Stopping Dangerous Global Warming

[BornFromTheVoid]

2 minutes ago, jvenge said:

If you really read the paper and previous work by those "scientists", even though every single one was debunked, and still agree it is meaningful, I guess I'm done looking here. As there is more point talking to a wall.

It is a trash paper, already discredited, just like the authors others before it and isn't even remotely scientific. It has no place here and no place anywhere, to be perfectly honest. Well, I know where I put my trash ;-)

(Thought it best to move the conversation to somewhere slightly more on-topic.)

By debunked, I assume you mean by a blogger somewhere? If so, and that's how you think science is done, then we might be wasting our time with eachother. You can find a "debunking" of everything from the moon landing to the Earth being round in blogs.

There is, however, no getting away from the fact that they are scientists, they carried out research and got it published in a peer reviewed journal. Acting as though they are not scientists, or the work wasn't peer reviewed, or anything like that is pure denialism.

[ThundersnowDays]

The worst affect on the planet has been improving healthcare as a few hundred years ago people had large families but half of the children would probably die before they became adults and people lived to a much younger age.

[jvenge]

3 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

(Thought it best to move the conversation to somewhere slightly more on-topic.)

By debunked, I assume you mean by a blogger somewhere? If so, and that's how you think science is done, then we might be wasting our time with eachother. You can find a "debunking" of everything from the moon landing to the Earth being round in blogs.

There is, however, no getting away from the fact that they are scientists, they carried out research and got it published in a peer reviewed journal. Acting as though they are not scientists, or the work wasn't peer reviewed, or anything like that is pure denialism.

Stephan Lewandowsky is a psychologist, not a scientist. John Cook calls himself an author and cartoonist, he isn't a scientist. Elisabeth Lloyd is a philosopher, not a scientist. Please tell me who peer reviewed it and also what their qualifications were.

Just read the paper and look at the references and citations. At the moment you still seem to be under the illusion these are scientists, which is obviously not true. When you then read the "work" you begin to see most of what they claim and conclude isn't even supported by their own numbers and references.

[Hocus Pocus]

What a surreal thread.

[BornFromTheVoid]

21 minutes ago, jvenge said:

Stephan Lewandowsky is a psychologist, not a scientist. John Cook calls himself an author and cartoonist, he isn't a scientist. Elisabeth Lloyd is a philosopher, not a scientist. Please tell me who peer reviewed it and also what their qualifications were.

Just read the paper and look at the references and citations. At the moment you still seem to be under the illusion these are scientists, which is obviously not true. When you then read the "work" you begin to see most of what they claim and conclude isn't even supported by their own numbers and references.

Psychology is a science. Cook is a psychology PhD student, while Lloyd is a professor from Indiana University, department of history and philosophy of science and medicine. She also has qualifications in genetics and is a professor of biology too. The study lists their affiliations, so this stuff is easy to find.
So we have a psychologist, a psychology PhD student, and a biology professor who's also an expert in the logical and philosophical approaches people take to science... but according to you, none of them are suited to studying the psychology behind science denialism. Right.

Part of the review process is that the reviewers are kept anonymous. So not I, nor even the study authors, can tell you who the reviewers were. That's completely normal. The work was definitely reviewed though. From the journal website:

Double-blind peer review
This journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to submit:
A blinded manuscript without any author names and affiliations in the text or on the title page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should be avoided.

Anyway, you seem to be a more of an expert than the authors, and more again than the journal reviewers, so why don't you explain for everyone here you're scientific reasoning for debunking the paper. Following that, could you please then list your qualifications so we can make sure you're a real scientist.

 

[jvenge]

Nothing at all to do with climate science.

Ok, noted you don't know the reviewers. Just a website statement.

Well, enjoy this "climate science" thread. Good day.

[Hocus Pocus]

9 minutes ago, jvenge said:

Nothing at all to do with climate science.

Ok, noted you don't know the reviewers. Just a website statement.

Well, enjoy this "climate science" thread. Good day.

