• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Investigating the Climate Change Skeptics/Deniers?

ataraxia said:
The poster was asking me how I knew that there might not have been long stretches where the CO2 was high and the climb it was cool. The Graph was to show how I knew.
Click to expand...

CO2 gets clipped on ice core samples. Just like some Australian meteorological stations cannot record below -10C. The proxies have a high limit that can't be shown, and are "clipped" in several places.

Haven't you ever reviewed CO2 core readings?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Common sense.

Your ignorance to the related sciences is in spades.
Click to expand...

Common sense?!!!

Science tells you lots of things that are not common sense: from the fact that the Earth is round and hurtling through space while revolving and rotating and precessing in all sorts of dizzying ways, to how the passage of time and the experience of space is all relative to your state of motion, to that the particles forming your body only exist as probability waves, to how you have descended from ape-like creatures in the distant past, etc...

The fact that you think your common sense has anything to say on the matter betrays your complete lack of understanding of how science works.

"Common sense" is just code for "what I grew up believing".
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
CO2 gets clipped on ice core samples. Just like some Australian meteorological stations cannot record below -10C. The proxies have a high limit that can't be shown, and are "clipped" in several places.

Haven't you ever reviewed CO2 core readings?
Click to expand...

And I assume this has escaped the attention of all the climate scientists who have spent lifetimes studying this stuff, but not your eagle eyes and your common sense! Wow, it must really be great being so smart as you!
 
ataraxia said:
And I assume this has escaped the attention of all the climate scientists who have spent lifetimes studying this stuff, but not your eagle eyes and your common sense! Wow, it must really be great being so smart as you!
Click to expand...

Have you ever taken the data available, graphed it, and read the associated notes?

Interesting what a scientist will put in their notes and methodology, that the pundits fail to tell the public.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
In reality it's not quite like the picture you (and the author) have tried to paint. This isn't a criminal case against a person for saying the wrong thing, it's a civil/regulatory case against companies advertising in the public space with intentionally misleading and objectively false statements. As the article states, the investigation was run by the Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate, not some rogue agency.

One company, for instance, put out ads saying that the sun is the cause of climate change and not CO2. This is an objectively false statement, not an opinion. This is no different than tobacco companies in the US not being allowed to advertise that their products are safe, or paint companies advertising that lead is safe. They are objectively false statements with the express intent of defrauding the public for financial gain. Any individual can say anything he wants, but companies can not make any claim they want under free speech laws.
Click to expand...

To be clear, then, you are saying that CO2 has a greater impact on climate than the Sun?
 
ataraxia said:
Science is complicated. That's why people don't go into it very much, and even those that do want to go get weeded out because they can't hack it. You are in as much of a position to get the "whole picture and all information in order to arrive at an informed opinion" on the issue of AGW as you are on the issue of proper chemotherapy agents for breast cancer, the role of anaerobic bacteria in corrosion of copper pipes, mathematical modeling of galaxy formations, or the molecular biophysics of the rhodopsin molecule in the human retina. To really have an informed opinion on any of these subjects, you need years of intensive study of many prerequisite courses: the chemistry, physics, biology, calculus and statistical analysis, etc.... then, you need years of intensive experience in the field, cutting your teeth on the nitty gritty of the particularly narrow field you have chosen to get all the information on.

The idea that as a layperson, you are in any position to have any kind of informed opinion on this is laughable. The best you can do is read popularized versions of the science, written by the experts in the field for the lay public. Watching Fox News is not just as good. You have to take the word of the experts on it, just like you have to take the word of the entire medical profession when they tell you high blood pressure is bad for your heart. You are in no position to challenge their conclusions. Heck, even a family doctor defers to the expertise of a cardiologist when they make a recommendation in their area of expertise. This is not being politically correct. It's just understanding that expertise, obtained through a lot of hard work and experience, should mean something.

So I am not sure why people here think they can nitpick the detailed statistics and methodologies of any of these particular studies, or question the overwhelming consensus opinion of experts in the field all around the world who have spent lifetimes looking at this stuff, and instead glom onto what a real estate guy or celebrity TV personality say as being just as good or perhaps more accurate on the matter. And they think this sort of skepticism is somehow making them smart for not "falling for the establishment". That's not smart. That's just crazy.
Click to expand...

The fact is that there are many scientists who disagree on the scientific conclusions offered by their colleagues. This is most especially true in the field of climate science in which there are different opinions even among those who have had the training and experience of their fellows.

