Politics And AGW/GW

[Methuselah]

It's also not about the fudging of data, but hey it happens! Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I think you are wrong and likewise Pete. The science is far from settled on this matter, the IPCC have been caught on the hop, when their projected temp rises which we should have been seeing now, have fallen by the wayside. That's not denial but fact!!!!!!!

So, what exactly are you saying there, SC? That some straw men somewhere believe that all the science is settled?

Where are those persons?

Can you put your toy's back in your pram please! We are way off the mark now regarding IPCC's temperature rises, how the hell do you expect Jo Public to take their future projections at face value. Also anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is narrow minded then? Typical dismissive viewpoint of the so called elite Climate Scientist. Thank goodness I'm not part of that club!

Are we outwith the error bars?

[Thundery wintry showers]

How can we be way off the mark re. IPCC predictions for time periods that are way into the future? I would like to see evidence that we are "way off the mark".

Again, the link re. opinions showing exactly what I mean about the use of "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir..._an_opinion.php

[Iceberg]

I've used this anology before, but again this comment really gets my goat.

IPCC predictions are predictions of trend warming out into the future. They are NOT predictions of what the temperature will be in Autumn 2012...... Do people understand...

If you make a prediction for MAN U to beat Arsenal but after 5 mins it's 0-0 then it does not mean your prediction is wrong FACT. This is FACT regardless of your opinion.

This is a thread IMO thats shows people in all there glory.

[jethro]

How can we be way off the mark re. IPCC predictions for time periods that are way into the future? I would like to see evidence that we are "way off the mark".

Again, the link re. opinions showing exactly what I mean about the use of "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir..._an_opinion.php

So where does that leave you then TWS?

You have an opinion on AGW, you provide evidence to support that opinion, so we should accept your opinion as valid?

That is only as sound as the evidence you present to support your opinion.

Others, myself, Tamara, Capt Bob, to name but few have presented evidence to support our opinion, it disagrees with yours but is equally as valid.

You may think you have assessed all the evidence, that you are open minded, that you weigh up all the scientific data available and reached an informed, logical decision. You are not alone.

You're also guilty (in my opinion) of approaching this debate from a "AGW is real" standpoint; is this not the same closed mindedness you accuse others of, just from the other side of the fence?

[Methuselah]

You're also guilty (in my opinion) of approaching this debate from a "AGW is real" standpoint; is this not the same closed mindedness you accuse others of, just from the other side of the fence?

That AGW is real, is where the consensus lies...The 'fact' that both CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases may have something to do with that consensus?

Equally, the 'fact' that natural cycles are so poorly understood (you can't put the Permian and Carboniferous Periods into a laboratory for comparison), means that there is a still a great deal to do...

That is the beauty of science: the more you understand it, the more you understand its limitations. :o

[Thundery wintry showers]

You have an opinion on AGW, you provide evidence to support that opinion, so we should accept your opinion as valid?

That is only as sound as the evidence you present to support your opinion.

Absolutely correct. But that only seems to apply to those who don't reject AGW, it seems that those who reject AGW are allowed to have their opinions accepted as valid without providing any evidence bar circular reasoning and straw man attacks and entitlement to an opinion.

Others, myself, Tamara, Capt Bob, to name but few have presented evidence to support our opinion, it disagrees with yours but is equally as valid.

That's false, on numerous counts:

1. It's actually a while since I've found myself in disagreement with Captain Bobski. He might have a differing view on what the most likely scenario is, but he has posted primarily factual evidence to back it up with- and provided a convincing case, so far, for his view lying well within the range of realistic scenarios. In certain cases he has even had me reconsidering my position in view of the evidence he gave. The same goes for VillagePlank with his interesting thread on the leaky integrator.

2. Tamara has not presented half-convincing evidence to support her views. So far, it's consisted of hunches, gut feelings, straw man attacks (making out that AGW proponents are narrow minded and sceptics are open minded, when the truth is that there are good and bad of both) and playing the "I'm entitled to my opinion" get-out clause as per the above article. So while she may be entitled to have those views, it does not mean that they are equally as valid as mine, for mine are more strongly substantiated. That can change if she provides something more convincing, but as yet she has not.

You may think you have assessed all the evidence, that you are open minded, that you weigh up all the scientific data available and reached an informed, logical decision. You are not alone. You're also guilty (in my opinion) of approaching this debate from a "AGW is real" standpoint; is this not the same closed mindedness you accuse others of, just from the other side of the fence?