There lies the problem with climate science, too many self  proclaimed experts with little knowledge in meteorology let alone climate, both past and present. The whole debate is so polarised its become a playground for the mentally challenged with the same old, same old pushed forward as some kind of evidence for being right without even bothering to acknowledge the others point of view whether it's backed up with science or not. 

Ps This s isn't directed at your good self by the way.

[stewfox]

3 hours ago, jvenge said:

Stephan Lewandowsky is a psychologist, not a scientist. John Cook calls himself an author and cartoonist, he isn't a scientist. Elisabeth Lloyd is a philosopher, not a scientist. Please tell me who peer reviewed it and also what their qualifications were.

Just read the paper and look at the references and citations. At the moment you still seem to be under the illusion these are scientists, which is obviously not true. When you then read the "work" you begin to see most of what they claim and conclude isn't even supported by their own numbers and references.

Your wasting your time, it has to be a scientists if it suits them but if not they could be coco the clown

[knocker]

I was under the impression that the revamping of this area and the new guide lines was an attempt to eradicate the off topic opinionated drivel, not supported by scientific argument or links to such, that appears to have resurfaced judging by some of the recent posts.

Edited October 15, 2016 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ok so, let me get this straight. We're oft told that the peer review process is broken because it's more pal review nowadays. But when the reviewers and authors are kept anonymous until publication, it's a broken system because we don't know who everyone is. So we can ignore it all.

Then we're told that to publish on the cognitive biases involved in the public's distrust and denial of climate science, you can't be an expert in something relevant, like psychology, because that's not a real science. You must be an expert in climate science, but not one of the known experts in anthropogenic climate change, because they are all cherry pickers and frauds. And by publish, they mean post a blog or write a book where one can avoid any critical review whatsoever before pushing the ideas on the masses.

Because that's how science should be done.

Have I got that right?

[Gray-Wolf]

I just think some folk come in with one held opinion and meet with folk frothing after 15 years of nasty battle?

We did not call this war but , as with WWII , you draw your line in the sand ( no matter how much you declare yourself 'Pacifist') and conduct yourself as your morals declare?

When someone unaccustomed to the Horror that the Deniers have turned any 'climate debate' into you can only but understand when they then scamper off after their first salvo?

We did not call this War and , Obviously, it does not serve us but we need to be a tad more 'Kid Gloves' when someone come in rabidly quoting the current Denier meme? They are lied too not 'Wrong'. They are deceived into believing the " everything's just Fine" lie?

Let us try and show them the water not ram it down their throats!

[stewfox]

On 15/10/2016 at 18:07, BornFromTheVoid said:

Ok so, let me get this straight. We're oft told that the peer review process is broken because it's more pal review nowadays. But when the reviewers and authors are kept anonymous until publication, it's a broken system because we don't know who everyone is. So we can ignore it all.

Then we're told that to publish on the cognitive biases involved in the public's distrust and denial of climate science, you can't be an expert in something relevant, like psychology, because that's not a real science. You must be an expert in climate science, but not one of the known experts in anthropogenic climate change, because they are all cherry pickers and frauds. And by publish, they mean post a blog or write a book where one can avoid any critical review whatsoever before pushing the ideas on the masses.

Because that's how science should be done.

Have I got that right?

I'm glad you will respect non scientists opinions. That is step in the right direction

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-climate-change-sceptic-nigel-lawson-real-humans-causing-a7307456.html

[jvenge]

On 10/15/2016 at 20:07, BornFromTheVoid said:

Ok so, let me get this straight. We're oft told that the peer review process is broken because it's more pal review nowadays. But when the reviewers and authors are kept anonymous until publication, it's a broken system because we don't know who everyone is. So we can ignore it all.

Then we're told that to publish on the cognitive biases involved in the public's distrust and denial of climate science, you can't be an expert in something relevant, like psychology, because that's not a real science. You must be an expert in climate science, but not one of the known experts in anthropogenic climate change, because they are all cherry pickers and frauds. And by publish, they mean post a blog or write a book where one can avoid any critical review whatsoever before pushing the ideas on the masses.

