is claimed to be part of the Satellite datasets even though few to no actual measurements or data exists for the latitude being modeled. (Specifically polar regions, where most of the so called "Satellite data" (which doesn't actually exist) claims the warming to be happening at.)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #281 on: August 04, 2018, 08:20:19 PM »
Which temperature products are you holding up as accurate or dependable, vs which temperature products do you take issue with?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #282 on: August 05, 2018, 10:05:46 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634581630/2017-was-one-of-the-hottest-years-on-record

Are conservatives still convinced climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the global scientific community?
When you frame this so dishonestly, I assume you’re not looking for a response but just confirmation of your bias.

So conservatives feel climate change is real? Or do conservatives dispute that it is the consensus opinion of the scientific community?

I'm not sure of a fairer way to honestly state the opinion of climate change deniers.   

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #283 on: August 07, 2018, 12:52:44 PM »
Quote
It also is why the warmest years based on (non-extrapolated/interpolated) satellite data have tended to also not agree with such claims.
First off, ALL satellite data is extrapolated - satellites do not measure temperature, but rather microwave response, and the measured microwave levels are then put through an algorithm to come up with estimated temperature values.  Satellite values are by their very nature manipulated to a far greater degree than land based measurements.

Secondly, satellite algorithms have had far more major corrections in the past decade, as those algorithms needed to be fixed due to errors in calculations, assumptions and physical processes.

Ok, "Satellite data based on actual data from readings actually taken" vs data that is claimed to be part of the Satellite datasets even though few to no actual measurements or data exists for the latitude being modeled. (Specifically polar regions, where most of the so called "Satellite data" (which doesn't actually exist) claims the warming to be happening at.)

TheDeamon, we know that the Arctic is warming even without the Satellite data, from numerous other sources.  From the melting of the Arctic sea ice.  From the melting of the Greenland glaciers.  From the melting of the permafrost.  From the revealing of many archaeological finds, thousands of years old, which were trapped in ice all this time.

One of my favorites comes from a talk I hear a few years ago from a gal who studies arctic pools.  These are small pools of water that are frozen most of the year and only thaw during the summer.  Bacteria grow in these pools, which die at the end of the season and fall to the bottom, leaving layers of dead bacteria.  She spends eight hours a day over a microscope cataloging these bacteria.  A most boring job, but kinda interesting in a scientificy way.

Many of these pools are disappearing.  They are drying up during the summer, something that hasn't happened in hundreds of years (which she knows from the bacteria record).  And the bacteria in the pools are changing.  Bacteria that thrive in warmer temperatures are displacing the traditional bacteria.  The temperature of these pools is increasing.

I see no plausible explanation for her to be lying in order to "claim" global warming is happening.  You don't spend eight hours a day over a microscope to produce erroneous data for a grand conspiracy--not at graduate student wages. :)

Now, perhaps the "warmest" year wasn't last year.  Maybe it actually was a year before, or two years before, or ten.  It may even have occurred back in the 1930s.  There is a certain amount of uncertainty in the measurements, and the top spot is always being contended.  But if you look over periods of decades, the warmest decade was the last decade.  The warmest one before that was the one before that.  And worldwide, temperature records are being broken.  Crops are wilting from the heat.  Diseases are moving up from the tropics.  Growing seasons are changing.  Droughts are more common.  Wildfires are more common and more intense.  Sea levels are rising.  All the people who examine and track these things (including farmers) are not lying.

The Earth is getting warmer.  Satellite and ground temperature readings give us our best estimate of how quickly it is happening.  But you don't need a weatherman to know which way the winds blow.  And they are blowing hotter. :(

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #284 on: August 07, 2018, 04:46:32 PM »
So conservatives feel climate change is real?

What do feelings have to do with it?  And do you really think "conservatives" are a group with a uniform opinion on climate change (not even Democrats have a uniform opinion on it).

I think, what you really want to talk about are climate change deniers - which is actually a fairly tiny group.

Quote
Or do conservatives dispute that it is the consensus opinion of the scientific community?

In addition to the above, any rational person should question why "consensus" is relevant.  We are talking about science are we not?  I must of missed the day in class where they said that it wasn't proof that was needed to confirm a hypothesis but opinion polling.