That is a big mis-representation of my position. Again, if you look at the way I've responded to some of the posts by you, Captain Bobski, VillagePlank and Chris Knight you will see that I'm quite prepared to take on board other views- at least as long as they are backed up by convincing evidence. As I say, Capt. Bob in particular has even caused me to reconsider my position on a few aspects of AGW recently. But "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth" or "AGW is a myth because I say so and entitled to my opinion" are hardly convincing arguments.

This is a lot more than can be said for some of the other contributors- including some with pro-AGW stances as well as anti-AGW stances.

[jethro]

That AGW is real, is where the consensus lies...The 'fact' that both CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases may have something to do with that consensus?

Equally, the 'fact' that natural cycles are so poorly understood (you can't put the Permian and Carboniferous Periods into a laboratory for comparison), means that there is a still a great deal to do...

That is the beauty of science: the more you understand it, the more you understand its limitations. :o

But the supposed facts in this debate are whether or not increased CO2 emissions are directly responsible for the increase in temperature over recent years.

The knowledge that they are greenhouse gases is utterly irrelevant.

The poorly understood natural cycles, is exactly why so many sceptics are sceptical of the "consensus". Without this knowledge (or at the very least, greater knowledge) the consensus is still opinion, no more, no less.

[pottyprof]

So, what exactly are you saying there, SC? That some straw men somewhere believe that all the science is settled?

Where are those persons?

I think they work in the media or work for government on the whole Pete.. :o

[chionomaniac]

I've used this anology before, but again this comment really gets my goat.

IPCC predictions are predictions of trend warming out into the future. They are NOT predictions of what the temperature will be in Autumn 2012...... Do people understand...

If you make a prediction for MAN U to beat Arsenal but after 5 mins it's 0-0 then it does not mean your prediction is wrong FACT. This is FACT regardless of your opinion.

This is a thread IMO thats shows people in all there glory.

I often look at the climate change fields from afar but rarely come in to graze. The analogy that Iceberg gives above is the reason why - I don't know what the result will be. I enjoy the constructive theorising that progresses in VP'S LI thread and find this far more stimulating than the football match that continues in here. It is like watching 2 teams of young children all chasing after the ball with no referee to control or coaches to guide. Anyone else looking in must be shaking their heads.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I note you left out the most important bit of my argument and, having left it out, attacked the much weaker argument that remained. My original post said that saying "AGW is overestimated" is as bad as saying "AGW isn't being overestimated and the science is settled". Leave the bit in italics in, and the comparison makes a lot more sense.

"AGW is being overestimated" implies, put simply, "the anthropogenic influence on climate change is being overestimated". I don't see how this is any more of a given than the idea that it isn't being overestimated? Uncertainty applies both ways and makes both of those scenarios possible.

I'm afraid most of Tamara's post is pure straw, the gist of it being, "many sceptics are open-minded and want to explore a wider range of possibilities, whereas AGW proponents are fixed on the idea that the scientific consensus is a given". Or along those lines, at any rate. It could just as easily be turned on its head, with someone arguing "many AGW proponents are open to the wide uncertainties surrounding natural influences on climate, whereas sceptics are fixed on the idea that AGW is a myth". With regards, for example, the assertion "sceptics do not suggest 'science is settled' ". How about the various 'sceptics' on these threads and in the various links to internet sites who have confidently stated that it is settled that AGW is a myth? The reality is that you get good and bad on both sides.

Another example of not comparing like with like- Tamara insists that uncertainty is greater than the scientific consensus says. Again- uncertainty works both ways. It does not just imply that AGW might be being overestimated, it also opens up the possibility that it might be being underestimated as well. Who knows, maybe natural cycles might have actually been masking global warming? At the moment the available evidence supports the notion that the natural cycles have contributed to the warming- but might we find out something that overturns this? Thus the conclusion "AGW is being overestimated" simply does not follow.

You made the point to me recently, as if it was cut and dried, that more is understood about climate variation today than previous history. How DO you know that with such certainty?? I have tried to present reasons as to why it is just possible that you, along with many other AGW proponents, might just think that more is known about recent climate variation. In suggesting such, that is not declaring any surety, but it is seeking to widen the possibilities and seek to adopt a more logical method of scientific approach rather than putting the cart before the horse - as I repeat and try in vain to demonstrate so often in terms of feedback analysis. Evidence presented based on a back-handed approach to reseearch is likely to yield back handed evidence. So perhaps if the approach and costing analysis of feedback is logically and chronologically approached then evidence provided to fit the result might be more credible to discuss and evaluate.