And when we the people are ruled/governed/dictated to/suffer the consequences of the conclusions any scientific body puts out there, they should be entitled to all points of view. When there are differences of opinion, a reasonably well educated layperson can judge which side has the better or more convincing argument.

To allow only one side of the argument to be heard is not in any way scientific. It is oligarchy. And it should not be tolerated by any freedom loving people.
 
code1211 said:
To be clear, then, you are saying that CO2 has a greater impact on climate than the Sun?
Click to expand...

Or is the change in CO2 greater than the albedo changes due to land use and aerosols?
 
AlbqOwl said:
The fact is that there are many scientists who disagree on the scientific conclusions offered by their colleagues. This is most especially true in the field of climate science in which there are different opinions even among those who have had the training and experience of their fellows.

And when we the people are ruled/governed/dictated to/suffer the consequences of the conclusions any scientific body puts out there, they should be entitled to all points of view. When there are differences of opinion, a reasonably well educated layperson can judge which side has the better or more convincing argument.

To allow only one side of the argument to be heard is not in any way scientific. It is oligarchy. And it should not be tolerated by any freedom loving people.
Click to expand...

In the scientific community all sides are heard and judged by the evidence and the science. What you want is the opinions of fringe scientists or right leaning politicians to have equal footing with tue scientific consensus. That's not how it works.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
In the scientific community all sides are heard and judged by the evidence and the science. What you want is the opinions of fringe scientists or right leaning politicians to have equal footing with tue scientific consensus. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

How are the ones unfunded by the politics... "fringe?"
 
Lord of Planar said:
How are the ones unfunded by the politics... "fringe?"
Click to expand...

Fringe would be the few percent of scientists that disagree with the overwhelming consensus. If you look hard enough you can find "scientists" that deny heliocentrism, germ theory, electron theory, evolution, etc. Cherry picking those few and saying "LOOK WHAT I FOUND" is pretty dishonest and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.

You seem to be making the assertion that all scientists that acknowledge climate change are funded by politicians while all of the true believers in your agenda are not. I reject this premise entirely.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Fringe would be the few percent of scientists that disagree with the overwhelming consensus. If you look hard enough you can find "scientists" that deny heliocentrism, germ theory, electron theory, evolution, etc. Cherry picking those few and saying "LOOK WHAT I FOUND" is pretty dishonest and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.

You seem to be making the assertion that all scientists that acknowledge climate change are funded by politicians while all of the true believers in your agenda are not. I reject this premise entirely.
Click to expand...

Yea....

Back in the day, the fringe said the world was round...
 
Lord of Planar said:
Or is the change in CO2 greater than the albedo changes due to land use and aerosols?
Click to expand...

I am not a scientist and I do have a great deal of respect for any professional who is performing at a high level and producing great results.

Let's compare scientists to quarterbacks.

Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Scott Tolzien, former back up for the Colts. Both are far superior to the average guy on the street and to me in their profession.

The same ratings, I feel, can be applied to scientists, but the rating system would be different. Dependable scientific conclusions would be wins in football and those that are not dependable would be losses in football.

If a scientist issues conclusions that are consistently right and upon which other predictions can be based with consistently dependable results, then that scientist is to me a good scientist. Think Albert Einstein.

If, on the other hand, a scientist produces conclusions that are wrong or useless in making other predictions, that would be a loss. Think James Hansen.

Climate scientists seem to comprise a club of Scott Tolzien's in the scientific community. There seem to be a whole bunch of Scott Tolzien's in this little club and they are are predominantly wrong but they all agree that they are right.

We could use a couple Tom Brady's in this club. Sadly, whenever there voice dissenting from the herd of error, they are shunned or attacked. They are driven out of the club.

Perhaps this is the reason they are wrong so often.

Having a prescribed conclusion in mind and rejecting any evidence that departs from that prescribed conclusion is politics, not science. Perhaps this would be better stated as saying that this would be Climate Science, not Science.
 
When AGW advocacy turns racist and vile . . . .

Climate ugliness
Guardian: Climate Denial is the Fault of Old White People

Guest essay by Eric Worrall h/t The Spectator – Guardian author John Gibbons has written an extraordinary piece which blames climate denial on old white people. Climate deniers want to protect the status quo that made them rich Sceptics prefer to reject regulations to combat global warming and remain indifferent to the havoc it will…


[h=1]More Sexist, Racist Filth from the Guardian[/h]Posted on 22 Sep 17 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 9 Comments
The Graun really is worse than you thought. This article by John Gibbons plumbs new heights. Under a fetching picture of Gigi Love’s fluorescent bottom, Gibbons drools bile over the Irish Climate Science Forum, Richard Lindzen, retired male engineers and meteorologists, deniers, aging contrarians, conservative white males, elderly white men, elderly engineers, and elderly white … Co


 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
In the scientific community all sides are heard and judged by the evidence and the science. What you want is the opinions of fringe scientists or right leaning politicians to have equal footing with tue scientific consensus. That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your informed opinion. (P.S. it sucks.)
 
code1211 said:
I am not a scientist and I do have a great deal of respect for any professional who is performing at a high level and producing great results.