Quote
I'm not sure of a fairer way to honestly state the opinion of climate change deniers.

Well, you got a bit better there in the last sentence where you actually focused on the people you seem to want to criticize.  Of course, they're the strawmen of the debate.  And I'm pretty sure you could find a fairer way to state the basis of their beliefs that to ascribe them to a belief in a conspiracy hoax.

Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

So as a non-denialist, I'm kind of left with criticizing the religiousity of climate change "belief" and flat out opposing the incredibly bad for the environment social redistributive policies that the international community puts out.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #285 on: August 07, 2018, 08:21:53 PM »
The USA has more climate skepticism than almost anywhere else in the world: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/17/the-u-s-has-more-climate-skeptics-than-anywhere-else-on-earth-blame-the-gop/?utm_term=.2928cf6201b4.  I suppose one can play the "not a true climate change denier" game... and one can quibble about what "tiny group" actually means. 

Clearly, not all conservatives are climate change deniers - that's painting with far too broad a brush.  Only 65% of Republicans don't believe that climate change is caused by human activities. https://www.businessinsider.com/gallup-poll-republicans-climate-change-problem-2018-3

Last year, virtually no Republicans in Washington accepted climate change as being real (OK, maybe 5%) (OK, publicly, as in, where somebody might hear them) https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/

As for "the consensus" - you've made this logical error any number of times now, and it's been pointed out to you any number of times. The consensus is not a poll of random people with thoughts about climate change; the consensus is rather the end result of the vast majority of experts, whose careers centre around the subject, no longer finding areas of major disagreement with each other on the causes of climate change. Even more importantly, they are so convinced of this lack of another viable hypothesis that they actually spend years building upon the previous research.  That's a different type of evidence.  The consensus is not evidence of climate change - it is rather evidence that the people who study climate are convinced of the AGW/climate change hypotheses.

Rational people generally don't question why a broad, almost universal consensus of experts is relevant.  Especially not after the first couple of times it's been explained to them.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2018, 08:24:39 PM by DonaldD »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #286 on: August 08, 2018, 09:09:18 AM »
I see DonaldD and when the "consensus of experts" agreed the sun circled the Earth should a rational person have asked for proof, or explained why the proof that was available should not be as convincing as made out?  Or should they have shut up because a consensus of experts really is binding?

This is the power of propaganda, you made a convincing sounding argument, but it's not really a sound argument.  We know for a fact that every scientist is wrong from time to time, we know for a fact that new discoveries sometimes turn entire fields on their heads.  We know for a fact that virtually all climate science, including all of its projective power is based on computer modelling, and that the limitations of that model are never accounted for in claims that the consensus has settled it.

There's no logical error in pointing out that a "consensus" adds nothing to a scientific proof.  If a statement is a fact,  it is true without recourse to an opinion.

The US does have more climate skepticism, it also has one of the biggest drops in carbon production in the world.  All the result of our deliberate policy choices.  The US has been leading the anti-pollution effort for decades.  And we've paid a heavy economic price at times.  Meanwhile China, produces more carbon than us, and it's RATE of increase is still going up.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #287 on: August 08, 2018, 10:34:00 AM »
The scientific method only began to be used in Europe in the 16th century (Galileo, Bacon), although similar concepts were being used during the Islamic golden age several centuries earlier.  Coincidentally, geocentrism died a slow death over the same period, starting with Copernicus in the 15th century, and being resisted by the Catholic Church, that bastion of medieval scientific thought, until 1758 when even the church capitulated.

Bravo - you've illustrated that the scientific method, in conjunction with more advanced optical equipment, informed the study of heliocentrism in a very similar fashion as it did anthropogenic global warming.

And no, you continue to misunderstand what "the consensus" means.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #288 on: August 08, 2018, 10:45:14 AM »
So, because we know for a fact the scientists can be wrong we can ignore their findings especially when they go against our political biases and the possibility of making money.

The Scientific method is an extension of how consciousness works. Something happens, we compare it to past happenings and from that comparison predict the future. For the most part this has been an effective way to survive. The challenge is that over time we create filters that keep us from seeing the present for what it is which is why acceptance is so difficult and the desire to return to the past --- and make it great again.   