You have largely ignored those attempts and reasons, and have ignored the evidence that I have tried to provide, and instead have turned the debate into this obsessive 'strawmanism' ritual every time, knocking down each reply as another example of the same when it isn't always by any means. That is hardly helpful nor conduisive to the very debate that you criticise yourself for being circular and non reasoning!

It is though your own view, and many other AGW proponents on here, is cast in stone, cut and dried settled, done and dusted, and it is up to everyone else to knock it down and prove it wrong. I think that is what noggin is referring to when she mentions arrogance. She has a very valid point and hence why I attempted to support her recently from your criticisms of her.

I have just seen your most recent post - and rejection of the notion that I have tried to post any evidence to back up my opinions. I have attempted to put thought into the clouds feedback discussion (which died a death in favour of discussing the strawmen that you prefer along with a few others) and the feedbacks thread itself which 'appeared' to be another constructive attempt to actually discuss a feedback. I have given thoughts on solar cycles, stratospheric influences, PDO effects etc etc, in many areas, many threads - not just in climate threads but in the weather section - so your dismissal is pretty much resented. :o It also nicely full circles back to what I had suggested before I read your latest post.

This is just the same sort of thing - claims to be more open-minded than the rest - that allows all sorts of charlatanry to be accepted?

Constructive threads discusing actual feedbacks as I have just mentioned, offer that opportunity for being open minded and widening the possibilities. However, discussing and using 'strawmen' as a means to knock sceptic posters is much more preferred and represents one of the biggest forms of the sort of charlatanny that you mention.

Edited April 29, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'd like to quickly jump in to defend TWS (though it is apparent that he is quite capable of defending himself!). :o

Some of my most illuminating discussions of late have been with TWS - certainly he accepts AGW up to a point (let me re-emphasise that, for those of you who missed it: UP TO A POINT!! - Caps used for emphasis, not shouting ), but he has shown on many occasions that he is open-minded and that he does not blindly accept the "orthodox" view.

There are many in the Climate Change area - on both sides of the debate - who could learn a thing or two from TWS with regards to open-mindedness and analysis of the facts in the case.

That's my opinion (!), for what it's worth.

CB

EDIT - I'd like to add that TWS is one of the few who has actually chosen to engage in discussion in the LI thread. Come on, chaps and chapesses - jump in!

Edited April 29, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

I often look at the climate change fields from afar but rarely come in to graze. The analogy that Iceberg gives above is the reason why - I don't know what the result will be. I enjoy the constructive theorising that progresses in VP'S LI thread and find this far more stimulating than the football match that continues in here. It is like watching 2 teams of young children all chasing after the ball with no referee to control or coaches to guide. Anyone else looking in must be shaking their heads.

It's always easier to watch than to play.

[Methuselah]

But the supposed facts in this debate are whether or not increased CO2 emissions are directly responsible for the increase in temperature over recent years.

The knowledge that they are greenhouse gases is utterly irrelevant.

The poorly understood natural cycles, is exactly why so many sceptics are sceptical of the "consensus". Without this knowledge (or at the very least, greater knowledge) the consensus is still opinion, no more, no less.

No Jethro. It's that old straw man again: NO-ONE is claiming that CO2 emissions are 'directly responsible for the increase...' What we are saying is that greenhouse emissions (unless manmade greenhouse gases don't work?) are almost certainly responsible for SOME of said temperature increase. So, what is actually being said is NOT what keeps being implied. What keeps being implied is the old chestnut straw-man hypothesis.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I'd like to quickly jump in to defend TWS (though it is apparent that he is quite capable of defending himself!).

Some of my most illuminating discussions of late have been with TWS - certainly he accepts AGW up to a point (let me re-emphasise that, for those of you who missed it: UP TO A POINT!! - Caps used for emphasis, not shouting :o ), but he has shown on many occasions that he is open-minded and that he does not blindly accept the "orthodox" view.

There are many in the Climate Change area - on both sides of the debate - who could learn a thing or two from TWS with regards to open-mindedness and analysis of the facts in the case.

That's my opinion (!), for what it's worth.