Let's compare scientists to quarterbacks.

Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Scott Tolzien, former back up for the Colts. Both are far superior to the average guy on the street and to me in their profession.

The same ratings, I feel, can be applied to scientists, but the rating system would be different. Dependable scientific conclusions would be wins in football and those that are not dependable would be losses in football.

If a scientist issues conclusions that are consistently right and upon which other predictions can be based with consistently dependable results, then that scientist is to me a good scientist. Think Albert Einstein.

If, on the other hand, a scientist produces conclusions that are wrong or useless in making other predictions, that would be a loss. Think James Hansen.

Climate scientists seem to comprise a club of Scott Tolzien's in the scientific community. There seem to be a whole bunch of Scott Tolzien's in this little club and they are are predominantly wrong but they all agree that they are right.

We could use a couple Tom Brady's in this club. Sadly, whenever there voice dissenting from the herd of error, they are shunned or attacked. They are driven out of the club.

Perhaps this is the reason they are wrong so often.

Having a prescribed conclusion in mind and rejecting any evidence that departs from that prescribed conclusion is politics, not science. Perhaps this would be better stated as saying that this would be Climate Science, not Science.
Click to expand...

Thank you Code1211! That is a brilliant analysis. I don't know what projections the scientists who are climate skeptics might have because they haven't presented any. But they do find the conclusions of the pro-AGW people to be flawed beyond scientific probability of error. Those who have presented climate theories and projections have pretty consistently been wrong. Even setting aside the manipulated data that has been published, their models come up with conclusions that again and again fail to materialize. So what do they do? They just move the goal posts on down the road and keep raking in all that lovely grant and program money.

In the way I evaluate these things, as odds makers, the skeptics have been pretty right on, and I wouldn't bet on the pro-AGW climate scientists for anything other than being wrong at this point.

I don't know whether we humans are causing a serious problem re the climate. But I will need evidence different from the well paid, self serving, self promoting IPPC type scientists before I will willingly hand over my choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to those who are acting on what is likely bogus science.

And THAT is why I think it terribly wrong to silence the voices of those who, like me, are still questioning and noting the lack of clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
 
Using the theory of our pro-AGW folks here that non-scientists are unqualified to evaluate the situation, then neither should we be able to evaluate movies unless we are a movie maker. We should not be able to evaluate sports figures or teams unless we are a professional athlete in that sport. We should not be able to evaluate food unless we grow it, process it, promote it.

Anybody who isn't able to read a scientific conclusion and see that it did not turn out as advertised would be the one who should probably be silenced, don't you think.
 
Global Warming: Who Are the Deniers Now?
Investor's Business Daily

Climate Change: Global warming is "settled science," we hear all the time. Those who reject that idea are "deniers." But as new evidence trickles out from peer-reviewed science studies, the legs beneath the climate change hypothesis — that the earth was doing just fine until carbon-dioxide spewing human beings came along — is increasingly wobbly.
A new study published in the journal Nature Geoscience purports to support action by global governments to reduce carbon dioxide output in order to lower potential global warming over the next 100 years or so. But what it really does is undercut virtually every modern argument for taking radical action against warming.
Why? The study admits that the 12 major university and government models that have been used to predict climate warming are faulty.
"We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models," said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford and one of the authors of the study. "We haven't seen that in the observations.". . . .
 
code1211 said:
I am not a scientist and I do have a great deal of respect for any professional who is performing at a high level and producing great results.

Let's compare scientists to quarterbacks.

Tom Brady is a better Quarterback than Scott Tolzien, former back up for the Colts. Both are far superior to the average guy on the street and to me in their profession.

The same ratings, I feel, can be applied to scientists, but the rating system would be different. Dependable scientific conclusions would be wins in football and those that are not dependable would be losses in football.

If a scientist issues conclusions that are consistently right and upon which other predictions can be based with consistently dependable results, then that scientist is to me a good scientist. Think Albert Einstein.