Personally, I don’t care much about the debate on if climate change is real or not, impacted by man or not. It makes economic sense to develop more efficient ways to use our recourses, full stop. Sure, that will mean disruption to current drivers of the economy as some business that make a lot of money now might not make as much tomorrow, other business will take their place.  And just as all the other times this has happened people will be afraid of change as they cling to what they know and have.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #289 on: August 08, 2018, 11:06:22 AM »
Rightleft if you can find any place where I said to ignore the science or the scientists I'll eat my shirt (figuratively).  I have years on this topic, including on the prior board.  Feel free to knock yourself out.

And DonaldD I'm not mistaking at all what "consensus" means.  You're appealing to an exemption to the argument from authority fallacy (ie where it's an actual expert opinion standing in as fact).  However, we've walked through the specific deficiencies in the stated record, and there's nothing about this statement that is inaccurate in any way:

Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

That's a compilation of a number of points that have been previously discussed, including specifically problems with the instrumental record, problems with modeled projections, inability to run experiments on a climate, and frankly, the idea that a "consensus" has real meaning (4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest after all - does that mean that they had the clinical expertise to evaluate whether Crest was objectively better?  Is expertise in being a dentist really the same as expertise in evaluating tooth paste?  Every list of the "climate consensus" includes a lot of people who have no direct expertise on global climate change). 

On this last point, I note that we increasingly take "lists" or "groups" at face value uncritically in debate (as another, admittedly less popular example, we frequently hear about Trump's "documented lies" when a bunch of the "documented lies" are nothing more than differences of opinion).   If your argument really is that you don't know anything but you believe other smart people who told you the answer, why exactly are you "debating" an issue in the first place?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #290 on: August 08, 2018, 11:30:22 AM »
And no, you continue to misunderstand what "the consensus" means.

Methinks it doesn't mean what you think it means. As much stock as you place in that "consensus" have you ever looked into the sourcing for that claim? Or more particularly, the methodology used? Or do you just parrot soundbites that match your world view?

Edit: Actually, I don't "think" on this point. I know. But then. I am going from memory, and whatever source I dig up would likely be ignored, so I will leave it as a self-discovery task.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 11:37:35 AM by TheDeamon »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #291 on: August 08, 2018, 11:40:51 AM »
I still don't know what this argument is even about. Are you arguing over long-term strategy...or what? I doubt either of your positions is "never improve our carbon efficiency". So is the argument about rapidity? I know that back in the time of the Kyoto protocol the 'consensus' seemed to be to apply a scorched Earth policy to the economy and just curtail production. I don't think that would have turned out well. As it happens, removing your economic base isn't a good way of finding funding for research.

So what's this argument about, again?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #292 on: August 08, 2018, 12:34:19 PM »
Easy answer. And preview of what will be found after drilling down on "the consensus" is that:
Quote
that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it

And that a lot of so-called "skeptics" are called such for calling bad science what it is, and/or also pointing out:

Quote
none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #293 on: August 08, 2018, 01:06:00 PM »
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it
How exactly can you make this claim?  You have neither done original research in this area, nor have you reviewed anything but a small fraction (at best) of the original research.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #294 on: August 08, 2018, 01:58:28 PM »
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it
How exactly can you make this claim?  You have neither done original research in this area, nor have you reviewed anything but a small fraction (at best) of the original research.

So you never make any claims about science? I'm guessing that you have never viewed a significant amount of the research on basic physics, astronomy, viewed mathematical proofs - yet I'm assuming you have made claims or wouldn't dispute claims made about those.

How about pharmaceuticals, do you only ever take drugs where you have reviewed all of the scientific literature on the drugs, or do you just read the pharmacy labels and listen to your doctors advice on what drugs to take?

We have a largely trust based society. If everything was held to the standard that skeptics demand of climate change no one could claim to know anything much beyond some basic mathematics that is easily provable by anyone.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #295 on: August 08, 2018, 01:59:00 PM »
Quote
Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).

That's a compilation of a number of points that have been previously discussed, including specifically problems with the instrumental record, problems with modeled projections, inability to run experiments on a climate, and frankly, the idea that a "consensus" has real meaning (4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest after all - does that mean that they had the clinical expertise to evaluate whether Crest was objectively better?  Is expertise in being a dentist really the same as expertise in evaluating tooth paste?  Every list of the "climate consensus" includes a lot of people who have no direct expertise on global climate change). 