Because that's how science should be done.

Have I got that right?

Ah, straw man arguments. They won't do you any good with me.

I take it you have not been able to find out who the reviewers were. By your own post above, if it is published, which it certainly seems to be, the reviewers names should be known. If it is published and the reviewers names are not known, I'm going to persist with my claim that it was not reviewed. However, if it is indeed reviewed and I didn't manage to find the names due to my own incompetence I will happily offer an apology and retract my statement that it isn't peer reviewed. Also, as your post above would seem to indicate, if this is not yet published and that's why the reviewers are not known, I will also retract. Can't say fairer than that, can I?

As for my statement that it isn't anything related to climate science and therefore shouldn't really be discussed in a climate science forum, no, I won't retract, as you would need to be a little bit unhinged to think otherwise. However, if the purpose of this forum is to discuss psychology work as well, I will most certainly apologise. 

Now, you didn't confirm yet, but did you actually read the full paper? I did. I guess I have a problem with taking a few statements by "deniers", adding them to a "collective", then saying that because those sayings were sometimes contradictory, that it means that the whole argument is inconsistent. By doing so, they somehow like to pretend that one single person or organization said the contradictory statements. I find this nonsense, to be perfectly honest, and that's before you even look at the actual statements to see if they were contradictory. That introduces the premise that there MUST be only ONE alternative hypothesis. Nonsense.

The tone of your replies really put me off even coming back here, as you would rather attack me personally with your straw man arguments than you would talk about what I said.

On 10/15/2016 at 21:38, Gray-Wolf said:

I just think some folk come in with one held opinion and meet with folk frothing after 15 years of nasty battle?

We did not call this war but , as with WWII , you draw your line in the sand ( no matter how much you declare yourself 'Pacifist') and conduct yourself as your morals declare?

When someone unaccustomed to the Horror that the Deniers have turned any 'climate debate' into you can only but understand when they then scamper off after their first salvo?

We did not call this War and , Obviously, it does not serve us but we need to be a tad more 'Kid Gloves' when someone come in rabidly quoting the current Denier meme? They are lied too not 'Wrong'. They are deceived into believing the " everything's just Fine" lie?

Let us try and show them the water not ram it down their throats!

I find your whole post a little immature, to be perfectly honest. Calling someone a "denier" is immature. What is it I'm denying? I don't want kid gloves, but I do expect politeness. I don't quote any "denier meme". All I did was point out the merits of a psychology study on a climate science topic and I also challenged the method and results as per the references and citations given. I couldn't care less about your imagined 15 year war. May I also suggest that referring to is as a war is a little silly? I'd actually someone rather discuss the finer points of the paper with me, but perhaps I expected too much. If this forum is only for linking and mentioning new studies and then blindly accepting the conclusion, I apologise. I could go elsewhere for more robust discussion and keep netweather for just the weather.

I'm a little unsure as to what you mean by "believing everything is just fine". I think the World has a lot of problems, I don't think climate change is in the top 10. However, if you want, tell me what problems are going to come from a 0.12-0.14 decadal warming over the next century. Please try and do so without resorting to model predictions or hypotheses which are not yet tested. In other words, only on the evidence to date. Perhaps it should spin off into another thread though.

[BornFromTheVoid]

2 hours ago, jvenge said:

Ah, straw man arguments. They won't do you any good with me.

I take it you have not been able to find out who the reviewers were. By your own post above, if it is published, which it certainly seems to be, the reviewers names should be known. If it is published and the reviewers names are not known, I'm going to persist with my claim that it was not reviewed. However, if it is indeed reviewed and I didn't manage to find the names due to my own incompetence I will happily offer an apology and retract my statement that it isn't peer reviewed. Also, as your post above would seem to indicate, if this is not yet published and that's why the reviewers are not known, I will also retract. Can't say fairer than that, can I?

Feel free to claim "strawman" as much as you like, but you're the one claiming they are not scientists and the work was not peer reviewed. The burden of proof is on you to prove both of those points. I've provided a quote from the journal describing their peer review process. If you want to believe that description is just a cover up because they don't really review any work, once more, the burden of proof is on you. It's all to easy to make a 1001 claims and not back them up. As the saying goes "The amount of energy necessary to refute bu****it is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it".

