[Closed] Global warming again...........

Oh no "Groundhog Day"!!

Well scientists are currently telling us that there is no link between mobile phones and cancer. So JY what would you do, keep using the phone just as people kept smoking in the middle of last century.

See how contradictory it all becomes.

Ransos - I am not looking for an argument on this!! Of course the Euro has something to do with science!! Economics is a science?? But that's not the point.

The Euro was proposed for political reasons as well as economic ones. Economics is a social science, like politics or sociology, so not relevant to this discussion.

I'm sure the majority of people thought that the world was flat at the time.

There's no evidence that this is the case. See? I'm a sceptic.

"the opinion and evidence of the overwhelming (however that is defined?) majority or people qualified in a subject area" is not necessarily a concluding factor.

99 doctors tell you that you need a life saving operation. One doctor says you do not. What do you do?

I always ask both sides:

What would it take to change your mind?

A denier will state either 'nothing' or 'complete and utter proof'. The former is obviously useless and the latter simply cannot ever be done in anything but mathematics. You can prove 1+1=2 but you cannot prove anything like, for example, gravity, as they are all models of what we observe.

A true skeptic would answer something like 'when the balance of evidence points in the direction X then it is more likely to occur'. That's my position and to-date I am seeing quite a bit of evidence so I think it is most probably happening. Then again I'm a scientist by training and am naturally skeptical of everything.

What I am seeing on the deniers side is something like the argument of the 'god of the gaps', splitting hairs more and more finely in order to 'win'.

Well scientists are currently telling us that there is no link between mobile phones and cancer. So JY what would you do, keep using the phone just as people kept smoking in the middle of last century.

No, the scientists are telling us that one particular study was unable to establish a link. Which isn't the same thing at all.

Well scientists are currently telling us that there is no link between mobile phones and cancer. So JY what would you do, keep using the phone just as people kept smoking in the middle of last century.

Erm.. yes. Exactly that.

have you stopped using your mobile phone because some non-scientific source (the Daily Mail?) said there was a link to cancer?

I use silver earings with magnetised water in them ...you can never be too careful and it make me look like a pirate 😉

On your broader point yes "conventional wisdom" may be wrong but you cant just say that as some sort of proof that an individual issue is wrong. You also need to prove why it is wrong in this case and stating that "fact" does not achieve that goal.

I still think this is funny if you agree with the guy or not.

I don't get it, that analogy is completly meaningless? No?

[img] [/img]

Yes good point but graham man made c02 is only a tiny fraction of al the C02 ther eis so we cant be making much difference

I'm still worried that everything's so cO2 centric myself.

[i]We[/i] may or may not be making [i]much difference[/i] but a difference is occurring and along with all the livestock farting it's causing permafrost to release Methane ... and that's a much bigger kettle of fish to turn into a black pot! Didn't I read somewhere that it's up to 10X worse as a greenhouse gas?

EDIT: Wiki says 72 times but I'll take that with a pinch of NaCl
2nd EDIT (see what I did there .. with more help from Wiki)

Didn't I read somewhere that it's up to 10X worse as a greenhouse gas?

23 times worse.

[img] [/img]

I still think this is funny if you agree with the guy or not.
>

/p>

I don't get it, that analogy is completly meaningless? No?

Also:
[img] [/img]

mobile phones and cancer=
" "The extended follow-up allowed us to investigate effects in people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more, and this long-term use was not associated with higher risks of cancer.

"However, as a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy users or after even longer induction periods than 10-15 years cannot be ruled out, further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised"

Not exactly mobile phones don't cause cancer is it ....Ransos post is a micro study of the climate debate science vs people who skim read and misquote to achieve a preselected conclusion.

If you want to see something really funny with Delingpole in it, then watch this:

if you want post a link check the one we are commenting on first 😉

Same one DUDE 😛

Blimey a lynch mob!! And I am not even a denier!!

I do not read the Daily Wail but have always chosen to minimise the use of my mobile. But please read my posts - I explained the contradiction here!!