On this last point, I note that we increasingly take "lists" or "groups" at face value uncritically in debate (as another, admittedly less popular example, we frequently hear about Trump's "documented lies" when a bunch of the "documented lies" are nothing more than differences of opinion).   If your argument really is that you don't know anything but you believe other smart people who told you the answer, why exactly are you "debating" an issue in the first place?

Your position does put you firmly in the "believer" column, although I do question the depth of your belief.  (If I were stuck on a ship that I thought was most likely sinking because of what we were doing, but no one had a good plan on how to stop it, I think I would spend much less energy on defending those who thought the ship wasn't really sinking and far more energy on trying to find a way to keep the freaking thing afloat. :) )

However, I would like to discuss the value of "consensus."  You are correct that a consensus does not prove a scientific idea, and that many lists of "climate consensus" include people who are not experts in the field.  But I think you are dismissing the value of such consensuses.

For one thing, while there are lists of consensuses that include many people with no direct expertise on the subject, I don't know of any list limited to those with expertise that is not also a consensus.  There is a consensus among scientists in general; among climatologists in general; and among climatologists who study and model the climate and the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, AFAIK.  While such lists can give an incorrect impression about what is generally agreed about in a field, I don't think it is the case with climate change.

I would very much like to see the lists that do not have a general consensus on AGW.  I think it would be quite instructive to see who were on those lists, what groups they represent, and how the members of the list were chosen.

The other thing is about proof in science.  Unlike mathematics, you can never really "prove" a scientific theory.  There is always the possibility of it being changed or disproven by new facts.

What you can state is that the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that the theory is sound.  This includes measurements, models, predictions and consensus.

Consensus is part of the evidence because those who know the most about a subject are much better at being "right" about it than the layman.  Just like professional car mechanics are more likely to know how to fix your car than the guy off the street, or professional oncologists are more likely to know how to treat your cancer.  Because they are familiar with the subject and its details; they have questioned and reviewed the evidence in the subject; they have tested the information, looking for flaws; they have made practical predictions and seen how they turned out; and they have searched for answers when the predictions did not turn out correctly and try to correct their models and knowledge.  IOW, they have done everything you expect the skeptics to have done, but on a professional level, where their reputations and livelihood are at stake.

Does this mean they are correct all the time?  Of course not.  But neither are the skeptics.  And between the two, I think you'll find the experts are correct far more often than the skeptics.

Which means that the consensus of experts should be given significant weight when deciding whether a hypothesis is likely to be true or not.  It is not just an "argument from authority."  It is another piece of evidence to be considered along with the basic known science (increase in greenhouse gases should increase trapped heat), what is observed (temperatures are increasing at rate unprecedented in the last few hundred thousand years, along with the other evidence and the observed increased in human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere), and the hypotheses (various models of climate that all indicate that CO2 is responsible).  Everything combined makes AGW as certain as just about anything else we currently "know" about the universe.  The only real questions are the details--how fast is the climate changing, what are the effects of this change, and is there a "tipping point" when the whole chaotic system may change to a new state.

It's not just an argument from authority.  When almost everyone who should know believes something is true, it means you should carefully check what makes you believe otherwise.  Because the best bet is that you are the one who is wrong. ;)

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #296 on: August 08, 2018, 02:40:24 PM »
Yossarian, to whom are you responding?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #297 on: August 08, 2018, 03:21:32 PM »
I still don't know what this argument is even about. Are you arguing over long-term strategy...or what? I doubt either of your positions is "never improve our carbon efficiency". So is the argument about rapidity? I know that back in the time of the Kyoto protocol the 'consensus' seemed to be to apply a scorched Earth policy to the economy and just curtail production. I don't think that would have turned out well. As it happens, removing your economic base isn't a good way of finding funding for research.

So what's this argument about, again?

We're arguing over nits, but he also is firmly in the "We NEED to take action NOW!" camp which still firmly believes that gutting the Economy in order to lower CO2 emissions wouldn't be a bad thing.