Quote

 

As for my statement that it isn't anything related to climate science and therefore shouldn't really be discussed in a climate science forum, no, I won't retract, as you would need to be a little bit unhinged to think otherwise. However, if the purpose of this forum is to discuss psychology work as well, I will most certainly apologise. 

 

The thread you began posting in was for links to new research and media articles on such research, it wasn't for the discussion of them. If you go through the thread, you'll find there are plenty of studies posted related to climate science without climatology being their exclusive focus. 

Quote

 

Now, you didn't confirm yet, but did you actually read the full paper? I did. I guess I have a problem with taking a few statements by "deniers", adding them to a "collective", then saying that because those sayings were sometimes contradictory, that it means that the whole argument is inconsistent. By doing so, they somehow like to pretend that one single person or organization said the contradictory statements. I find this nonsense, to be perfectly honest, and that's before you even look at the actual statements to see if they were contradictory. That introduces the premise that there MUST be only ONE alternative hypothesis. Nonsense.

The tone of your replies really put me off even coming back here, as you would rather attack me personally with your straw man arguments than you would talk about what I said.

 

Your standards for what's nonesense seem a little inconsistent. Claiming psychology isn't science, or that scientists aren't scientists, or that a peer reviewed journal doesn't provide peer review unless you personally know the details of the reviewers, or that a study has been debunked without any proof of such debunking = all completely rational and reasonable. Pointing out the inconsistencies found across those with ideological opposition to climate change (PC enough?) - that's where you find nonsense.

And no, I haven't read the paper. I haven't the expertise to claim whether it's based on sound science and neither do you. All I've been defending is the fact that the authors are scientists, the paper has been peer reviewed and the paper has not been debunked.

I don't like your tone or your opinion on science and the peer review process. Seems we have a few things in common at least!

If you think I've been personally attacking you then please report my comments to the mods/admins. 

[knocker]

2 hours ago, jvenge said:

I'm a little unsure as to what you mean by "believing everything is just fine". I think the World has a lot of problems, I don't think climate change is in the top 10. However, if you want, tell me what problems are going to come from a 0.12-0.14 decadal warming over the next century. Please try and do so without resorting to model predictions or hypotheses which are not yet tested. In other words, only on the evidence to date. Perhaps it should spin off into another thread though.

If you wish to criticize any scientific paper posted on here you are obviously perfectly entitled to do so providing of course that the criticism is done in a scientific manner, within the accepted boundaries, and accompanied by links to reliable sources if necessary. Keeping this in mind, a quote from your opening post.

Quote

It is a trash paper, already discredited, just like the authors others before it and isn't even remotely scientific. It has no place here and no place anywhere, to be perfectly honest. Well, I know where I put my trash ;-)

Further comment I feel is not required except I feel it is clue to your main purpose in posting and that wasn't to criticize one paper, however badly, but to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the current position on global warming/climate change and the probabilities over the coming decades. The clue to this is i the highlighted section of your post.You think you are being very clever by taking this approach so that you can avoid having to come up with scientific justification for your stance whilst attempting to throw this requirement on others when the overwhelming evidence is already in the public domain. It won't wash.

Edited October 17, 2016 by knocker

[jvenge]

4 minutes ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Feel free to claim "strawman" as much as you like, but you're the one claiming they are not scientists and the work was not peer reviewed. The burden of proof is on you to prove both of those points. I've provided a quote from the journal describing their peer review process. If you want to believe that description is just a cover up because they don't really review any work, once more, the burden of proof is on you. It's all to easy to make a 1001 claims and not back them up. As the saying goes "The amount of energy necessary to refute bu****it is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it".

The thread you began posting in was for links to new research and media articles on such research, it wasn't for the discussion of them. If you go through the thread, you'll find there are plenty of studies posted related to climate science without climatology being their exclusive focus. 