If, on the other hand, a scientist produces conclusions that are wrong or useless in making other predictions, that would be a loss. Think James Hansen.

Climate scientists seem to comprise a club of Scott Tolzien's in the scientific community. There seem to be a whole bunch of Scott Tolzien's in this little club and they are are predominantly wrong but they all agree that they are right.

We could use a couple Tom Brady's in this club. Sadly, whenever there voice dissenting from the herd of error, they are shunned or attacked. They are driven out of the club.

Perhaps this is the reason they are wrong so often.

Having a prescribed conclusion in mind and rejecting any evidence that departs from that prescribed conclusion is politics, not science. Perhaps this would be better stated as saying that this would be Climate Science, not Science.
Click to expand...

Then you have those like Michael Mann, who would let the air out of the football...
 
AlbqOwl said:
Thank you Code1211! That is a brilliant analysis. I don't know what projections the scientists who are climate skeptics might have because they haven't presented any. But they do find the conclusions of the pro-AGW people to be flawed beyond scientific probability of error. Those who have presented climate theories and projections have pretty consistently been wrong. Even setting aside the manipulated data that has been published, their models come up with conclusions that again and again fail to materialize. So what do they do? They just move the goal posts on down the road and keep raking in all that lovely grant and program money.

In the way I evaluate these things, as odds makers, the skeptics have been pretty right on, and I wouldn't bet on the pro-AGW climate scientists for anything other than being wrong at this point.

I don't know whether we humans are causing a serious problem re the climate. But I will need evidence different from the well paid, self serving, self promoting IPPC type scientists before I will willingly hand over my choices, options, opportunities, and liberties to those who are acting on what is likely bogus science.

And THAT is why I think it terribly wrong to silence the voices of those who, like me, are still questioning and noting the lack of clear evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
Click to expand...

Some of the skeptical voices get out,
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Richard Lindzen was one of the most respected Climate Scientist, who had been recognized in the field since the early 70's.
He complained about the editing on the sections of the early IPCC reports he authored, before the senate.
He had a very low climate sensitivity, (I thought too low) but the limited measurable evidence shows he was very accurate.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
The numbers from the satellite show the added CO2 may have atmospheric feedbacks, but negative vs positive.
 
longview said:
Some of the skeptical voices get out,
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
Richard Lindzen was one of the most respected Climate Scientist, who had been recognized in the field since the early 70's.
He complained about the editing on the sections of the early IPCC reports he authored, before the senate.
He had a very low climate sensitivity, (I thought too low) but the limited measurable evidence shows he was very accurate.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
The numbers from the satellite show the added CO2 may have atmospheric feedbacks, but negative vs positive.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he doesn't really get any attention from the MSM and the pro AGW religionists dismiss him as a crackpot. And per the OP, if he was publishing his opinions in Canada, he would probably be investigated.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Have you ever taken the data available, graphed it, and read the associated notes?

Interesting what a scientist will put in their notes and methodology, that the pundits fail to tell the public.
Click to expand...

So why do you you feel this level of suspicion and scrutiny should apply only apply to climate change science, and not, say, to the science behind building tall buildings, recommending certain chemotherapy agents to patients, or making design changes to commercial airplanes?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Using the theory of our pro-AGW folks here that non-scientists are unqualified to evaluate the situation, then neither should we be able to evaluate movies unless we are a movie maker. We should not be able to evaluate sports figures or teams unless we are a professional athlete in that sport. We should not be able to evaluate food unless we grow it, process it, promote it.

Anybody who isn't able to read a scientific conclusion and see that it did not turn out as advertised would be the one who should probably be silenced, don't you think.
Click to expand...

You evaluate movies and sports teams based on whether they please and entertain you. So you want to evaluate scientific facts and observations that way too?
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Having a prescribed conclusion in mind and rejecting any evidence that departs from that prescribed conclusion is politics, not science. Perhaps this would be better stated as saying that this would be Climate Science, not Science.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got this information from (maybe they don't highlight this stuff on Fox News), but here is a site where you can look at graphs of predictions from mainstream climate scientists, predictions from the handful of "skeptic" scientists, and compare them to actual observations to date.

https://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
 
ataraxia said:
So why do you you feel this level of suspicion and scrutiny should apply only apply to climate change science, and not, say, to the science behind building tall buildings, recommending certain chemotherapy agents to patients, or making design changes to commercial airplanes?
Click to expand...

It is a tiresome and dishonest tactic to try to equate licensed provision of professional services to free scientific inquiry. You only damage your own credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom