|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 5, 2010 21:39:50 GMT 1
You still have to convince me and others that most of the world's climate scientists are misguided, M. How are you going to do that?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 5, 2010 21:43:23 GMT 1
In reply number 5 lazarus gave a whole list of links that he thought bore out his assertion that corals faced a dim future and he was scathing when, after I quickly read through the abstracts, I realised that they did not bear out his spin at all. Nearly all stated that the processes were not fully understood or that the corals recovered spontaneously or that MANY variables including fishing and pollution were involved. Fishing and pollution can be controlled, in theory, climate change cannot. Corals have been around a very long time. They will continue to be. They are resilient.
It's a fact that some types get off on scaremongering and the moral superiority they think it bestows on them. Beware of them, abacus.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 5, 2010 21:45:30 GMT 1
It is not my job to convince you of anything, abacus. Only widening your reading can do that.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 5, 2010 21:48:44 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 5, 2010 21:50:31 GMT 1
Try and reread this every week, abacus! it helps you keep your feet on the ground
8th Sept 2010
Stephen Budiansky
"My three years at "Nature" left me painfully aware that scientists are about the worst people on earth when it comes to confusing their political inclinations with objective fact — and absolutely the worst in the concomitant certainty that one's opponents must be liars, frauds, or corruptly motivated, since (obviously) no honest person could possibly have reached a contrary conclusion through objective reasoning."
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 5, 2010 23:05:01 GMT 1
Probably not. Just believe me - a fisherman - he is.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 6, 2010 12:54:19 GMT 1
It is not my job to convince you of anything, abacus. Only widening your reading can do that. You see, it is very, very, easy to find stuff on the web that happens to concur with your personal opinion M, but this is the nature of the web - that ALL types of ideas are able to be aired, however, the trick is to discriminate between what is accurate and what is sheer propaganda from people with a clear agenda. You seemed to have fallen into the trap of making poor choices of articles in order to support your conclusion-led hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 6, 2010 13:46:03 GMT 1
Just widen your reading matter, abacus, and abandon the taste you seem to have acquired, for knocking the intellectual powers of the folk who happen to disagree with you.
As for "conclusion led hypothesis" that was the whole rationale for the founding of the IPCC whose remit was to find the evidence for manmade global warming - THE conclusion-led hypothesis if ever there was one!
As for the stuff I seek out the web and elsewhere it is it is predominantly the work of eminent climatologists like, Roger Piellke Sr, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Bob Carter, Pat Michaels et al. So long as THEY remain unconvinced re the role of CO2 it take it that I have permission to be unconvinced too.
On boards like this you find many who are merely opinionated about climate but who are unable to counter sceptical arguments with rational debate. They are a dead end if you are seeking any sort of reliable information. I can't be bothered with people who confine their posts, like Eamonn and helen and you (above) to the denigration of opponents rather than to the discussion of the facts about the climate. They make much of the internet a very barren place to be.
If you want to be exposed to a steady flow of usually "peer-reviewed" (the gold standard for many!) research findings that are both supportive and critical of the AGW consensus you need do no more than pay a daily visit to WUWT. Try it before knocking it!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 6, 2010 21:40:58 GMT 1
Just widen your reading matter, abacus, and abandon the taste you seem to have acquired, for knocking the intellectual powers of the folk who happen to disagree with you. As for "conclusion led hypothesis" that was the whole rational for the founding of the IPCC whose remit was to find the evidence for manmade global warming - THE conclusion-led hypothesis if ever there was one! As for the stuff I seek out the web and elsewhere it is it is predominantly the work of eminent climatologists like, Roger Piellke Sr, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, Bob Carter, Pat Michaels et al. So long as THEY remain unconvinced re the role of CO2 it take it that I have permission to be unconvinced too. On boards like this you find many who are merely opinionated about climate but who are unable to counter sceptical arguments with rational debate. They are a dead end if you are seeking any sort of reliable information. I can't be bothered with people who confine their posts, like Eamonn and helen and you (above) to the denigration of opponents rather than to the discussion of the facts about the climate. They make much of the internet a very barren place to be. If you want to be exposed to a steady flow of usually "peer-reviewed" (the gold standard for many!) research findings that are both supportive and critical of the AGW consensus you need do no more than pay a daily visit to WUWT. Try it before knocking it! Nice speech, M, but a hollow one. M, science is not about clever rhetoric but about data collected from as many independent sources as possible and the balanced interpretation of such data. You and others here seem to want to refute perfectly acceptable interpretations of data that has been painstakingly collected by dedicated scientists in an attempt to paint as clear as picture as possible of what is actually occurring to the world's climate and the possible consequences. Now, what exactly is your beef with that M? M, I'm beginning to think that you were terribly spoilt as a child.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 6, 2010 21:45:48 GMT 1
Read "The Hockeystick Illusion" abacus...please.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 6, 2010 22:18:36 GMT 1
"perfectly acceptable interpretations of data that has been painstakingly collected by dedicated scientists"
Sadly there is very little data that has been collected. That's the trouble. It's mainly assumptions and modelled "scenarios".
The surface stations are totally unreliable because of UHI, distribution, adjustment and homogenisation.
Comparative sea-level is dependent on a handful of long-lived tide-gauges.
Sea temperature, even today with our growing number of argo buoys, is disputed.
Comparative ice extent is only known from historical accounts.
Sources and sinks of CO2 are not understood, the hydrological cycle is not understood.
Climatology is a nascent science. You attach far to much credence to its tentative baby footsteps, abacus.
We are just at the beginning of the satellite observation period and it will be a very long time indeed before we have any useful records of any duration at all. Meanwhile the politically motivated but scientifically illiterate are trying to scare-monger the world into rash decisions based on virtually NOTHING. Or should I say based on VIRTUAL reality rather than actual observation and empiricism.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 7, 2010 9:59:00 GMT 1
Read "The Hockeystick Illusion" abacus...please. The 'Hockey-stick' graph seems quite clear cut to me. Why would you call it an illusion?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 7, 2010 10:03:16 GMT 1
M, how can you expect the average person, who is not an expert, to accept that you are in a better position to make scientific judgements about climate change than the majority of scientists who do it for a living? It's quite absurd.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 7, 2010 12:40:45 GMT 1
I am not claiming anything for myself, abacus. I am not a charismatic leader in this debate. I am just an interested lay person. Why do always seek to personalise the debate?
I am simply discussing climate facts, figures and hypotheses because I think this debate is very important and actual information and firm "knowledge" is in VERY short supply - quite the contrary to your view that we already know "enough".
All I can suggest is that you widen your reading matter to understand just how sparse the evidence for catastrophic CO2-induced global warming actually is.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 7, 2010 14:50:11 GMT 1
M, if I widened my reading all I would find is that the majority of scientific articles, journals, etc. will support man-made AGW, the rest would either sit on the fence or reject the notion outright.
|
|