CB

He does indeed have much knowledge and does appear at times to want to embrace both sides of the debate .

But he also sets up his views as though they are bullet proof and everyone should challenge them and prove them wrong and in doing so rejects and dismisses many sound attempts to reply with constructive thoughts as strawmen. Which is misrepresentative of what is really being attempted and hence can be pretty insulting of one's intelligence - and condescending to boot.

[Methuselah]

I'd like to quickly jump in to defend TWS (though it is apparent that he is quite capable of defending himself!). :o

Some of my most illuminating discussions of late have been with TWS - certainly he accepts AGW up to a point (let me re-emphasise that, for those of you who missed it: UP TO A POINT!! - Caps used for emphasis, not shouting ), but he has shown on many occasions that he is open-minded and that he does not blindly accept the "orthodox" view.

There are many in the Climate Change area - on both sides of the debate - who could learn a thing or two from TWS with regards to open-mindedness and analysis of the facts in the case.

That's my opinion (!), for what it's worth.

CB

EDIT - I'd like to add that TWS is one of the few who has actually chosen to engage in discussion in the LI thread. Come on, chaps and chapesses - jump in!

I'll second that.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

No Jethro. It's that old straw man again: NO-ONE is claiming that CO2 emissions are 'directly responsible for the increase...' What we are saying is that greenhouse emissions (unless manmade greenhouse gases don't work?) are almost certainly responsible for SOME of said temperature increase. So, what is actually being said is NOT what keeps being implied. What keeps being implied is the old chestnut straw-man hypothesis.

:o

Round and round...

[VillagePlank]

I wonder if we're all sitting in a pub' that this would actually happen for real? I know, for a fact, that I've typed something, and I've been amazed at the response to what I've typed - then, a day or so later, I reread it and realise that what I said, although it was not intended to be confrontational, it clearly could quite possibly be construed in that manner.

Just a thought ... (and smileys don't make an iota of difference, in my opinion) :o

Edited April 29, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

He does indeed have much knowledge and does appear at times to want to embrace both sides of the debate .

But he also sets up his views as though they are bullet proof and everyone should challenge them and prove them wrong and in doing so rejects and dismisses many sound attempts to reply with constructive thoughts as strawmen. Which is misrepresentative of what is really being attempted and hence can be pretty insulting of one's intelligence - and condescending to boot.

Your second paragraph is so terribly wrong, Tamara...

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Your second paragraph is so terribly wrong, Tamara...

Is it?

I won't respond further on this. Inevitably 'sides' will/have already developed - and that is playground territory and further counter productive to any debate. Besides, life is too short to try and explain oneself in a 'cul de sac' of thinking and posting that is prevalent. Also too short when the sun is shining. Have a good day all

[Devonian]

Is it?

I won't respond further on this. Inevitably 'sides' will/have already developed - and that is playground territory and further counter productive to any debate. Besides, life is too short to try and explain oneself in a 'cul de sac' of thinking and posting that is prevalent. Also too short when the sun is shining. Have a good day all

Tamara, you previously complain about being treated condescendingly and your intelligence insulted and then you use a phrase (of others of course) like 'cul-de sac of thinking'

[Methuselah]

I think they work in the media or work for government on the whole Pete..

Hacks and politicians...

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Tamara, you previously complain about being treated condescendingly and your intelligence insulted and then you use a phrase (of others of course) like 'cul-de sac of thinking'

Banging one's head on a brick wall is part of being in a cul de sac Devonian. Hence why it becomes better to cut and run when your attempts to get out of it are in vain.

[Thundery wintry showers]

You made the point to me recently, as if it was cut and dried, that more is understood about climate variation today than previous history. How DO you know that with such certainty?? I have tried to present reasons as to why it is just possible that you, along with many other AGW proponents, might just think that more is known about recent climate variation. In suggesting such, that is not declaring any surety, but it is seeking to widen the possibilities and seek to adopt a more logical method of scientific approach rather than putting the cart before the horse - as I repeat and try in vain to demonstrate so often in terms of feedback analysis. Evidence presented based on a back-handed approach to reseearch is likely to yield back handed evidence. So perhaps if the approach and costing analysis of feedback is logically and chronologically approached then evidence provided to fit the result might be more credible to discuss and evaluate.

More is indeed understood about climate variation today because we have instrumental temperature records that can measure global and regional temperatures with reasonable accuracy. In addition we have reliable measurements of the troposphere etc. We know how the climate is changing today from our observations- the question is, why is it changing the way it is?