Your standards for what's nonesense seem a little inconsistent. Claiming psychology isn't science, or that scientists aren't scientists, or that a peer reviewed journal doesn't provide peer review unless you personally know the details of the reviewers, or that a study has been debunked without any proof of such debunking = all completely rational and reasonable. Pointing out the inconsistencies found across those with ideological opposition to climate change (PC enough?) - that's where you find nonsense.

And no, I haven't read the paper. I haven't the expertise to claim whether it's based on sound science and neither do you. All I've been defending is the fact that the authors are scientists, the paper has been peer reviewed and the paper has not been debunked.

I don't like your tone or your opinion on science and the peer review process. Seems we have a few things in common at least!

If you think I've been personally attacking you then please report my comments to the mods/admins. 

Ok. What I took away from that is that you haven't read the article and that you can't show it was peer reviewed. There isn't much point in continuing with the discussion, I think, as you don't want to discuss the actual topic. I commend you for actually admitting what I suspected, though. That said, considering you don't wish to discuss the finer points of the paper, I guess, topic closed.

Smarter men than me have debated whether or not psychology is a science or not. I don't think it is, I guess elements can be. I don't see anything constructive to debate the point though, as I don't think even if I was proved to be right and that it isn't a science it would change the fact that a paper on psychology can be related to climate change.

8 minutes ago, knocker said:

Further comment I feel is not required except I feel it is clue to your main purpose in posting and that wasn't to criticize one paper, however badly, but to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the current position on global warming/climate change and the probabilities over the coming decades. The clue to this is i the highlighted section of your post.You think you are being very clever by taking this approach so that you can avoid having to come up with scientific justification for your stance whilst attempting to throw this requirement on others when the overwhelming evidence is already in the public domain. It won't wash.

My post here was entirely to criticize the one paper. Careful, Knockers, going into conspiracy territory could have your quotes used in a psychology study at some point. However, since the point was raised and since nobody wants to discuss the paper, shall we move onto what consequences there will be from the current decadal warming?

[stewfox]

2 hours ago, jvenge said:

Ah, straw man arguments. They won't do you any good with me.

I find your whole post a little immature, to be perfectly honest. Calling someone a "denier" is immature. What is it I'm denying? I don't want kid gloves, but I do expect politeness. I don't quote any "denier meme". All I did was point out the merits of a psychology study on a climate science topic and I also challenged the method and results as per the references and citations given. I couldn't care less about your imagined 15 year war.

My understanding of 'denier' is someone who didn't believe in witches but we have unfortunately been here before and the thread got closed. Good luck but I fear you wont be able to 'debate' the issues.

 

[jvenge]

4 minutes ago, stewfox said:

My understanding of 'denier' is someone who didn't believe in witches but we have unfortunately been here before and the thread got closed. Good luck but I fear you wont be able to 'debate' the issues.

 

Fair. In Moldova we encourage young children to believe in witches, though. I guess it depends a little bit on the definition of witch ;-)

 

[knocker]

13 minutes ago, jvenge said:

My post here was entirely to criticize the one paper. Careful, Knockers, going into conspiracy territory could have your quotes used in a psychology study at some point. However, since the point was raised and since nobody wants to discuss the paper, shall we move onto what consequences there will be from the current decadal warming?

Nothing to do with conspiracy's, merely your poorly disguised motives. No let's not move on before you have succinctly explained what you mean by decadal warming and why you so obviously disbelieve the current scientific consensus on global warming and climate change. Reputable links will be accepted subject to mods approval.

Edited October 17, 2016 by knocker

[jvenge]

 

On 10/15/2016 at 21:38, Gray-Wolf said:

We did not call this War and , Obviously, it does not serve us but we need to be a tad more 'Kid Gloves' when someone come in rabidly quoting the current Denier meme? They are lied too not 'Wrong'. They are deceived into believing the " everything's just Fine" lie?