JY - with a Masters in Economics I feel justified to argue better in that area but happy to admit mistakes when appropriate. Ditto, doctors (people who are qualified to know better) mis-diagnosed my mother's illness for 30 years, so excuse me for remaining sceptical!!

A true skeptic would answer something like 'when the balance of evidence points in the direction X then it is more likely to occur'. That's my position and to-date I am seeing quite a bit of evidence so I think it is most probably happening. Then again I'm a scientist by training and am naturally skeptical of everything.

I tend to agree with this. But, and its a big BUT, there is a difference between accepting the existence of global warning and taking a non-sceptical view of the causes.

if you want post a link check the one we are commenting on first

Same one DUDE

Ahem...that's the trouble with pretending to be working. 😳

look we all agree on cynicism i think so why not give us your explanation and we will tell you what the nice scientists say about it.
You cant just go ah sod it I am being a cynic whatever the evidence says an not offer an account.

Ps as a psychologist -see a proper scientist - i am happy to explain why reinforcement makes you thinks its a science using my "laws" but they are somewhat weaker than Boyles law or proper science. Give us 500 years then thismay not be true of our disciplines but if i am honest i am sceptical about that claim - we are but alchemists at present 😉

JY - I assume that this is directed at me? Simply because I haven't the time or frankly the inclination to go though the whole debate on STW. That's not to run from debate or to take sides. It is simply because I believe that a lot more scientific analysis and evidence is required before we can reach a conclusion.

ditto and economist can argue why his/her subject is a science - but so what?

Last post here, far more important things to do!

Junky

That's like saying keep smoking lets see what happens. That also scientists dangerously predicting the future as well zulu -11 . I assume your animal experiments predicted what would happen in the future if you took x for example. why not take some radiation or some arsenic after all who knows what will happen.
Obviously science cannot and should not make any "prediction " so who know what will happen.

Sorry, fine, you're absolutley right... now, if you'll just show me the control sample planet that you used to prove to me the global warming concept then I'll happily shut up 🙄

Like I said - people look for patterns in a chaotic system, its hard wired into us:

[img] [/img]

I have seen plenty of graphs and data manipulated by both sides trying to prove it one way or the other, but no one actually can prove anything.

What would you consider to be "proof"?

Whilst Delingpole is an idiot and not someone I am very keen on, the example is extremely poor.

Comparing the knowledge, trials and results on Cancer care with a hypothesis on how the planet will react to additional CO2 is simply not comparable.

Also, if you have ever been for cancer treatment you will also realise that there are actually a number of alternatives offered to you based on trial medicine, the consensus thing is a poor example.

The fact of the matter is that the planet (before humans) has experienced and reacted too huge rises in CO2 before and will again based on historical data, what you can not say for certain is whether or not the human contribution is significant enough to change the way the planet reacts.

As I stated previously, I am not on the side of the sceptics in anyway whatsoever and am a firm believer in conservation of natural resources, and I sure as hell don't think we do nothing and just wait to find out, the issue I have is with the apparent certainty that scientists have in that we are all doomed and its all our fault, when in fact, there is no scientific evidence to prove this.

Calling people names and trying to mock their input only shows a weak argument and debating style.

What would you consider to be "proof"?

I don't think there will be proof available within our lifetime, hence the comment about not waiting to find out.

I believe that a lot more scientific analysis and evidence is required before we can reach a conclusion.

Yep, give it a couple of hundred years and if the planet hasn't drowned and we can still breath the atmosphere then it was probably nothing to worry about.

[img] [/img]

now, if you'll just show me the control sample planet that you used to prove to me the global warming concept then I'll happily shut up

That's rather the point. We don't have one. We can't [u]prove[/u] it till it after it has happened and some folk would prefer to avoid that - even if it means we are avoiding something that wasn't going to happen anyway.

you moved the goal post Zulu I will take that as a win as you no longer want to argue about science predicting the future
Thanks

Comparing the knowledge, trials and results on Cancer care with a hypothesis on how the planet will react to additional CO2 is simply not comparable.