Past climate can be reconstructed but only in more general terms, such as through measuring composition of atmospheric gases from ancient ice cores. We can get a good general idea of past climate, but we cannot be as specific as we can be about the last 100 years. That's why we have so many arguments over how warm the Medieval Warm Period really was, for example. And if we wait until we fully understand past climates before we attempt to analyse current climates, we'll be waiting forever- because no matter how well we do or don't understand past climates, there will always be scope for continued improvements- it's very unlikely that we will ever fully understand them.

It is though your own view, and many other AGW proponents on here, is cast in stone, cut and dried settled, done and dusted, and it is up to everyone else to knock it down and prove it wrong. I think that is what noggin is referring to when she mentions arrogance. She has a very valid point and hence why I attempted to support her recently from your criticisms of her.

What, you mean the notion that it's done and dusted that there's a possibility that AGW might be a significant issue? That's all I've been saying. I do not reject the idea that AGW might be being seriously overestimated- there is some evidence out there to support that view. What I reject is the assertion that AGW is definitely being seriously overestimated and that those who consider alternative possibilities are wrong- which incidentally is a classic example of an opinion which is intolerant of other views, so we're back to the paradox of how much we should tolerate the intolerant.

I have just seen your most recent post - and rejection of the notion that I have tried to post any evidence to back up my opinions. I have attempted to put thought into the clouds feedback discussion (which died a death in favour of discussing the strawmen that you prefer along with a few others) and the feedbacks thread itself which 'appeared' to be another constructive attempt to actually discuss a feedback. I have given thoughts on solar cycles, stratospheric influences, PDO effects etc etc, in many areas, many threads - not just in climate threads but in the weather section - so your dismissal is pretty much resented. It also nicely full circles back to what I had suggested before I read your latest post.

You did mention those things, but those things, put together, do not even come close to supporting conclusions like "AGW is being overestimated"- which is a very strong, done-and-dusted type of statement. They do support the notion that the IPCC should widen its uncertainty bounds for instance, but increased uncertainty also implies the possibility that AGW might be being underestimated- it works both ways.

[noggin]

[quote name='noggin' date='29 Apr 2009, 09:37 AM' post='1521230']

......."everyone's entitled to their opinion" is NOT a get-out clause, TWS, it is a tolerance. Everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they may, from whatever evidence they choose. Not just scientific evidence either, they can also use additional methods (historical evidence, observations, common sense, an acceptance that there is probably more to anything than meets the eye)) to enable them to reach a conclusion.

Thankfully, the "thought police" are not yet with us.

I agree with TWS here, noggin...Science shouldn't be about hunches, gut feelings, superstitions and incredulity, IMO what common-sense mostly is... Is the world not quite spheriodal merely because a few believe it to be entirely flat? Is AIDS not entirely a result of HIV just because a few religious loons think otherwise???

To me everyone's entitled to their opinion is a get out clause; it reduces holding a falsity as true to be merely holding an opinion, and thus inalienable...

I didn't say science is about hunches, gut feelings etc. I referred to methods OTHER than science IN ADDITION to science to draw a conclusion or opinion.

Bleedin' heck, is it me? Do I speak a different language to other people, or is it that the written word communicates meanings differently from the spoken word?

Nor do I ever use the "opinion" business as a "get-out" clause. My intention in using the phrase (and precisely how many times have I used it? no more than twice, I'd wager...........TWS has thrown it at me more than I have used it, I'm fairly certain) is no more and no less than an indication of my acceptance that people can think whatever they like and I respect their right to hold that view.

I really am quite angry and upset at the flak and, yes, insults, for that is how I feel, insulted, that are being thrown around here. Poor sodding thread, it wasn't supposed to be WW3.

Still, if some people think I'm a worm or a snake trying to wriggle out of things, then there is nothing more I can say to make them see me in any other way.

See.....I even accept that.

I think I'll go now.

"well my opinion is that it's okay to do that, and everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause for said actions?

It's getting monotonous, TWS. Is it your phrase of the week or something?

about the use of "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause:

You are beginning to sound like a stuck record.

and playing the "I'm entitled to my opinion" get-out clause as per the above article.

because I say so and entitled to my opinion" are hardly convincing arguments.

[Methuselah]

My apologies to you, noggin...I could have worded my post a whole lot better.