Because of this. I want to know what isn't fine. If everything is not fine, there must be a problem, right? So what will it be? Decadal warming? Sea ice? sea level rise? I want to understand the problem in peoples minds, because, personally speaking, I don't see a problem with decadal warming, sea ice or sea level rise. Of course, I'm basing all that on the empirical evidence from observed data. If I blindly believed the models, I would be terrified of all those things, of course. I might even turn to religion  ;-)

Again, my actual opinion on climate change might come to a surprise to you, but I'm a believer in AGW. Solid science, as the saying goes. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases influence climate and cause warming. Mans activities contributes towards Co2 and also, more dangerously, methane production. 

What I object to is the mantra that everything is settled and there isn't anything open to discussion, along with just about every weather event being blamed on climate change that resulted from added Co2 to the atmosphere. The paper referenced here, to me at least, is another case of trying to paint something wrong with questioning. Added to the fact that the methods used are flawed. An example? Sure.

Accuweather provide weather forecasts. They have some extremely talented meteorologists working for them. Let's call them experts. On Netweather we have various threads discussing the upcoming 2016-2017 winter. Dozens upon dozens of people posting what they think will happen, some of them providing a lot of detail as to why. Now, many of those would go against the Accuweather forecast. Therefore, as per the paper in question, I am going to group all of those into a collective. I'm then going to say that because that collective doesn't provide a coherent alternative to accuweather, that they have failed to put forward a consistant alternate theory. Worse! Some people are daring to change their opinion over time and collectively, this is entirely inconsistant. I will then question as to what drives them to deny the forecast. Perhaps they believe Accuweather is a conspiracy and what other conspiracies do they think about.

As you see, by taking individual comments, taken over time, and putting them into a collective, I can do just about anything I want. However, I was WRONG to take dozens of comments and make them a collective to begin with, so anything I do after would be slightly moronic.

 

[Paul]

Can we drop the personal comments please, if you can't get your point over without resorting to that level, then it's probably best to take a step back and return when you have something more worthwhile to say.

[stewfox]

37 minutes ago, jvenge said:

Again, my actual opinion on climate change might come to a surprise to you, but I'm a believer in AGW. Solid science, as the saying goes. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases influence climate and cause warming. Mans activities contributes towards Co2 and also, more dangerously, methane production. 

What I object to is the mantra that everything is settled and there isn't anything open to discussion, along with just about every weather event being blamed on climate change that resulted from added Co2 to the atmosphere. 

Indeed we need 30/40 years of more data. I have always taken the view of a 0.3c to 0.5c temp rise by century end due to mans influence , some take it as 2c to 6c

Much of the drivers such a Co2  will have substantially been reduce by end of century.  However I'm aware the thread was about how to stop 'dangerous' global warming. e.g Build 3000 miles of steel frames across the Atlantic , blasting massive rockets into space etc and I do not wish to derail that debate with those that feel such measures need to be done now, without the need for any further empirical evidence.

Edited October 17, 2016 by stewfox

[knocker]

4 hours ago, stewfox said:

Indeed we need 30/40 years of more data. I have always taken the view of a 0.3c to 0.5c temp rise by century end due to mans influence , some take it as 2c to 6c

Much of the drivers such a Co2  will have substantially been reduce by end of century.  However I'm aware the thread was about how to stop 'dangerous' global warming. e.g Build 3000 miles of steel frames across the Atlantic , blasting massive rockets into space etc and I do not wish to derail that debate with those that feel such measures need to be done now, without the need for any further empirical evidence.

Irrelevant. The damage has already, and continues to be done. It's basically about limitation  from here on in plus of course hundreds of thousands die from pollution every year so there is a bonus on reducing the use of fossil fuels.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

I notice you use drivers plural so which are the others which will also be reduced?

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by knocker

[jvenge]

Maybe CFCs and ozone. There are some tenuous links to both having a correlation to warming. The good news being that CFCs have already been banned by the Montreal protocol.

Re CFCs:

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by jvenge

[knocker]

Nothing tenuous about it and not to forget HFCs

http://www.livescience.com/38519-refrigerant-hfcs-devastating-to-climate.html

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/15/13292878/montreal-protocol-cut-hfcs