I think you've missed the point. This is about Delingpole rejecting the evidence presented by the experts, who nearly all say the same thing. Why would he choose to believe the opinion of a tiny minority instead? It's as logical as believing the one doctor who says you don't need an operation.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, i think its a terrible analogy.

now, if you'll just show me the control sample planet that you used to prove to me the global warming concept then I'll happily shut up

That's rather the point. We don't have one.

A very good point. I'm sure it frustrates the scientific method to have to deal with that, but to be fair, tough titties.

you moved the goal post Zulu

bollocks

there's a huge difference between analysis of observational data and forward extrapolation, (prediction) and placebo controlled comparative studies - and you well know it

there's a huge difference between analysis of observational data and forward extrapolation, (prediction) and placebo controlled comparative studies - and you well know it

That's true. Interesting then, that the models are very good at predicting the observational data.

Let's say the evidence was exactly balanced and it was a straight 50/50 whether we were causing climate change or not.

Should we:

A) do nothing in the hope that we are not causing it and suffer terrible global consequences if we are?

or

B) do something and if it turns out we were not causing it then suffer some mockery (while breathing our nice clean air)?

that the models are very good at predicting the observational data.

Really? Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be virtually no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why 😉

[img] [/img]

FFS - don't argue with Zulu on this one. Nothing will convince a confirmed sceptic who dosn't want to listen

Really? Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be [i]virtually [/i]no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why

everyone who understand the difference between climate and weather.

Love the use of "virtually" - so there has been a warming trend? Needs a longer timescale than ten years - and if you start from an exceptionally warm year.................

Love the use of "virtually" - so there has been a warming trend? Needs a longer timescale than ten years - and if you start from an exceptionally warm year.................

Ah, the classic cherry pick tactic - using 1998 as your base year. Funny how they never choose 1997, or 1999.

ransos - Member

Ah, the classic cherry pick tactic - using 1998 as your base year. Funny how they never choose 1997, or 1999.

Show me a model that successfully predicted the fact there would be virtually no warming trend over the past decade's observational data... or one that can explain why

Except, urr, we have. As discussed in the report that this thread is about.

Ransos - thats a graph of different observational records

not a graph of modelled predictions

the fact that the ten year trend is limited, is irrelevant

the modeled predictions all showed a constant warming trend, with no downturn

the models did not match the observational data

that means the models were wrong

that mans you go back to the drawing board and figure out why, instead of denying it

[b]Note[/b] I've never denied one here that warming is happening, I've also never accepted it has - I've consistently said that I think the data is bollocks, and therefore we simply do not know, I maintain that that is a perfectly responsible and fair scientific position to hold.

the models did not match the observational data

that means the models were wrong

that mans you go back to the drawing board and figure out why, instead of denying it

Read the report.

Basically the sea was a slightly better heat sink than expected, so it hasn't warmed as much as was expected.

As a result if you include sea temperatures in your observations then it looks like there is less warming than was predicted, because it is lagging behind a bit.

If you look just at land temperatures then the 1°C rise has been continuous as modelled.

[img] [/img]

Reckon The Flying Ox had it right and deserves posting again:

[img] [/img]

Ransos - thats a graph of different observational records

All of which refute your earlier assertion. If you're going to start with a false premise, there's no point in discussing anything else with you.

Next!

I've never denied one here that warming is happening, I've also never accepted it has - I've consistently said that I think the data is bollocks, and therefore we simply do not know, I maintain that that is a perfectly responsible and fair scientific position to hold.

Only if you give equal credence to the internationally recognised climate scientists and the rag bag fringe of deniers with no expertise in the area.
And on he last debate we had on this you flatly denied it was happening

Except, urr, we have. As discussed in the report that this thread is about.

Except, urr, the report was observational data, not a predictive model 🙄

For those interested, here's the prediction made by Hansen in 1988. The scenarios are for different rates of emissions growth and assumptions about volcanic eruptions. Scenario B most closely represents what actually happened - modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption. Note how accurate it was!

[img] [/img]

Except, urr, the report was observational data, not a predictive model

That's right. It is a report on observational data that follows the predictive model.