While at least some of us are going "Yes, warming appears to be happening. Yes, some of the science behind it seems solid enough. Yes, some of the purported science makes for nice infographics, but poor science." (Claiming temperature instrumentation data down to 0.xxx degree precision where no such instrumentation record exists is a no-no, and bad science)

"Yes, CO2 is probably contributing.  But probably not to extent being claimed in most models. Also, are you ignoring the whole matter of most computer models run to date not only being wrong, but wildly so?" Ok, you can point to a handful of models that "Came close" but that is a handful out of how many hundreds of models run? How did they fare on the over/under by the way? Oh right, they almost universally failed on the "over" side of things.

So we're supposed to slow down economic activity and growth by significant percentage year over year, based on computer models that have a historical record of being overly aggressive in their predictions?

And then there is the whole matter of what the correct response to that information should be.

Such as the various treaties and protocols to supposedly help save the planet. Which clearly show that even if everyone agreed to cuts, and you simply made the United States disappear entirely, the Earth is still going to warm further according to these same computer Models which are evidently our new and highly unreliable arbiter of "reasonable actions" for some reason

...sounds to me more like we need to be working more on preparing for the worst case scenarios while trying to "decarbonize" our economies, but not by going to such extra-ordinary means that we end up destroying our ability to respond to the changes that are coming without respect to any other choices that are made.

...Of course, this also doesn't get into the matter of while there is a "scientific consensus" on man's likely contribution on the current climate change, it isn't all centered exclusively around AGW.  Land use change(in particular urban heat islands) among a number of other factors are come into play as contributing factors as well.

Which brings us back to melting ice in the Arctic. Remember, there has been an "Asian brown cloud" problem for a couple decades now, not much unlike one North America and Europe experienced at points in the 20th Century and earlier. Thing is, a LOT of that particulate matter IS finding its way up into the arctic, and undoubtedly helping speed along that snow/ice melt process.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #298 on: August 08, 2018, 03:53:20 PM »
Good. Assuming others agree this this is the issue under dispute - even if they don't agree with TheDeamon's conclusions - then it seems to me the issue should be what potential plans are on the table. I could see a scenario where a solid plan was on the table but had short-term costs, whereas a more long-term plan was proposed by others who didn't want to see such a short-term hit. As long as both plans were feasible then it would be a matter of risk assessment of the odds of things getting terrible before the long-term plan came to fruition.

But I've scarcely ever seen a debate of that type. Why not?

I've been skeptical of the AGW crowd for a long time. I'm not a climate denier - more like agnostic - but I have always sensed something weird and suspicious about how the climate claims have come about. Back in the 90's there were 'sky is falling' type claims being made, and before that in the 70's (I think, it's been a while since I've read that old material and I totally forget the dates). So I'm not impressed by "we need to do something now!!" rhetoric. But lest I get pidgeonholed into the "do nothing" category in the 'us vs them' standard, I will assert that I bet I'm more of a radical conservationist than most AGW pushers. I would *love* to see standards increase in terms of pollution, treatment of habitat, living conditions for people (air and water quality), and protection of the ecosystems that we have. I would be the first to jump on board a solid eco-train that had real cargo.

I've read theories about ways to manipulate carbon through greenery, maybe some way in future using oceans, and perhaps artificial methods for the atmosphere. I've read about trying to switch to green energy. That's all great. Any plan for that would get two thumbs up from me. And so my question is - would someone like Seriati object to these either? I bet he wouldn't. So what is this argument about, again?

I hope it's not solely about, as TheDeamon suggests, whether we should sabotage the economy for a faint hope of maybe affecting the climate a little bit, but still not enough to stop it. Is that the only plan on the table that is seriously being debated? What else could the debate be about? Even if there wasn't AGW I would still want to adopt the above measures, and ASAP.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: here comes the next ice age
« Reply #299 on: August 08, 2018, 04:06:55 PM »
I've been skeptical of the "ruin our economy" side of things. Would it ruin our economy to accelerate adoption of emissionless vehicle infrastructure, solar deployment, shutting down fossil plants, increase subsidies for electric vehicles, etc?

It seems to me, making the kind of wholesale changes recommended to reduce carbon emission would greatly stimulate the economy.

Of course, it isn't helpful when you slap tariffs on solar panel imports and raise the costs of installation.